The report calls it “extremely unlikely” that pile driving 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.
This story was originally published in The New Bedford Light, a publication partner of Ocean State Stories.
NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — 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
