Some whales might be annoyed by construction noise but not likely harmed
By Will Sennott
Federal agencies have reauthorized a
controversial permit for Vineyard Wind’s final phase of construction, allowing
the wind farm developer to continue pile driving with some impact on endangered
whale species.
The permit allows Vineyard Wind to finish pile-driving the
foundations for its wind turbines in proximity to whales. It does not declare
that the industry will not harm whales. It calls it “extremely unlikely” that
it will hurt any North Atlantic right whales. But it says a small number of
whales of other species may experience temporary to permanent hearing
impairment as a result of the noise from pile-driving.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) wrote
in a new biological opinion, published with the authorization, that while pile
driving and other activity will “adversely affect” the marine mammals, it is
“not likely to jeopardize the continued existence” of multiple endangered
whales, including the North Atlantic right whale.
Vineyard Wind had to seek reauthorization this year for the
controversial permit — called an Incidental Harassment Authorization — that
allows the offshore wind developer to circumvent the Marine Mammal Protection
Act by “taking” endangered marine mammals as part of its construction
process.
The conservation act, signed into law in 1972, prohibits the harassment of all marine mammals in U.S. waters and designates NOAA as the agency responsible for protecting the various species. To “take” is defined by the act as: harassing, hunting, capturing or killing any marine mammal.
The report says that noise exposure from
pile-driving is the most likely way that offshore wind development may affect
whales. NOAA wrote that it anticipates “temporary loss of hearing sensitivity”
and “short term behavioral disturbances.” In a “few cases,” it continues, NOAA
anticipates a small number of whales to experience “permanent loss of hearing
sensitivity.”
The agencies have a focus on protecting the North Atlantic
right whale, which is critically endangered, with only 360 remaining in the
wild. Due to mitigation measures, which includes visual monitoring and shutdown
zones, NOAA wrote that construction will have “no effect on critical habitat”
designated for the whales and that it is “extremely unlikely” right whales will
experience injury as a result of pile driving noise.
The report — a 604-page biological opinion written by
NOAA Fisheries analyzing the risk of reauthorizing the IHA — sends mixed
messages about the potential impact on endangered whale species. While it says
that noise from pile-driving will cause temporary to permanent hearing
impairment in a number of endangered whales, NOAA Fisheries concludes: “No
other injury, and no harm, serious injury or mortality is expected due to
exposure to any aspect of the proposed action during the construction, operations,
or decommissioning phases of the project.”
The permit is Vineyard Wind’s second IHA, and it allows the
company to continue pile driving more foundations for its wind turbines. All
pile driving was expected to be completed within a single construction season,
which spanned from May 1, 2023, to April 30, 2024. However, due to weather and
other delays, only 47 of the 62 planned turbine foundations have been
installed. Vineyard Wind had to seek reauthorization to finish installing the
final 15 turbine foundations. The new authorization is for Oct. 1, 2024,
through Sept. 30, 2025.
(A blade broke off a Vineyard Wind turbine July 13, halting
all work on the wind farm for about a month. Since mid-August, federal
regulators have allowed Vineyard Wind to resume installing turbine towers and
nacelles, but no blades will be installed until the government amends or lifts
its suspension order.)
The IHA defines specific numbers of whales the developer is
authorized to incidentally harass through its final phase of construction.
Those numbers are categorized into two levels of severity. The more severe is
“Level A Harassment,” which is defined as an act that can “injure a marine
mammal.” The lesser is “Level B Harassment,” which is defined as disturbing a
marine mammal by causing “disruption of behavioral patterns,” including
“migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.”
Under the new authorization, Vineyard Wind may
injure one fin whale, two humpback whales, one minke whale, one sei whale and
one harbor seal under “Level A Harassment.” It may disturb seven right whales,
six fin whales, four humpback whales, 28 minke whales, two sei whales, two
sperm whales, as well as hundreds of dolphins and seals in total from various
species, under “Level B Harassment.”
“Our analysis determined that pile driving is likely to
adversely affect [marine mammals] … and cause behavioral response, and stress
in a small number of individual North Atlantic right, fin, sei, and sperm
whales,” NOAA wrote in its opinion. “Pile driving is also likely to result in
[permanent auditory injury] in five fin and two sei whales.”
The developer is not authorized to kill whales. NOAA wrote
that “no non-auditory injury, serious injury of any kind, or mortality is
anticipated.” It says that for the whales that experience temporary auditory
injury, “hearing sensitivity will return to normal within one week of exposure
… and is not expected to affect the health of any whale.” NOAA wrote that the
few whales expected to experience permanent auditory injuries will not likely
die.
“If hearing impairment occurs, it is most likely that the
affected animal would lose a few decibels in its hearing sensitivity, which,
given the limited impact to hearing sensitivity, is not likely to meaningfully
affect its ability to perform essential behavioral functions, such as foraging,
socializing, migrating, and communicating with conspecifics, or detecting
environmental cues,” NOAA wrote.
NOAA received dozens of public comments urging the agency
not to issue the reauthorization, most of which came from individuals
associated with organizations that oppose offshore wind development.
“On one hand, we have respected researchers stating, ‘there
are no known impacts of offshore wind development on whale mortality.’ At the
very same time, federal permits from your office are being issued for
incidental take,” wrote Michael Lombardi, a Rhode Island-based conservationist
and explorer for the National Geographic Society. “The mere existence of the
[IHA] permitting indicates that the proposed offshore activities are known and
expected to impact whales.”
Among those comments, many submitted their concern that the
IHA permitting and analysis focuses on the impact of individual projects
instead of the cumulative impact of the multiple wind energy projects in
various stages of development up and down the East Coast.
“NMFS cannot continue to conduct Incidental Take
Authorizations for marine mammals … on a case-by-case basis as if the
activities for each separate Atlantic offshore wind project occur in a vacuum,”
wrote Bonnie Brady, a vocal offshore wind critic who submitted comments on
behalf of the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association.
Each of the nine offshore wind developments in waters
south of Martha’s Vineyard have secured their own Incidental Take
Authorizations with set parameters for the number of whales each project may
incidentally harass. Cumulatively, the nine projects are anticipated to harass
87 right whales, or about 24% of the total population, in addition to hundreds
of other endangered whales like the sei whale, fin whale and sperm whale.
However, the potential impact of each development is analyzed individually
without one cumulative assessment.
Rand Acoustics, an acoustics consulting service focusing on
power generation, submitted a 54-page non-government survey it conducted on
pile driving noise as part of the public comments on the report. Robert Rand,
its chief consultant, wrote that NOAA’s biological opinion underestimates the
impact of pile driving on marine mammals. While NOAA’s report describes
repeated sound exposure leading to temporary loss of hearing sensitivity as
“inconsequential,” Rand wrote it is “anything but inconsequential.”
“Noise burden compounds already existing stressors on the
critically endangered [right whale],” Rand wrote. “Issuing a permit to allow
noise burden on the dwindling [right whale] population appears to constitute a
violation of the Endangered Species Act. It is extremely troubling to see NOAA
and NMFS conduct so-called species protection this way.”
You can reach Will Sennott at wsennott@newbedfordlight.org
