Capping Marine Mammal Harassment Constrains Offshore Wind

by David Wojick

Image credit: Bing image Creator

Prior to approving offshore wind development NOAA routinely authorized the loud noise harassment of large numbers of whales under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). New research by Professor Apostolos Gerasoulis shows that this harassment is causing a lot of whale deaths.

For example, it is known to cause deafness which can easily be deadly. But harassment need not cause deafness to cause death. Offshore wind arrays that occupy a hundred square miles or more are typically built in low ship traffic areas with high traffic nearby. Harassment can simply cause the whales to avoid the low traffic area and spend more time in heavy ship traffic leading to an increase in deadly collisions.

The same is true for lightly versus heavily used fishing areas where avoidance leads to increased entanglement. Ship strikes and entanglement are the two leading causes of whale deaths. Ironically the wind defenders say that increased ship strikes and entanglements show that wind is not causing increased death rates when they are actually strong evidence against wind.

The clear solution to this killing of whales is to severely constrain the number of harassment authorizations. With these very limited authorizations very few new offshore wind projects can be built. Nor should they be since they are killing whales. Each project requires a large number of authorizations so drastically reducing their number drastically reduces the number of offshore wind projects and the number of whale deaths.

The simplest way to do this is to cap the total number of wind authorizations that will be issued for a given exposed population. This is analogous to capping the emission of dangerous pollutants. One could even have a cap-and-trade program where developers bid for authorizations just as they now bid for leases. The 1990 cap-and-trade program for power plant sulfur dioxide emissions is an obvious analog.

If the cumulative harassment were limited to say 10% of the exposed population of a given species of whale this would severely constrain offshore wind development. As it is now the cumulative authorized harassments of multiple projects often add up to many times the exposed population. This is a striking example of BOEM and NOAA’s stubborn refusal to do cumulative environmental impact analysis.

This is especially true of the severely endangered North Atlantic Right Whale which has an estimated population of just 340, all of which are exposed to all of the Atlantic offshore wind development because they migrate along the entire coast. Ten percent of this population is 34 harassments and some projects approach this number individually.

As part of this harassment capping program the numerous existing authorizations for projects that are not yet under construction should be revoked and made subject to the cap. The cap could also apply to projects under construction that have yet to exhaust their authorizations.

The cap should also apply to all endangered and protected species not just whales. These authorization numbers can be much higher than those for whales. For example Dominion’s huge project off Virginia is authorized to harass over 50,000 dolphins and is two years from completion.

There are a couple of other harassment points of interest here. First, all of the authorizations to date are for harassment during construction. No grid scale project has become operational at this point and NOAA claims that there will be no operational harassment. Others have argued that there will be operational harassment and if there is then the cap will constrain operation.

Second the floating turbine wind array development sites that have now been leased off California, Maine and Massachusetts create a new form of deadly harassment that needs to be either drastically constrained or simply prohibited. This is the incredible 3D web of hundreds to thousands of mooring lines that fill the ocean to keep the hundreds of giant turbine floaters in place. The MMPA defines harassment as anything that causes a behavior change in protected mammals and these mooring line webs certainly do that. They also pose an entanglement threat.

In summary the solution to wind project harassment killing endangered whales is simple. Cap the allowable harassment.

David Wojick is an independent policy analyst and senior advisor to CFACT (Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow). This column is republished with permission from the CFACT website.


ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)




Comments


Comments

13 responses to “Capping Marine Mammal Harassment Constrains Offshore Wind”

  1. I find it amazing that Virginia environmentalists were all on board with shutting down the Atlantic Coast Pipeline because it threatened to disturb habitats of a rare salamander species (which, by the way, was almost indistinguishable from other salamander species). Here we have a whale species — a whale species! — on the edge of extinction, and what do we hear from environmentalists? Crickets.

    What happened to Save the Whales?

    Whales are no longer convenient, it appears. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. The next time someone wants to shut down a major infrastructure project on the grounds that it endangers a whorled slugwort or some-such plant or creature that no one has ever noticed before, I will not take them the least bit seriously.

  2. LarrytheG Avatar

    I think if there was such a thing as a PHD in Stawman, Bacon would be a candidate for some kind of award:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c6628d4f47ee3a15e5bed68e7815adcfb76100e7cc98573449615d47b9facf14.png https://savethewhales.org/

    Of course these folks were also more concerned about the whales long
    before wind farms with ship strikes and fishing entanglements.

  3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    We know Conservatives are not suddenly concerned about whalesโ€ฆ smhโ€ฆ

  4. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    This strategy is for the Trumpers so what the lefties think is of no concern. I think it can withstand the inevitable Court challenge.

  5. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    I think an even better idea is to just stop it!
    Wind power does not work. It is a pipe dream on gossamer wings operating a few hours a day and not necessarily when you need it.
    Nuclear. I think there is now a nuclear even better than uranium…thorium?
    Dems – can you drop the worship of Gaia and the hatred of Trump, and TRY to act rationally?
    All other people who believe in the climate cult who aren't crazed Dems – when you give great credence to all of the apocalyptic claims, please look at the record of the govt and the academy the past 10 years… You have no reason to have blind trust in them. (You should not have blind trust in any human being)

  6. The Left only cares about the whales on The View… we all know that.

  7. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    It is disappointing that environmental groups in Virginia seem to have ignored the emerging evidence that construction of offshore wind turbines pose a significant risk to whales and other marine life.

    Wojick briefly refers to Prof. Apoltolos Gerasoulis. He is professor emeritus at Rutgers whose field is statistics. He has built a program to analyze recent whale deaths. According to these analyses, the increase in whale deaths is directly correlated with the activity associated with building wind turbines off the shore of New Jersey. https://www.savvydime.com/professor-makes-startling-discovery-about-mysterious-whale-deaths-along-the-east-coast/

    As convincing as these findings seem, as we often say on Bacon's Rebellion, "Correlation is not causation."

    More convincing to me are studies of the strength of the seismic testing used to map the sea floor in order to determine the best placement of the turbines. These seismic test involve acoustic pulses. Last year, a study of the sonar noise generated by one survey vessel off the coast of New Jersey revealed that the decibel levels of these pulses far exceeded the levels at which the National Marine Fisheries Services, a division of NOAA, say cause temporary or permanent deafness in whales and other marine life. The same researcher also measured sound levels generated by the construction of a wind turbine by one vessel off the coast of Nantucket. He found that, even with advanced sound mitigation measures, the noise of the pile driving exceeded the decibel levels deemed safe. Loss of hearing in whales leads to death because whales travel, communicate, and find prey through echolocation. https://www.caesarrodney.org/energy-updates2/Offshore-Wind-is-Killing-Whales.htm

    Now, this was just one study of one survey vessel and one construction vessel. These two vessels may not be typical and other vessels do not produce decibels at the levels recorded in this study. However, these findings should be enough to justify temporarily stopping the exploration and construction activity and conducting more extensive research.

    There is at least one environmental organization that is raising the cry about the danger to the whales. A good amount of its funding comes from the fossil fuel industry. https://www.wsj.com/us-news/climate-environment/why-anti-wind-activists-suddenly-fell-in-love-with-the-right-whale-66291c3a

    There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around. I did not see a lot of concern in Bacon's Rebellion over the threat posed to endangered species by the construction of the two major pipelines Virginia. When it comes to drilling in the Alaska's North Slope, I doubt the fossil fuel industry will show as much concern about the danger posed to caribou as it now shows for right whales.

  8. LarrytheG Avatar

    Save the whales, which has been around since 1977, (long before wind turbines) and did submit some significant comments about noise and it's effect and other things and their effect – pretty comprehensive:

    https://www.regulations.gov/comment/BOEM-2023-0011-0137

    For anyone to imply that they have been absent from the issue, is just
    plain wrong.

    I would also ask how far back the other concerned groups go with respect to whales and what level of involvement they had with respect to ship strikes and fishing net entanglements, etc.

  9. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Wow! The anti-intellectualism crowd gloms onto a CompSci professor who suggests his study may back their belief, but only if correlation is causation. What a surprise.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7Rab6SZKzM

  10. It amazes me how many readers are incapable of critical reading and understanding. In this case, I'm referring to those who castigate conservatives for latching onto the "save the whales" movement to oppose wind farms while remaining oblivious to the intent of the post, which was the very opposite: to castigate those environmentalists who, having been part of the save-the-whales movement, have now abandoned the whales in order to support wind farms.

    In order to cover for their own massive hypocrisy, the wind-farm defenders seek to distract from their own willingness to sacrifice the whales by attacking conservatives. It is a sight to behold. Please do continue. With each effort to distract by changing the subject, you confirm your complicity — and feed my amusement!

  11. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    Here is part of what shipping is doing for Right Whales: f https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USNOAAFISHERIES/bulletins/3c77f62

    Large voluntary slow zones presently including one off Virginia Beach.

  12. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    When you use the enemyโ€™s weapon, you become him.

    Dodos, passenger pigeons, ivory bills, etc. Too late for the whales anyway. Theyโ€™re already extinct. Weโ€™re just counting the last.

    "I weep for you," the Walrus said:
    "I deeply sympathize."

Leave a Reply


ADVERTISEMENT