HomeMy WebLinkAbout16231 CERTIFICATE_FEIR New England Wind
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
Charles D. Baker
GOVERNOR
Karyn E. Polito
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
Kathleen A. Theoharides
SECRETARY
Tel: (617) 626-1000
Fax: (617) 626-1181
http://www.mass.gov/eea
January 28, 2022
CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
ON THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PROJECT NAME : New England Wind 1 Connector (formerly Vineyard
Wind Connector 2)
PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Barnstable, Edgartown and Nantucket
PROJECT WATERSHED : Cape and Islands
EEA NUMBER : 16231
PROJECT PROPONENT : Park City Wind LLC (formerly Vineyard Wind LLC)
DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : December 29, 2021
Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA; M.G.L. c. 30, ss. 61-
62I) and Section 11.08 of the MEPA Regulations (301 CMR 11.00), I have reviewed
the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the project and hereby determine that
it adequately and properly complies with MEPA and its implementing regulations. The project
may proceed to permitting.
The project is a component of an 800-megawatt (MW) wind energy generating facility
known as Park City Wind (PCW) to be constructed approximately 20 miles south of Martha’s
Vineyard. The generating facility will occupy a section of the Proponent’s approximately 160
square mile Lease Area designated as OCS-A 0534. At the time the Environmental Notification
Form (ENF) and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) were filed, Lease Area OCS-A-
0534 was part of a 261-square mile lease area designated as OCS-A-0501, which was awarded to
Vineyard Wind LLC through a competitive lease sale conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management (BOEM). Three wind generating facilities were originally proposed to be
constructed in the OCS-A 0501 lease area. The first, known as Vineyard Wind, will be located in
the northern part of the lease area; components of the transmission infrastructure associated with
the Vineyard Wind project, known as the Vineyard Wind Connector 1 (VWC1) completed
MEPA review in 2019 (EEA #15787). The PCW project and a third project (Commonwealth
EEA# 16231 FEIR Certificate January 28, 2022
2
Wind) will be located in what was formerly known as the Southern Wind Development Area
(SWDA) of the OCS-A 0501 lease area and is now known as Lease Area OCS-A-0534. The
PCW project is being developed in response to a solicitation for a commercial-scale wind project
by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, but will utilize a cable
corridor in Massachusetts state waters and make landfall in Barnstable, MA. According to the
FEIR, while the power from the project is being purchased by electric distribution companies in
Connecticut, it will have a regional benefit by displacing fossil fuel-generated electricity in the
electric grid operated by the Independent System Operator-New England (ISO-NE).
Major elements of the PCW project include a wind turbine array with 50 to 62 wind
turbine generators (WTG) that will each have a generating capacity of 13 to 16 MW; offshore
electrical service platforms (ESPs); inter-array cable connections between WTGs and ESPs;
offshore export cables; onshore export cables; and an onshore substation. The offshore export
cables will follow an approximately 63-mile long route from the WTG array to the landfall site at
Craigville Beach in Barnstable. The components of the project located within Massachusetts
state waters are known as the New England Wind 1 Connector (NEW1), which is the project
name used for purposes of state permitting within the Commonwealth.
Project Description
As described below, project components located within the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts include approximately 23-mile long segments of the two offshore export cables,
approximately four miles of onshore export cables in underground conduits and a new electrical
substation. Offshore portions of the project will be located within the Towns of Barnstable,
Edgartown and Nantucket; all components of the project located on land are within the Town of
Barnstable (Town).1
Offshore Export Cables
Two offshore export cables (one pair) will be installed within an Offshore Export Cable
Corridor (OECC) that was identified through the results of marine surveys conducted by the
Proponent in connection with the review and permitting of the VWC1 project. The FEIR
described conditions within an expanded OECC based on additional surveys conducted in 2020.
Compared to the OECC delineated for the VWC1 project, the OECC has been expanded by 985
ft (300 meters) to the west and by 985 ft to the east through a section of Muskeget Channel;
however, the NEW1 offshore export cables will be installed entirely within the OECC as
originally described in the filings for EEA #15787 and not within the expanded areas. As
expanded, the OECC ranges in width from 3,100 ft to 5,100 ft along the portions located in
Massachusetts state waters, with a typical width of 3,800 ft. The OECC follows a generally
northerly route from the PCW turbine array to the landfall site. It enters state waters between
Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket near Muskeget Channel, veers to the east to avoid the deepest
parts of Muskeget Channel where currents are strongest and important rocky benthic habitat is
present, then turns west and follows a route parallel to the southeastern shoreline of Martha’s
Vineyard and less than a mile from shore. Northeast of Martha’s Vineyard, an approximately six-
1 The ENF and DEIR indicated that the Offshore Export Cable Corridor (OECC) may pass through waters
within the Town of Mashpee. As described in the FEIR, the OECC is located only within Nantucket,
Edgartown and Barnstable.
EEA# 16231 FEIR Certificate January 28, 2022
3
mile long section of the OECC is located within a part of Nantucket Sound that is outside of state
waters; it then follows a northeasterly route in state waters to the landfall site at Craigville Beach
in Barnstable. Installation of the offshore export cables by trenching will stop approximately
1,000 feet from shore.
Each 10-inch diameter offshore export cable will include a three-core 275-kV alternating
current (AC) cable and a fiber optic cable. The offshore export cables will be installed primarily
in soft sediments using a trenching tool to create a 3.3-ft wide trench in which the cable will be
buried to a depth of five to eight feet (1.5 to 2.5 meters) and covered with sediment. The offshore
export cables will be typically installed at a rate of 100 meters (328 ft) to 200 meters (656 ft) per
hour, 24 hours per day (approximately 1.5 miles to 3.0 miles per day). Each cable will be
separated from others by a minimum of 165 ft (50 meters); in turn, the NEW1 cable pair will be
at least 330 ft (100 meters) west of the nearest VWC1 offshore export cable, a distance that may
be even greater in deeper waters. According to the FEIR, the proposed distances between cables
and cable pairs are necessary to provide flexibility for routing and installation and for spacing for
maintenance and repairs. In addition, as previously described in the DEIR, the minimum
spacings are necessary to minimize the risk of cable damage from anchors, ensure redundancy in
the event that one of the cables is damaged and to provide adequate space for vessels to position
for repairs and cable splices. If a cable were to fail, it would be uncovered, cut and brought onto
the deck of a repair vessel. A new section of cable would then be installed and connected to the
original cable with two subsea repair joints. The repaired cable would be longer than the original
cable due to the length of cable required to raise the cable onto the repair vessel. The excess
length of the repaired cable would be laid onto the seafloor in a looped configuration in the area
adjacent to the cable route, then buried. The lateral area needed to accommodate the
configuration of the repaired cable may be up to four times the water depth, or up to 520 ft
between cable pairs, at the deepest point (130 ft) along the OECC.
The offshore export cables are anticipated to be installed primarily through use of a
technique that simultaneously lays and buries the cable, such as a jet plow or mechanical plow.
These trenching tools move along the seafloor on skids or tracks that are up to five feet wide.
Cable installation will be done using vessels that pull the trenching tool and maintain position
along the route by repositioning anchors. A nine-point anchor spread will be used to move the
barge, which means that nine anchors will be used to reposition the barge each time it is moved;
according to the FEIR, this will result in greater impacts to benthic habitat compared to the use
of the five-point anchor spread proposed for VWC1, but it will provide greater force on the
cable burial tool and increase the likelihood that the cable will be adequately buried. Because
installation of an offshore export cable requires a dedicated complement of construction vessels,
one cable will be installed at a time. A pre-lay survey using a multibeam echosounder, sidescan
sonar and magnetometer will be conducted up to three months before cable installation to
identify any new obstructions that were not previously observed within the cable route. The pre-
lay survey will produce a set of coordinates detailing the final route in which the cable will be
installed. Approximately two months prior to commencement of cable laying activities, a grapnel
run will be made along the proposed cable route to clear obstructions, such as abandoned fishing
gear and other marine debris.
In areas where mobile sand waves are present on the ocean floor, the trench will be
dredged using either a trailing suction hopper dredge (TSHD) or, for sand waves less than 6.6 ft
high, jetting by controlled flow excavation. Sediment dredged using TSHD will be discharged
EEA# 16231 FEIR Certificate January 28, 2022
4
onto a dredge barge, then released back into the water column in an area with sediments similar
to the dredged material. To adequately bury the cables in areas with large sand waves, the trench
for each cable may be dredged with 3:1 side slopes and a bottom width of 50 ft.
Where subsurface conditions prevent burial of the cable it will be placed on the seafloor
and covered with protective armoring, which may include rocks, gabion rock bags, concrete
mattresses or half-shell pipes. According to the Proponent, it is not anticipated that the NEW1
cable will cross over other cables along the route; however, some cable crossings may become
necessary with other projects proposed along the same cable corridor, and in such instances,
cable protection would also be required if a crossing is necessary.
The FEIR identified potential armoring material that could be used for cable protection,
including concrete mattresses, rocks, gabion rock bags or half-shell pipes. According to the
FEIR, armoring that includes shells, gravel, cobbles, boulders would most closely resemble the
hard-bottom habitat present along the cable route and provide high ecological value while
protecting the cable. The FEIR estimated that rock armoring would cover a 30-ft wide area over
the cable to provide adequate protection due to sides slopes of the rock mound. Gabion rock bags
are metal cages filled with rocks of a variety of sizes; according to the FEIR, gabion rock bags
could also have high ecological value, especially if shells were incorporated. Concrete mattresses
are widely used for cable protection and provide a hard substrate for epifaunal attachment, but do
not have the surface complexity that provides shelters and may become covered in sand over
time. The FEIR estimated that concrete mattresses would cover only a 10-ft wide area over the
cable. Half-shell pipes have the most limited ecological value of all of the armoring options due
to their lack of holes and crevices, smooth texture and low relief. According to the FEIR, half-
shells would only be used at cable crossing, which are not anticipated for this project, or to
protect cable that must be laid on the surface of the seabed. The FEIR did not commit to a
particular cable protection method; however, the 30-ft wide impact associated with rock
armoring was used to quantify potential impacts of the project.
Onshore Export Cables
The export cables will be transitioned from the offshore environment to landfall at
Craigville Beach through 1,000- to 1,200-ft long conduits located a minimum of 40 ft below the
mudline. The conduits will be installed in a tunnel excavated using Horizontal Directional
Drilling (HDD). The HDD construction technique involves excavation of an approach pit within
the Craigville Beach parking lot, and drilling a one-inch to three-inch pilot hole from the
approach pit, below the beach and other coastal wetland resource areas, to the offshore location
where the cable trenching will terminate. After the pilot hole has been established, the end of the
drill will be fitted with a cutter head and pulled back to the approach pit to create a hole of
sufficient diameter for a conduit to be pulled through. Once the conduit is installed, the offshore
export cables will be pulled through the conduit into an onshore underground vault, where the
three conductors in each offshore export cable (a total of six conductors) will be separated.
Activities associated with transitioning the offshore export cables onto land, including HDD
operations, will take 15 weeks to complete. To minimize impacts to Piping Plover, HDD
activities will not occur during the breeding season (April 1 to August 31).
Each of the six onshore cables containing a conductor will be approximately six inches
in diameter. The cables will be installed in separate conduits within a buried concrete duct bank.
EEA# 16231 FEIR Certificate January 28, 2022
5
The duct bank carrying the cables will be buried to a typical depth of three feet primarily within
existing roadways. The duct bank will follow an approximately 4.0-mile long northerly route to
the site of the proposed substation. From the Craigville Public Beach parking lot, the duct bank
will follow Craigville Beach Road for 0.5 miles, including a crossing under the Centerville
River. From the northern terminus of Craigville Beach Road, the duct bank will continue north
on Main Street for 0.5 miles and Old Stage Road for 0.7 miles before crossing Route 28. From
the north side of Route 28, the duct bank will follow Shootflying Hill Road for 2.1 miles then
turn southeast and travel 0.2 miles along an electric transmission right-of-way (ROW) identified
as ROW #343 to the site of the proposed substation. Precast concrete underground vaults will be
constructed along the duct bank route at approximately 1,500 ft to 3,000 ft intervals. Once the
duct bank is installed, each onshore export cable will be pulled through a conduit between
underground vaults. The duct bank will be installed during the off-season to minimize traffic
disruptions, and typically advances at a rate of 80 ft to 200 ft per day. A section of the duct bank
route coincides with the route of a planned sewer project to be undertaken by the Town. The
projects will be coordinated to minimize impacts. The Town will excavate a trench and install its
sewer, after which the Proponent will install its duct bank above the sewer, close the excavation
and install temporary and permanent paving.
The conduit will be installed under the Centerville River using a microtunnel. This
construction technique involves the excavation of a jacking shaft on the southwest side of the
river at 2 Short Beach Road, which the Proponent has exclusive option to purchase, and a
receiving shaft on the north side of the river within the Town’s roadway layout. Both the jacking
shaft and receiving shaft will be landward of the riverbanks. A microtunnel will be excavated by
pushing a microtunnel boring machine (MTBM) from the bottom of the jacking shaft to the
receiving jack. As the microtunnel is excavated, a concrete casing pipe will be lowered into the
jacking shaft and will be used to push the MTBM northward; this process will be repeated until
the MTBM reaches the receiving shaft and a continuous casing pipe extends between the shafts,
through which the casing will be pulled to complete the river crossing. The microtunnel will be
excavated at a depth that will provide a clearance of at least 10 feet between the bottom of the
river and the top of the casing.
Substation and Interconnection
The voltage of the power transmitted from the wind turbine generators will be stepped-up
from 275-kV to 345-kV before the power is transmitted to the regional electrical grid. The
conversion to 345-kV will take place at a new 5.4-acre substation to be located on a 7.5-acre
parcel at 8 Shootflying Hill Road. The substation will consist of an approximately 11.000-sf,
345-kV gas-insulated substation (GIS) switchgear building with a control room at the center of
the site. Additional electrical equipment to be installed at the substation includes a 275-kV GIS
switchgear building, transformers, shunt reactors, shunt filters and two static compensators
(STATCOM). To minimize off-site noise impacts associated with operation of the substation, the
STATCOM units will be placed within a three-sided sound barrier measuring 400 ft long and 35
ft high at the western edge of the site; in addition, a 90-ft long, 10-ft high sound wall will be
constructed at the southern end of the site and smaller three-sided sound barriers will be
constructed around transformers and shunt reactors on the eastern part of the site. The substation
will be enclosed by a fence around the perimeter of the site with a 30-ft wide vegetated buffer on
the western side and a planting strip and guardrail along the north side. Construction and
commissioning of the substation will occur over an 18- to 24-month period.
EEA# 16231 FEIR Certificate January 28, 2022
6
Six 345-kV transmission cables will convey the electricity from the substation to the
existing 345-kV Eversource West Barnstable Substation off Oak Street and adjacent to Route 6.
The West Barnstable Substation will be expanded to accommodate the power transmitted by the
project. The transmission cables will be installed within a duct bank to be installed along a 0.7-
mile long route within three existing electric transmission ROWs (ROW #343, ROW #345 and
ROW #381) and will cross Route 6 to reach the West Barnstable Substation. To minimize
disruption to traffic on Route 6, the duct bank will be installed under the highway using a
trenchless construction technique called pipe jacking. A 35-ft by 35-ft jacking shaft will be
excavated on the north side of Route 6 and a 24-ft by 15-ft receiving shaft excavated on the south
side. Hydraulic jacks will push a 60-inch or 72-inch diameter casing pipe from the jacking shaft
to the receiving shaft. The diameter of the casing was selected to be large enough to remove any
boulders encountered along the route. The tunnel will be 5 ft to 11 ft below the highway median
strip and 26 ft to 40 ft below the travel lanes. According to the FEIR, modifications to the West
Barnstable Substation that are necessary to interconnect the project were identified in the
Independent System Operator-New England’s (ISO-NE’s) QP 700 System Impact Study
(September 2020) and will be designed by Eversource. Upgrades to the substation will include a
new autotransformer, breakers and bays, and an approximately 60-ft by 25-ft by 15-ft control
station.
Decommissioning
The project is anticipated to be in operation for 30 years. Decommissioning of project
components in state waters will include removal or retirement in place of the offshore export
cables and possible removal of onshore export cables. As previously described in the DEIR,
decommissioning of project components on land will be coordinated with the Town to minimize
impacts associated with potential removal of infrastructure within public streets, and may include
leaving underground project components in place. The removal process for offshore export
cables may require removal of armoring and the use of a plow to fluidize sediment around the
cables so that they can be reeled up onto barges.
Project Schedule
Onshore construction, including the substation, duct bank and work at the landfall site is
anticipated to commence in late 2023. Offshore construction is expected to start in 2024 and
commercial operation is anticipated to start in 2026.
Project Site
The OECC extends from the southern portion of Nantucket Sound between Martha’s
Vineyard and Nantucket, enters an area in Nantucket Sound that is outside of state waters, then
reenters state waters south of Barnstable. All sections of the cable route within state waters lie
within the Cape and Islands Ocean Sanctuary (CIOS) and the Massachusetts Ocean Management
Plan (OMP) planning area.
The new substation for conversion to 345-kv is proposed on a 6.7-acre site on
Shootflying Hill Road. A motel is located on the northern portion of the site and the southern
portion is wooded. The site is bordered to the north by Shootflying Hill Road and Route 6, to the
EEA# 16231 FEIR Certificate January 28, 2022
7
west by a residential neighborhood, to the south by ROW #343 and to the east by land owned by
the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) and the Cape Cod Chamber of
Commerce. The site is located within the Zone II Wellhead Protection Area of a Town public
drinking water supply well. The West Barnstable Substation is bordered to the south by Route 6,
to the east by undeveloped land, to the north by the Oak Street Substation and to the west by
undeveloped land and Oak Street.
According to the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP), the
offshore and landfall portions of the project will be located within areas of Priority and
Estimated Habitat for rare species. The offshore cable route passes through habitat of Roseate
Tern (Sterna dougallii)2, Common Tern (Sterna hirundo), Least Tern (Sternula antillarum) and
Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus).3 Northern Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis), Humpback
Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), marine birds such as Long-tailed Duck, Northern Gannet,
Razorbill, Wilson’s Storm Petrel, fulmars, loons, scoters, and shearwaters, and Loggerhead
(Caretta caretta) and Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) sea turtles have been observed
throughout Nantucket Sound.
The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) has indicated that the OECC
includes areas of commercial and recreational fishing and habitat for a variety of invertebrate and
finfish species, including channeled whelk (Busycotypus canaliculatus), knobbed whelk
(Busycon carica), longfin squid (Doryteuthis pealeii), summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus),
windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus), scup (Stenotomus chrysops), surf clam (Spisula
solidissima), sea scallop (Argopecten irradians), quahog (Mercenaria mercenaria), horseshoe
crabs (Limulus polyphemus), and blue mussel (Mytilus edulis). Blue mussel and kelp (Saccharina
latissima) aquaculture operations are also located within Horseshoe Shoals (a subtidal area of
Nantucket Sound). Waters offshore of Craigville Beach contain mapped eelgrass (Zostera
marina) habitat.
As shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) numbers 250010563J and 250010564J (effective July 16, 2014),
Craigville Beach is located in a coastal flood zone with a velocity hazard (VE zone) and a base
flood elevation (BFE) of 15 ft NAVD 88. The areas north of Craigville Beach and adjacent to the
Centerville River are located within the 100-year floodplain (Zone AE), each with a BFE of 13 ft
NAVD 88.
The Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources (BUAR) has
identified Nantucket Sound as an area of high sensitivity that is rich in submerged ancient Native
American cultural resources and shipwrecks. A number of properties included in the
Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets
of the Commonwealth (Inventory) and State and National Registers are located along the
proposed onshore segment of the transmission route. The offshore export cables will be located
within the Nantucket Sound Traditional Cultural Property (TCP; MHC #BRN.9072, CHA:938,
DEN.930, EDG.907, FAL.973, HRW.918, MAS.916, NAN.939, OAK.902 and TIS.904), which
includes paleolandforms on Nantucket Shoals that were identified during marine archaeological
surveys conducted for VWC1. In addition, the Chappaquiddick Island Traditional Cultural
2 Species also federally protected pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA, 50 CFR 17.11).
3 Ibid.
EEA# 16231 FEIR Certificate January 28, 2022
8
Property, which was defined as part of the VWC1 project federal cultural resources identification
effort, includes several historic and archaeological resources listed in the Inventory.
Changes Since the Filing of the DEIR
The FEIR identified the following changes to the project since the DEIR was reviewed:
• The Proponent has secured an option to purchase a 1.1-acre parcel adjacent to the
northeast corner of the 6.4-acre substation site reviewed in the DEIR. The 1.1-acre
parcel will be used to provide improved vehicular access to the site Shootflying Hill
Road compared to the driveway at the northeast corner of the site proposed in the
DEIR. The new driveway location will permit a wider turning radius for construction
vehicles and emergency vehicles, and will move the entrance to the site further away
from residences west of the site. In addition, vehicular access from this location will
reduce site elevations by up to 10 ft compared to the DEIR design; rather than having
to import fill to raise the site, the revised design will result in excess soil that will
have to be transported off-site. The volume of soil to be transported off-site will be
approximately two-thirds of the volume of fill that would have been needed to raise
the site under the previous design and will therefore reduce the number of truck trips
during the construction period. The change will reduce impervious area at the
substation site by 0.4 acres compared to existing conditions but require alteration of
an additional acre of land.
• The FEIR has confirmed that the voltage of the offshore and onshore export cables
will be 275 kV. The DEIR had indicated that the voltage of the cables would be either
220-kV or 275 kV. According to the FEIR, the higher voltage will result in smaller
power losses through transmission.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Potential environmental impacts of onshore components of the project include a net
addition of 0.01 acres of impervious area associated with construction and expansion of
substations; alteration of 9.52 acres of land associated with construction and expansion of
substations; alteration of 0.4 miles (2,000 linear feet (lf)) of Land Subject to Coastal Storm
Flowage (LSCSF), 0.1 miles (730 lf) of Riverfront Area and 0.2 miles (1,100 lf) of Barrier
Beach in connection with installation of the onshore duct bank and HDD operations; and
alteration of 9,400 sf of Barrier Beach and 9,400 sf of Riverfront Area associated with the use of
the microtunnel method to install the duct bank under the Centerville River. Potential
environmental impacts of offshore components include alteration of 123.7 acres of Land Under
the Ocean (LUO), including 18 acres from trenching, 56 acres from plow skids, 26 acres from
sand wave dredging, 12.7 acres from anchoring and 7.2 to 21.5 acres from cable protection. The
project will dredge up to 256,490 cubic yards (cy) of sediment in connection with installation of
the offshore export cables, including 110,000 cy of material to be dredged from sand waves and
146,490 cy of sediment to be fluidized during trenching operations. Both onshore and offshore
components of the project will be located in rare species habitat and in areas with cultural,
historic and archaeological resources, and may potentially require the use of open space
protected under Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth.
EEA# 16231 FEIR Certificate January 28, 2022
9
The project will generate clean renewable energy that will minimize GHG emissions.
Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate environmental impacts identified in the FEIR include
selecting a route that minimizes impacts to sensitive habitats, using cable installation methods
with temporary impacts within a narrow footprint, using HDD, microtunneling and pipe jacking
to minimize impacts to roadways and nearshore coastal wetlands and implementation of noise
and stormwater management measures at the proposed substation.
Permitting and Jurisdiction
The project is undergoing MEPA review and is subject to preparation of a mandatory EIR
pursuant to 301 CMR 11.03(3)(a)(1)(b) and 301 CMR 11.03(7)(a)(4) because it requires Agency
Actions and will result in the alteration of ten or more acres of any other wetlands (LUO) and
involves construction of electric transmission lines with a capacity of 230 or more kV, provided
the transmission lines are five or more miles in length along new, unused or abandoned ROW. It
also exceeds ENF thresholds at 301 CMR 11.03(3)(b)(1)(a) (alteration of coastal dune), 301
CMR 11.03(3)(b)(3) (dredging of 10,000 or more cy of material) and 301 CMR 11.03(7)(b)(4)
(construction of electric transmission lines with a capacity of 69 or more kV that are over one
mile in length). The project meets the ENF review threshold at 301 CMR 11.03(1)(b)(3)
(conversion of land held for natural resources purposes in accordance with Article 97 of the
Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth to any purpose not in accordance with
Article 97) and may meet the ENF threshold at 301 CMR 11.03(2)(b)(2) (disturbance of greater
than two acres of designated priority habitat that results in a take of a state-listed rare species).
The Project will require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) and a Chapter
91 (c. 91) License from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP);
Approval under MGL Chapter 164 Sections 69J and 72, and Chapter 40A Section 3 Zoning
Exemption from the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) and the Department of Public Utilities
(DPU); a Road Crossing Permit from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation
(MassDOT); and Federal Consistency review by the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone
Management (CZM). It may require a Conservation and Management Permit (CMP) from
NHESP. The Project is subject to reviews under the OMP, Ocean Sanctuaries Act and the
MEPA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Policy (the Policy), and it may require Article 97
legislation.
The project requires Orders of Conditions from conservation commissions in Barnstable,
Edgartown and Nantucket (or in the case of an appeal, Superseding Orders of Conditions from
MassDEP). It requires Development of Regional Impact (DRI) review from the Cape Cod
Commission (CCC) and Martha’s Vineyard Commission (MVC).
The PCW project, including the NEW1 components in state waters, require approvals
from BOEM, including approval of a Construction and Operations Plan (COP)4; an Individual
4 During its review, BOEM must comply with its obligations under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), the NHPA, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA),
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). BOEM will coordinate/consult with other Federal agencies including NMFS, United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFW), EPA, and USGC). BOEM will also coordinate with the state to complete a
federal consistency review pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).
EEA# 16231 FEIR Certificate January 28, 2022
10
Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (Section 10); an Incidental Harassment
Authorization from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); Private Aids to Navigation
authorization from the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG); a No Hazard Determination from the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA); consultation with MHC in accordance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 and M.G.L. Chapter 9, Sections 26-27C;
and a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit
and Outer Continental Shelf Air Permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Because the Proponent is not seeking State Financial Assistance, MEPA jurisdiction
extends to those aspects of the project that are within the subject matter of required or potentially
required Permits or within the area subject to a Land Transfer that are likely, directly or
indirectly, to cause Damage to the Environment. The subject matter of the EFSB/DPU approvals,
OMP review and the c. 91 License are sufficiently broad such that jurisdiction is functionally
equivalent to full scope jurisdiction and extends to all aspects of the project that are likely,
directly or indirectly, to cause Damage to the Environment.
Review of the FEIR
The FEIR was generally responsive to the Scope included in the DEIR Certificate. It
included a detailed description and plans of existing conditions along the cable route and
proposed structures. It provided additional information on post-construction monitoring,
described and included plans of design refinements, provided updated estimates of impacts and
associated mitigation, and offered supplemental descriptions of construction methods. It
provided more detailed plans showing the proposed cables routes for the VWC1 and NEW1
projects overlaid on plans describing benthic conditions in the OECC. The FEIR included a draft
Piping Plover Protection Plan, a Commercial Fisheries Economic Exposure Report and a
Fisheries Communication Plan. It included responses to comments received on the DEIR and
draft Section 61 Findings.
The FEIR confirmed that no additional parkland areas subject to Article 97, beyond those
identified in the DEIR, will be affected by the project. According to the FEIR, only the landfall
site at Craigville Beach will require approval under Article 97 because all other crossing of
parkland will occur within existing Eversource easements.
The FEIR did not provide a report of the results of marine archaeological surveys, as
requested in the Scope. During the review period, the Proponent clarified that the report had not
been completed when the FEIR was filed, but has since been filed with BOEM and will be
submitted to BUAR.5 The Proponent has acknowledged that any marine survey work as well as
associated mitigation activities must be permitted by BUAR and must conform to BUAR’s
Policy Guidance for Establishing Shipwreck and Underwater Resource Avoidance Protection
Plans and Policy Guidance for the Discovery of Unanticipated Archaeological Resources.
5 Email dated January 25, 2022 from Holly Johnston to Alex Strysky.
EEA# 16231 FEIR Certificate January 28, 2022
11
Ocean Management Plan
The project is subject to review under the OMP, which maps important ecological
resources that are key components of the state’s estuarine and marine ecosystems— defined as
“special, sensitive or unique resources” (SSU)—and identifies key areas of water-dependent uses
including commercial and recreational fishing and navigation. The relevant SSUs for cable
projects identified in the OMP include intertidal flats, North Atlantic Right Whale Core habitat,
Fin Whale Core Habitat, Humpback Whale Core Habitat, eelgrass and areas of hard/complex
seafloor; of these SSUs, only eelgrass and hard/complex seafloor are located within the OECC.
The project is also located within areas of commercial and recreational fishing and navigation in
Nantucket Sound that were mapped in the OMP. The FEIR provided the results of marine
surveys, including maps showing benthic conditions, using the Coastal and Marine Ecological
Classification Standard (CMECS) requested by CZM and DMF.
Based on the Proponent’s surveys, hard/complex benthic conditions present along
sections of the proposed cable route include coarse material, such as gravel, boulders and cobble,
in the southern part of the OECC in the Muskeget Channel area; morphologically rugged
seafloor conditions characterized by high variability in bathymetric aspect and gradient, such as
sand waves, which are located throughout the OECC in state waters; and eelgrass, located
southeast of the landfall site and to the west of the OECC on Cape Poge, Martha’s Vineyard.
According to the FEIR, trenching for the installation of the offshore export cables will impact 7.7
acres of hard/complex seafloor. Additional impacts to hard/complex seafloor include 23.1 acres
by the skids on the plow, 5.3 acres from anchor placement and between 7.2 and 21.5 acres due to
cable protection. Dredging of sand waves using a TSHD will impact an additional 26 acres
(110,000 cy of sediment).
In the DEIR, the Proponent suggested that a process of micrositing the cable within the
expanded OECC would be used to avoid obstacles along the cable route and to minimize impacts
to sensitive habitats. The Scope for the FEIR requested a detailed discussion of how micrositing
would be used to minimize environmental impacts, how the expanded area of the OECC would
facilitate micrositing and the extent to which spacing between the two NEW1 cables and
between the NEW1 cable pair and the VWC1 and future Commonwealth Wind/New England
Wind 2 Connector (NEW2) cables within the OECC may affect the ability to minimize cable
installation impacts. The FEIR did not fully address this portion of the Scope. During the review
period, the Proponent clarified that what was termed “micrositing” in the DEIR occurs at two
stages in the design and construction of the project. First, data collected from marine surveys was
used to plan the most direct route through the OECC that also avoided and minimized impacts to
SSUs; the cable route described in the FEIR is the product of micrositing at this planning level.
The pre-lay survey to be conducted shortly before cable installation will represent a second
opportunity for micrositing that will focus on avoiding new and previously undetected obstacles
along the proposed route, rather than on avoiding sensitive habitats. The required spacing
between cables for installation, maintenance and repair of the cables influences micrositing
decisions because it affects the extent to which the location of one cable can be adjusted to avoid
impacts without causing a shift in the adjacent cable toward a sensitive habitat. Similarly,
micrositing of the cable route must also account for potential impacts to benthic habitat from
anchors used during cable installation, which occur at a distance from the actual cable route.
Surveys conducted within the expanded OECC provide information on benthic and geophysical
EEA# 16231 FEIR Certificate January 28, 2022
12
conditions that may be needed to assess opportunities for micrositing that could affect benthic
habitat at the margins of the OEECC.
OMP Standards
Pursuant to the OMP and its implementing regulations at 301 CMR 28.04, development
activities are presumptively excluded from SSUs delineated in the maps included in the OMP.
This presumption can be overcome through a demonstration that no less environmentally
damaging practicable alternative exists; that a project has undertaken all practicable measures to
avoid damage to SSUs; and that that the public benefits of the project outweigh the public
detriments to the SSU resource. In the DEIR and FEIR, the Proponent included an analysis of the
project’s conformance to the OMP management standards. The project will avoid and minimize
impacts to SSUs largely by selecting the least environmentally damaging practicable cable route
as determined through extensive marine surveys. The proposed cable route through the OECC
minimizes impacts because it is the most direct route between the offshore wind turbines and the
onshore interconnection point, avoids four of the six SSUs identified in the OMP for cable
projects and avoids eelgrass beds documented in the northern section of the OECC. While the
cable route does not avoid areas of hard/complex seafloor, which in some locations span the full
width of the OECC, the project will take all practicable measures to avoid damage to SSU
resources by using a jet plow or mechanical plow to install the cables to the extent practicable;
minimizing the use of armoring by burying the cables to the necessary depth where possible and
avoiding cable crossings; avoiding anchor impacts to eelgrass and hard/complex seafloor; and
conducting post-construction monitoring. Impacts during construction to navigation and fishing
will be temporary and will be limited to safety zones specified by the U.S. Coast Guard in the
immediate vicinity of construction vessels as they move along the cable route. The Proponent
will implement a Fisheries Communication Plan to coordinate its activities with commercial
fishermen and will develop a fisheries mitigation package using similar methodology as the one
employed for the VW1 project.
The FEIR reviewed the project’s public benefits. While the Park City Wind project was
procured by the State of Connecticut, electricity generated by the wind turbines will enhance the
reliability and diversity of the energy mix in New England and offset 0.9 million tons of CO2e on
an annual basis (16.8 million tons over the project’s 30-year lifespan).6 In addition, on an annual
basis, the project will avoid emissions of 169 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and 34 tons of sulfur
dioxide (SO2).7 The Proponent will fund research on measures to reduce sound impacts and
collision threats on marine mammals from offshore wind development through a partnership
with the Mystic Aquarium, and fisheries-related research and education efforts to be undertaken
by the University of Connecticut’s Initiative on Environmental Research of Offshore Wind. The
Proponent will enter into a Host Community Agreement with the Town that will include a
payment of $16 million plus additional payments if the project continues to operate for longer
6 According to the FEIR, this estimate is based on the use of the 2019 ISO-NE marginal average
emissions rate reduced on a linear basis, assuming that the grid will have an emissions rate of 200 pounds
per MWh in 2050. The FEIR also included an estimate of emissions offsets using data from the EPA’s
Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) 2018 (version 2), which estimated that
the project will offset 1.59 million tons of CO2e per year and 47.6 million tons over 30 years.
7 According to the FEIR, using eGRID data, the project will avoid annual emissions of 848 tons of NOx
and 450 tons of SO2.
EEA# 16231 FEIR Certificate January 28, 2022
13
than 25 years. According to the FEIR, coordination of construction activities associated with the
onshore export cables and the Town’s proposed sewer project will save the Town over $3
million. The Proponent will contribute $3 million to the Nantucket Offshore Wind Community
Fund, which will support local initiatives to combat the effects of climate change, enhance
coastal resiliency and protect, restore and preserve cultural and historic resources on Nantucket.
Ocean Development Mitigation Fee
The Oceans Act established an Ocean Development Mitigation Fee (ODMF) to be
assessed for offshore development projects as compensation to the Commonwealth for impacts
to ocean resources and the broad public interests and rights in the lands, waters and resources of
the OMP areas. The OMP established three fee categories based on the extent and nature of
impacts of a project. Consistent with the ODMF developed for the VW1 project and to reflect the
anticipated project footprint of 16.6 acres (4.6 acres of cable and 12 acres of armoring), the
project falls within the Class II range of impacts (6 to 20 acres) with a base fee ranging from
$85,000 to $300,000. The ODMF for the VW1 project, which proposed nine acres of armoring
and 75,000 cy of dredging in sand waves, was calculated as $240,000. In the FEIR, the
Proponent has proposed a base ODMF of $287,500. This fee is at the upper end of the Class II
fee range and acknowledges the project’s greater impacts due to armoring and sand wave
dredging compared to VW1. Should the project’s actual impacts exceed the estimates in the
FEIR, the fee would increase by $10,000 for each acre of cable protection required above the
estimated 12 acres and by $500 for every 1,000 cy of sand wave dredging required above the
estimated 110,000 cy for the project. According to CZM, the calculation of the base fee and
additional impacts fee rates proposed in the FEIR are appropriate based on the project’s impacts
and benefits. Within 60 days of financial close, the Proponent will deposit the base ODMF of
$287,500 into the Oceans and Waterways Trust.
I note that for purposes of calculating the base ODMF, the Proponent has assumed that 12
acres of cable protection will be installed along the cable routes; however, the FEIR documented
that the area of cable protection could range from 7.2 acres to 21.5 acres, depending on the types
of armoring used. Should 15.5 or more acres of armoring be placed (3.5 acres more than the
estimated armoring area of 12 acres used to establish the base fee), the footprint of the project
would exceed the 20-acre threshold for the Class II fee. Projects with a footprint of over 20 acres
fall into Class III, for which the 2015 OMP established a minimum fee of $500,000.8 If the
project were to add 15.5 acres of cable protection (3.5 acres more than the 12 acres used to
establish the baseline fee), its footprint including 4.6 acres of cable would exceed the 20-acre
limit for Class II activities; however, using the formula for assessing impacts above the base area
proposed by the Proponent, the total fee in that event would be only $322,500. I am therefore
revising the formula for assessing impacts above the base area as follows: if the total armoring is
more than 12 acres and up to 15.4 acres, the proposed formula of $10,000 per acre shall be
applicable; armoring exceeding 15.4 acres up to 21.5 acres shall be assessed a fee of $25,000 an
acre. Therefore, if the post-construction survey documents that the area of armoring is at the
upper range of the estimate provided in the FEIR (21.5 acres), the ODMF would include a base
fee of $287,500, plus an additional fee of approximately $35,000 calculated per the $10,000 per
acre formula proposed in the FEIR for impacts up to 15.5 acres, plus an additional $150,000
based on a rate of $25,000 per acre for impacts exceeding 15.5 acres up to 21.5 acres (a total fee
8 The minimum Class III fee was increased to $600,000 in the 2021 OMP.
EEA# 16231 FEIR Certificate January 28, 2022
14
of $472,500). If the post-construction survey identifies more than 21.5 acres of armoring, the
Proponent should file a Notice of Project Change (NPC) so that a new ODMF can be established.
If the post-construction survey identifies more than 21.5 acres of armoring, the Proponent should
consult with the MEPA Office regarding the need for a Notice of Project Change (NPC). This
modified ODMF calculation is intended to apply only where cable protection in excess of 12
acres has been placed due to errors by the Proponent or its contractors in the planning and design
of the cable routes or cable installation, and not in cases where the Proponent has been required
by State agencies to use a method of cable protection, such as rock placement, deemed to have
habitat benefits.
Wetlands and Water Quality
Wetlands impacts associated with the project’s offshore activities, including cable
installation, dredging, anchor impacts and cable protection, as well as a discussion of how the
selected cable installation techniques will minimize environmental impacts, were described in
detail in the DEIR and summarized in the FEIR. As required by the Scope included in the DEIR
certificate, the FEIR provided additional information on impacts to wetland resource areas from
cable installation and cable protection, reviewed potential measures to minimize impacts and
described two options for monitoring recover of benthic conditions after construction.
Wetlands Impacts
The FEIR provided updated estimates of the project’s impacts to offshore resources. The
estimated area of sand wave dredging has increased from 25 acres (106,000 cy) to 26 acres
(110,000 cy); according to the FEIR, the increased area and volume of sand wave dredging is
due to refinement of the cable alignment since the DEIR. The FEIR included revised estimate of
the area of armoring from 12.7 acres in the DEIR to a range of 7.5 acres to 21.5 acres. In the
DEIR, the Proponent estimated that armoring would be necessary along 3.5 miles (approximately
1.75 miles per cable) of the cable route in State waters and assumed a 30-ft width of the
armoring; in the FEIR, cable protection was estimated to be needed along six (three miles per
cable) of the route and the range reflects the minimum area if 10-ft wide concrete mattresses are
used along the entire length (7 .2 acres) and the maximum area of cable protection of 21.5 acres
if 30-ft wide rock armoring were to be used.
Benthic Habitat Monitoring Plan
The FEIR described two options for a Benthic Habitat Monitoring Plan (BHMP) to be
used to conduct post-construction monitoring of benthic conditions. According to the FEIR, the
Proponent believes that because the NEW1 cables would be located between the VWC1 and
NEW2 cables and constructed within a similar timeframe, it would be difficult to identify the
impacts of the NEW1 cable installation and monitor recovery of habitat. The Proponent has
proposed to not conduct benthic monitoring after the NEW1 project has been completed, but
instead to monitor along the NEW2 cable corridor in 2024 (preconstruction) and later in 2027,
2029, and 2031 (years 1, 3, and 5 after the NEW2 cables are placed). I note that in the FEIR, the
Proponent was requested to provide conceptual-level information about potential route
alignments of a third pair of cables (Commonwealth Wind/NEW2), but this information was not
provided because the Proponent asserted that “final routing for a potential third project has not
been completed and will be dictated by the specifics of future project design.” It is therefore
EEA# 16231 FEIR Certificate January 28, 2022
15
unclear why the Proponent believes that the Commonwealth Wind/NEW2 cables will be placed
in a location that may interfere with benthic monitoring for this project.
The other option for benthic habitat monitoring presented in the FEIR is to use a Before
After Control Impact (BACI) design with the “impact” sites being within the footprint of the
western cable of the NEW2 project and the “control” sites being the same as the control sites
established for the VWC1 BHMP, located roughly 4,000 feet (1,200 meters) to the east of the
NEW2 cables. Under this option, the project impacts to and recovery of benthic habitats in years
1, 3, and potentially 5 would be monitored after completion of construction of the project
reviewed herein. As detailed in its comment letter, CZM recommends the use of this BHMP
design to ensure the actual impacts of the project are assessed against those disclosed during
MEPA review of the project and to inform impact estimates for future projects. The Proponent
should consult with CZM and MassDEP during the permitting process to finalize a BHMP
design that adequately characterizes the impacts of the project.
In addition to the BHMP, post-construction data collected by the Proponent should
include geophysical surveys of the offshore export cables immediately after construction to
document and ensure cable location and burial depth. These surveys should include bathymetric
analyses that depict the change in seafloor height after construction as compared to
preconstruction to determine whether habitat restoration or other appropriate mitigation may be
necessary in accordance with the WQC and/or c. 91 license issued for the project. State agencies,
including MassDEP, CZM and DMF, should also work with the Proponent to develop a plan to
assess and ensure cable burial depth at regular intervals and after significant storm events so that
other water-dependent uses are not threatened or impeded by any exposed cable segment. As
requested by CZM, total suspended solids concentrations during construction, both within and
outside of the affected construction area should be monitored and an analysis of the depth and
extent of sediment drape associated with the settling of suspended sediments. The goal of this
monitoring is to be discern the magnitude and duration of impacts that occur during construction
and to identify impacts that are beyond the temporal and spatial scope modeled for the project
and described in the ENF and EIR.
Rare Species and Marine Fisheries
The Scope included in the DEIR certificate required updated information regarding the
assessment of impacts to marine organisms and state-listed avian species and potential mitigation
measures, and a fisheries economic exposure analysis. According to the FEIR, the Proponent
anticipates employing the same time-of-year (TOY) restrictions that have been established for
the VWC1 project, which include conducting landfall HDD activities before April 1or after
August 31 to avoid noise impacts to Piping Plover during the breeding season and to avoid
impacts to the beach parking lot in the summer months; installing the cables outside of an April
through June TOY window in areas of Nantucket Sound with an active squid fishery; and
avoiding tree removal activities from June 1 through July 31 to protect Northern long-eared bats.
Rare Species
NHESP has noted that the Proponent’s wind turbines and cables are proposed to be
located is in a is a globally significant nesting, feeding, staging and overwintering area for
numerous migratory birds, including rare species identified pursuant to the federal Endangered
EEA# 16231 FEIR Certificate January 28, 2022
16
Species Act (ESA) and/or the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA). Almost 40
percent of the Atlantic coast breeding population of Piping Plover and approximately 50 percent
of the North American Roseate Tern population, as well as significant nesting colonies of
Common and Least terns, are located within the state. According to the FEIR, the Proponent’s
evaluation of the project’s potential impacts to rare bird species concluded that the risk of avian
collisions with offshore wind turbines is low and construction activities are unlikely to adversely
affect birds foraging in the area. The Proponent has developed a framework for a post-
construction monitoring program for offshore birds and bats that includes acoustic monitoring,
deployment of up to 150 tags per year for three years and installation of tagging receivers to
detect tagged Roseate Terns, Common Terns and other migratory birds, count surveys at the
wind turbines and preparation of annual monitoring reports. In connection with the proposed
Commonwealth Wind project, the Proponent has also committed to implement a conservation
program to research and address impacts of offshore wind development on coastal waterbird
populations.9 The program will include research, conservation, and habitat restoration measures
for avian populations that nest, forage, or migrate through offshore wind project areas. This
binding commitment was included in the Proponent’s bid into the Massachusetts Section 83C III
solicitation for offshore wind energy generation that was accepted by the Commonwealth on
December 17, 2021. As noted in CZM’s and NHESP’s comment letters, the Proponent should
collaborate with Agencies during the federal consistency process for Park City Wind and future
projects to discuss a framework for addressing avian impacts, including habitat restoration and
other measures to mitigate for anticipated future impacts. The Proponent should provide further
details about proposed mitigation measures to Agencies as they become available during
subsequent permitting of the Park City Wind project.
Fisheries Impacts and Mitigation
As requested by DMF, the FEIR included a review of DMF’s inshore bottom trawl data
to determine the density and distribution sessile organisms or animals of limited mobility, such
as shellfish and whelks, that could be impacted by cable installation activities. The trawl data
documented that channeled whelk and knobbed whelk were caught occasionally within the
OECC but that blue mussel was rare in Nantucket Sound and Muskeget Channel. According to
the FEIR, indirect impacts to adult and juvenile whelks from sedimentation arising from cable
trenching is unlikely because whelks typically bury themselves in sediment during winter
months.
The FEIR included an analysis of the predicted economic exposure of Massachusetts
fishermen from the construction and operation of the OECC in Massachusetts waters. Using
fishing revenue data prepared by BOEM and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the
Proponent determined that annual fishing revenue along the OECC is estimated to be $218,152
($2,611 per square kilometer). To determine economic exposure in the OECC during the none-
month cable construction period for the cables, the Proponent multiplied the annual fishing
revenue per square kilometer ($2,611) by the area in which fishing would be precluded by cable
installation activity (3.14 square kilometers) by the duration of the construction period (nine
months). Based on this formula, the Proponent concluded that the economic exposure due to
cable installation is approximately $6,149. The Proponent believes that the actual economic
impact of the project will be lower because fishing effort diverted from the OECC to other areas
9 Letter dated December 17, 2021 to Tori Kim from William White.
EEA# 16231 FEIR Certificate January 28, 2022
17
during cable installation would continue to generate at least some of the fishing revenues lost in
the construction area. According to the FEIR, the Proponent will establish procedures for
compensating fishermen for any unexpected economic losses associated with loss fishing time
and/or gear damage resulting from cable protection. According to CZM, the analysis of potential
economic exposure to Massachusetts fisheries will be reviewed through the federal consistency
review process and in keeping with any guidance developed by BOEM.
Port Facilities / Environmental Justice
On March 26, 2021, Governor Baker signed into law An Act Creating a Next Generation
Roadmap for Massachusetts Climate Policy, which includes provisions that significantly
enhance public involvement opportunities and analysis of impacts for Environmental Justice (EJ)
communities across the Commonwealth. Amendments to the MEPA regulations for
administering EJ-related provisions of this legislation were promulgated on December 24, 2021.
In addition, effective January 1, 2022 MEPA adopted a Public Involvement Protocol for
Environmental Justice Populations and an Interim Protocol for Analysis of Project Impacts on
Environmental Justice Populations. The FEIR included an analysis of project activities affecting
EJ populations; however, the analysis was developed to respond to the Scope included in the
DEIR certificate and did not provide the level of analysis now required of MEPA filings. The
project is anticipated to have an overall benefit to EJ populations by reducing air emissions.
The onshore export cables and substation are located within one mile of an EJ population
designated as Minority. Construction activities associated with these structures will be located
primarily within existing roadways and ROWs that are not within an EJ population. According to
the FEIR, construction impacts will be temporary, minor and proximal to the construction zone
and minimized through the use of noise, dust, sedimentation and traffic controls. The FEIR also
asserted that operation and maintenance of the new and expanded substations would have minor,
localized impacts.
According to the FEIR, several port facilities may be used to support construction of the
windfarm and export cables, including the New Bedford Commerce Terminal, Brayton Point
Commerce Terminal, Vineyard Haven, Fall River and Salem Harbor; however, the Proponent
will not implement any port improvements at these locations. Once the wind farm is operational,
the Proponent will establish Operations and Maintenance (O&M) facilities, including
administrative office space, warehouse storage, docking of vessels, crew transfers and for
loading, offloading, fabrication and storage of project components. The Proponent anticipates
that most long-term O&M activities will be based at Barnum Landing in Bridgeport,
Connecticut, with additional facilities in Vineyard Haven. All of the potential sites for port
facilities are either in or within one mile of one or more EJ populations. Construction and O&M
activities that may occur at the port facilities include construction staging, loading and offloading
of equipment and materials, storage of materials, fabrication and assembly of structures,
transport of crews and repairs. According to the FEIR, primary impacts associated with these
activities will be temporary and could include increased traffic, emissions from vehicles, and
increased noise.
EEA# 16231 FEIR Certificate January 28, 2022
18
Climate Change
The southernmost section of the onshore components of the project, including the landfall
site at Craigville Beach and the area around the Craigville River, are located within the coastal
floodplain. The FEIR reviewed potential impacts to the cable from climate change, including sea
level rise, more intense coastal storms and flooding based on data from the Massachusetts
Coastal Flood Risk Model (MC-FRM). According to the FEIR, the portion of the cable from
Craigville Beach to the Craigville River would be inundated with a three-foot increase in sea
level; with six feet of sea level rise only a small additional section of the cable near Craigville
Beach would become inundated. The FEIR also reviewed the landward extent of storm surge
associated with a Category 4 hurricane. An approximately 0.5-mile long section of cable would
be affected by storm surge under that scenario. According to the FEIR, the onshore export cable
should not be affected under these future climate conditions because it is heavily insulated,
designed to withstand wet conditions and will sufficiently buried and protected by the duct bank.
Mitigation and Section 61 Findings
The FEIR included an updated chapter that summarized proposed mitigation measures
and provided individual draft Section 61 Findings for each State Agency that will issue permits
for the Project. The draft Section 61 Findings will be revised and finalized during permitting.
Ocean Development Mitigation Fee
• A minimum of $287,500 will be deposited in the Oceans and Waterways Trust prior
to construction;
• Additional impacts will be assessed at $10,000 per acre for cable protection over 12
acres and up to 15.4 acres and at $25,000 per acre for cable protection over 15.4 acres
and $500 per 1,000 cy of dredging for any amount of dredging more than 110,000 cy.
• If additional impacts are assessed, a second payment will be deposited in the Oceans
and Waterways Trust upon completion of cable installation, dredging and post-
construction surveys.
Ocean Management Area and Coastal Wetlands
• The alignment of the offshore export cables has been selected to minimize impacts to
SSUs and wetland resource areas based on extensive marine surveys;
• Offshore cable installation techniques, primarily jet plow or mechanical plow, will be
used that minimize the amount of seafloor disturbance by dredging the minimum area
necessary to install the cable and burying the cable at sufficient depth;
• Cable installation techniques will minimize turbidity in the water column, which may
be monitored during and/or after cable installation if required by permitting agencies;
• The transition of the offshore export cables will be constructed using HDD to avoid
direct impacts to coastal wetland resource areas; and,
• Data from the marine surveys will be provided to CZM and DMF.
EEA# 16231 FEIR Certificate January 28, 2022
19
Waterways
• The project will employ a Marine Coordinator who will manage construction
activities and serve as a liaison to port authorities, law enforcement agencies, port
operators and the Massachusetts Steamship Authority and other ferry operators;
• The Proponent will distribute Notices to Mariners to notify recreational and
commercial vessels of project activities in offshore waters; and,
• During the cable installation phase, areas of restricted navigation will be limited to
the area and duration of construction activities and determined in coordination with
the U.S. Coast Guard.
Rare Species
• The Proponent will implement a Piping Plover Protection during HDD and
construction activities at Craigville Beach;
• HDD activities at Craigville Beach will occur before April 1 or after August 31 to
minimize impacts to Piping Plovers; and,
• Tree removal activities will not occur from June 1 through July 31 to protect Northern
long-eared bats.
Marine Fisheries
• Cable installation activities will occur between July and March in areas of Nantucket
Sound with an active squid fishery;
• The Proponent will implement a Fisheries Communications Plan to coordinate
construction activities with commercial fishermen to minimize impacts and disruption
of cable installation and other offshore activities;
• The Proponent will develop a compensatory mitigation package for fisheries during
the federal permitting process; and,
• Construction-related vessels to facilitate avoidance of conflicts with commercial
fishing and will use consistent transit lanes to minimize loss of gear.
Substation
• The substation will be designed noise barriers to minimize off-site noise impacts;
• The substation will include an integrated fluid containment system with capacity
capable of capturing at least 110 percent of contained fluids for any components
containing dielectric fluid, plus additional containment capacity to capture any
releases of fluid during an extreme precipitation event; and,
• A stormwater management systemin conformance with the Massachusetts
Stormwater Management Standards will be constructed;
Historical and Archaeological Resources
• All archaeological survey, responses to unanticipated discoveries, and mitigation
activities within the Commonwealth’s waters will be conducted under a Special Use
Permit (SUP) issued by the Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources (BUAR);
EEA# 16231 FEIR Certificate January 28, 2022
20
• Offshore activities will be conducted in accordance with MBUAR’s Policy Guidance
for the Discovery of Unanticipated Archaeological Resources, which include stop
work procedures, notification of the project proponent of the finding and geographical
coordinates, notification of the qualified marine archaeologist of the finding,
assessment of the finding by the qualified marine archaeologist and determination of
materials, and notification of the finding(s) to MBUAR, MHC, and the ACHP (if
applicable);
• The final marine archaeology report, which includes additional information about
submerged cultural resources, will be provided to BUAR; and,
• Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for terrestrial and submarine
historical and archaeological resources within the Project area will be determined in
consultation with MHC and BUAR through the Section 106 process.
Construction
• Develop Traffic Management Plans to minimize construction-period traffic
disruptions for review and approval by the Town;
• Develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP);
• Minimize quantity and duration of soil exposure;
• Reestablish vegetation in disturbed areas as soon possible following final grading;
• Proper spill containment equipment will be maintained for immediate use if required.
All operators will be trained in the use and deployment of such spill prevention
equipment;
• Majority of vehicle fueling and all major equipment maintenance will be performed
off-site at commercial service stations or a contractor’s yard; there will be no
refueling within 100 feet of wetlands, waterways, or known private or community
potable wells, or within any municipal water supply Zone I area;
• Noise mitigation measures include: minimizing amount of work conducted outside of
typical construction hours; installation/maintenance of mufflers;
maintenance/lubrication of construction equipment; muffling enclosures on
continuously-operating equipment such as air compressors and welding generators;
turning off construction equipment when not in use and minimizing idling times;
mitigating the impact of noisy equipment on sensitive locations by using shielding or
buffering distance to the extent practical; and,
• Construction-period air quality mitigation measures include: track out pads to prevent
off-site migration of soils; mechanical street sweeping of construction areas and
surrounding streets/sidewalks; removal of construction waste in covered or enclosed
trailers; wetting of exposed soils and stockpiles to prevent dust generation;
minimizing stockpiling of materials and storage of construction waste on-site; turning
off construction equipment when not in use and minimizing idling times; minimizing
the duration that soils are left exposed; and use of marine vessels that will be certified
by the manufacturer to comply with applicable marine engine emission standards.
Conclusion
Based on review of the FEIR and in consultation with State Agencies, I find that the
FEIR adequately and properly complies with MEPA and its implementing regulations. The
EEA# 16231 FEIR Certificate January 28, 2022
21
project may proceed to State permitting. State Agencies and the Proponent should forward copies
of the final Section 61 Findings to the MEPA Office for publication in accordance with 301
CMR 11.12.
____January 28, 2022 ________________________
Date Kathleen A. Theoharides
Comments received:
11/17/2021 Centerville-Osterville-Marston Mills (COMM) Fire District
01/19/2022 Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF)
01/19/2022 Vineyard Power Cooperative
01/20/2022 Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod
01/20/2022 Barnstable Clean Water Coalition
01/20/2022 Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources (BUAR)
01/20/2022 Ann G. Berwick
01/20/2022 Cape Cod Climate Change Collaborative
01/20/2022 Senator Julian Cyr, Cape and Islands District
Representative Dylan Fernandes, Barnstable, Dukes and Nantucket District
01/21/2022 Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
01/21/2022 Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP)
01/21/2022 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)/Southeast
Regional Office (SERO)
01/21/2022 Mass Audubon
1
Strysky, Alexander (EEA)
From:Crocker, Craig <CCrocker@commfiredistrict.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 17, 2021 1:59 PM
To:Strysky, Alexander (EEA)
Subject:EEA #16231 and the Project name [New England Wind 1 Connector
Hi- please find this message for the above project.
C-O-MM water dept’s infrastructure will be impacted during the installation of duct bank. We would request new water
lines be installed in the impacted areas.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and
others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email
security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security,
compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human
error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.
CAUTION: This email originated from a sender outside of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts mail
system. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries
251 Causeway Street, Suite 400, Boston, MA 02114
p: (617) 626-1520 | f: (617) 626-1509
www.mass.gov/marinefisheries
CHARLES D. BAKER KARYN E. POLITO KATHLEEN A. THEOHARIDES RONALD S. AMIDON DANIEL J. MCKIERNAN
Governor Lt. Governor Secretary Commissioner Director
January 19, 2022
Secretary Kathleen Theoharides
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA)
Attn: MEPA Office
Alex Strysky, EEA No. 16231
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
Dear Secretary Theoharides:
The Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF) has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) by Park City Wind LLC for the New England Wind 1 Connector project
(formerly Vineyard Wind Connector 2), which is part of the larger Park City Wind Project. The
overall Park City Wind project includes an 800 MW wind turbine array in the central section of
BOEM Lease Area OCS A-0501, which is located to the south, southwest of Vineyard Wind 1.
The array is anticipated to include from 50 to 81 Wind Turbine Generators (WTGs) outfitted
with monopile or piled jacket foundations and oriented in an east -west, north-south grid with 1
nautical mile spacing. The overall project infrastructure includes an offshore electrical service
platform, two offshore export cables, and an onshore substation in Barnstable.
The New England Wind 1 Connector project (NE Wind 1 Connector) represents the portion of
the Park City Wind project that is within Massachusetts state waters (the OECC is 63 miles long
with approximately 23 miles in Massachusetts) and includes only the OECC. NE Wind 1
Connector will largely utilize the OECC developed for the Vineyard Wind Connector
1. However, the OECC has been widened by approximately 985 feet to the west and 985 feet to
the east in a section running along Muskeget Channel, increasing the average width to 3,800 feet
with a range in width between 3,100 and 5,100 feet.
The cable route would travel between Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket
through Muskeget Channel, then continue north through Nantucket Sound to landfall at
Craigville Public Beach or Covell’s Beach in the Town of Barnstable. It would go through the
town waters of Edgartown, Nantucket, Barnstable, and possibly Mashpee. The proposed OECC
would contain two 275-kV three-core alternating current (AC) cables and one or more fiber optic
cables for communication, temperature measurement, and prot ection of the high voltage
system with a typical separation between cables of 165 feet. The NE Wind 1 cables would be
installed with a minimum separation of 330 feet from the Vineyard Wind 1 cables with greater
separation anticipated in the deeper regions of the cable route. The target cable burial depth is 5-
8 feet. In areas containing sand waves, dredging is anticipated to achieve adequate burial depth,
resulting in estimated potential dredge volumes in state waters up to 106,000 cubic yards across
a 25-acre area. An additional 18 acres and 12.7 acres of impact are anticipated from trenching
and anchoring, respectively, in state waters. For areas where burial is not feasible, hard structures
may be used as cable protection in the form of rock, gabion rock bags, concrete mattresses, or
half-shell pipes. Offshore cable installation is proposed using jetting, jet plow, plow, or
mechanical trenching. Proposed dredging methods consist of trailing suction hopper dredge
(TSHD) or jetting by controlled flow excavation. If TSHD is used, dredge material would be
transported and deposited elsewhere within the surveyed area containing sand waves. Horizontal
directional drilling (HDD) will be used for the approximate 1,000- to 1,200-foot section reaching
the landfall site.
As outlined previously in our Environmental Notification Form (ENF) and Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) comment letters, the OECC traverses habitat for a diverse array of fish
and invertebrate species. The primary resources of concern in Nan tucket Sound that are
vulnerable to the adverse effects of cable laying and EMF include (but are not limited to)
shellfish, longfin squid (Doryteuthis pealeii) and squid eggs, knobbed whelk (Busycon carica)
and channeled whelk (Busycotypus canaliculatus), and flatfish. Both commercial and
recreational fisheries are active throughout the OECC area.
MA DMF previously reviewed the DEIR for this project and submitted a comment letter to
MEPA on June 9, 2021 including recommendations for consideration in developing the FEIR.
The FEIR includes a copy of our comment letter with responses to our individual
comments (DMF 01 through 15). While some of our DEIR comments are clearly and adequately
addressed in the FEIR responses, some information requested for inclusion in the FEIR
remains outstanding. In many instances, the response section did not directly answer our
information requests but instead referenced general sections of the FEIR. The response section
should provide direct point-by-point answers to our posed questions and information requests to
allow us to more efficiently assess the degree to which the FEIR addresses the recommendations
provided from the DEIR review. We further detail our responses to outstanding requests made
previously in our DEIR comment letter and provide recommendations for further assessing
impact below:
• MA DMF is satisfied with the Proponent’s responses to DMF Comments 03-10 and 12-
14 provided in Section 7 of the FEIR. Brief clarifying points are made for Comments 05
and 13 and recommendations for more detailed responses are provided below for all
remaining MA DMF comments on the DEIR.
• DMF 01 Response: “Existing benthic habitat within the OECC is described in Section
2.1.1, and a discussion of benthic organisms that incorporates results from the MA
inshore bottom trawl survey is provided in Section 2.1.1.1.”
This response largely addresses MA DMF’s request for a more comprehensive
description of vulnerable species. Among vulnerable species referenced in our DEIR
comment letter, longfin squid and horseshoe crab habitats were only characterized in the
FEIR using video survey data. Bottom trawl survey data should also be used to further
characterize habitat for these species, although the proposed timing of cable installation
to avoid the April to June period in inshore waters should minimize potential impacts to
squid resources. Section 2.1.1.1 does not provide strategies for minimizing impacts to
sensitive benthic species as requested by MA DMF. Section 2.1.2 provides a description
of expected pre-construction species assemblage recovery times, sediment dispersion
modeling, and prioritization of least environmentally impactful cable installation
machinery. MA DMF recommends that this section be expanded to include minimization
strategies (e.g., a comparison of the relative magnitude of cable installation machinery
impacts to these species).
• DMF 02 Response: “As described in the response to MEPA 15, in November 2021,
GeoSubsea provided the agencies of the Massachusetts Ocean Team with an external
drive containing the requested data from marine surveys of the OECC.”
MA DMF has not received these data to date and so reiterates this data request. Data can
be sent to: John Logan, Environmental Analyst, MA DMF, 836 S. Rodney French
Boulevard, New Bedford, MA 02744. MA DMF continues to request that all substate
data be produced in the same Excel spreadsheet as the Commonwealth’s substrate data
and interpreted substrate units be produced as an ArcGIS shapefile or geodatabase. All
data should be provided digitally in formats compatible with ArcGIS to enable
comparison with existing datasets. Acoustic mosaics should be provided as geotiffs at the
maximum resolution possible. There should be at least four geotiffs provided: multibeam
backscatter, sidescan sonar backscatter, multibeam bathymetry, and backscatter draped
on bathymetry. The date of data co llection should be easily discernable for all products.
• DMF 05 Response: “The Proponent will coordinate with Mr. Camisa to avoid direct
conflicts between cable laying activities and the DMF spring and fall bottom trawl
surveys.”
The MA DMF Resource Assessment Project is currently undergoing restructuring.
During this transition period, communications regarding MA DMF’s bottom trawl
surveys should be directed to Vincent Manfredi and Mark Szymanski.
• DMF 11 Response: “The discussion of cable protection in Section 2.1.2.3 includes a
description of vulnerability to fishing gear impacts.”
MA DMF is satisfied with the expanded discussion of the relative ecological value s of
cable armoring materials. However, Section 2.1.2.3 states that “should cable protection
be required, it will be designed to minimize impacts to fishing gear to the extent feasible,
and fishermen will be informed of the areas where protection is used…Any type of cable
protection has the potential to snag fishing gear, but such protection is designed to
minimize the risk of such snagging.” This analysis fails to provide a comparison of the
relative vulnerabilities of armoring materials to fishing gear as requested by MA DMF.
MA DMF recommends that this section be expanded to compare potential fishing gear
impacts across armoring materials.
• DMF 13 Response: “The habitat value of concrete mattresses is addressed in Section
2.1.2.3. As described in Section 2.1.2.3, the mattresses may also include aerated
polyethylene fronds, which will float (resembling seaweed) and encourage sediments to
be deposited on the mattress”
MA DMF recommends that the potential inclusion of polyethylene fronds be further
described and discussed in the state and federal permitting process. In particular, potential
frond degradation and creation of marine debris should be assessed.
• DMF 15 Response: “As discussed in Section 3.1, the Proponent’s fisheries science
program is currently one of the largest offshore wind-supported programs in the country,
with the Proponent providing more than $2 million in annual funding for the SMAST
surveys along with financial and technical support for the other fisheries science efforts.
The Proponent is an active member and co-chair of the ROSA and financially supporting
ROSA-led efforts (through the joint industry task force) to support regional fisheries
research and monitoring efforts. The Proponent is also collaborating with several
Regional Regulatory and Science Organizations or Entities for long -term fisheries
monitoring and research.”
MA DMF is aware of the ongoing Lobster Ventless Trap, Black Sea Bass, Plankton
Survey; Bottom Trawl Survey; and Drop Camera Survey undertaken by SMAST
according to recommendations provided by Cadrin et al. (2019) [1]. However, these
survey plans and completed reports are specific to the Wind Development Area (WDA)
and are not referenced in the FEIR. The only proposed fisheries monitoring described in
the FEIR for the NE Wind 1 Connector component of the project in state waters is a
nighttime grab sampling survey targeting sand lance (Ammodytes spp.). The WDA
surveys should be described and any additional fisheries monitoring proposed for the NE
Wind 1 Connector should be discussed. Reference to these surveys should incorporate a
discussion of post-construction survey timelines and any expected conflicts with future
offshore wind development.
• The preferred Benthic Habitat Monitoring Plan (BHMP) (Option 2) does not propose
direct sampling of the NE Wind 1 Connector cables because it would be “difficult to
identify impacts and recovery specifically associated with the NE Wind 1 Connector and
may lessen the scientific validity of any monitoring done for NE Wind 1 Connector due to
the confounding factors associated with adjacent projects. It would also be logistically
challenging to monitor the cable pair for NE Wind 1 Connector if construction is ongoing
for cables farther west because safety zones around installation equipment and anchor
spreads may interfere with access to monitoring sites.” Instead, Option 2 proposes to
sample NE Wind 2 Connector, stating that “repeating the BAG sample design…would
capture the impact and recovery of habitats to the east and west of the entire corridor
over the duration of the installation process…without confounding the assessment by
sampling in areas with temporally overlapping construction impacts .” While this plan
would capture the impact and recovery at the edges of the entire cable corridor, it fails to
sample the area of the corridor potentially subject to the greatest magnitude of impact due
to overlap of Connector project construction schedules. Retaining the BACI design
proposed for NE Wind 1 Connector in Option 1 in addition to the BAG designs proposed
for both Vineyard Wind 1 Connector and NE Wind 2 Connector projects may provide an
opportunity to assess both project-specific impacts at either end of the cable corridor and
cumulative impacts at the center of the impact site. Furthermore, as described in the
Proponent’s response to DMF Comment 06, vessels will not be precluded from operating
within the OECC except where temporary 1-km safety buffer zones are established. MA
DMF looks forward to working with the Proponent to further refine the BHMP design
through the agency working group framework referenced in the FEIR.
Questions regarding this review may be directed to John Logan and Simonetta Harrison in our
New Bedford office at john.logan@mass.gov and simonetta.harrison@mass.gov.
Sincerely,
Daniel J. McKiernan
Director
cc: Barnstable Conservation Commission
Edgartown Conservation Commission
Mashpee Conservation Commission
Nantucket Conservation Commission
Amy Croteau, Barnstable Natural Resource Officer and Shellfish Constable
Corinne Snowdon, Epsilon Associates
Alison Verkade, Sue Tuxbury, Kaitlyn Shaw, NMFS
Lisa Engler, Todd Callaghan, Robert Boeri, Steve McKenna, CZM
Ed Reiner, Tim Timmerman, EPA
Amy Hoenig, Eve Schluter, DFW
David Wong, David Hill, David Johnston, Mille Garcia-Serrano, DEP
Tori LaBate, DFG
Tracy Pugh, Steve Wilcox, Derek Perry, Melanie Griffin, Kelly Whitmore, Erin Burke, Tom
Shields, Mark Rousseau, John Logan, Simonetta Harrison, Keri Anne Goncalves, Emma
Gallagher, DMF
References
[1] Cadrin, S., K. Stokesbury, and A. Zygmunt. 2019. Recommendations for Planning Pre-
and Post-Construction Assessments of Fisheries in the Vineyard Wind Offshore Wind
Lease Area. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, School for Marine Science and
Technology, Department of Fisheries Oceanography.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a2eae32be42d64ed467f9d1/t/5d67fe0cd3c92 c000
1a9549d/1567096363797/SMAST+Fishermen+Workshops+Report+and+Studies+Recom
mendations.pdf.
DM/SH/JL/sd
P.O. Box 1077, West Tisbury, MA 02575
t. 508.693.3002; info@vineyardpower.com
www.vineyardpower.com
January 19, 2022
Alex Strysky
Environmental Analyst – MEPA Office
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
Dear Mr. Strysky,
On behalf of Vineyard Power Cooperative, I would like to thank the Executive Office of Energy and
Environmental Affairs (EEA) for the opportunity to provide comments in response to the Avangrid
Renewables Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for their New England Wind Connector 1
(formerly Vineyard Wind Connector 2) project (EEA Number 16231).
The New England Wind Connector 1 project is another important transmission project for our state
and region which is necessary to deliver approximately an addi tional 800 megawatts (MW) of clean
electricity into our grid. Building on the successful relationships built with the local communities
over the course of permitting and developing their first project, Avangrid has demonstrated that
project impacts due to construction will be minimized using carefully sited buried transmission, time -
of-year restrictions for both marine and upland construction, coordination with municipal
infrastructure construction, and proven traffic, erosion control and stormwater mitiga tion measures.
Once completed the project will result in an annual reduction of approximately 1.59 million tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions across New England, the equivalent of removing
approximately 320,000 cars from the road each year. Projects at this scale are essential if local
towns, the Commonwealth, and the Nation are to achieve ambitious goals laid out by local governing
bodies, Governor Baker and the Massachusetts Legislature and President Biden.
On behalf of our approximately 3,500 members, Vineyard Power Cooperative expresses our full
support for all aspects of the Park City Wind project, including the New England Wind Connector 1.
The project’s benefits far outweigh the negative impacts we face if we continue to rely o n fossil
fuels.
Thank you for providing an opportunity to provide feedback on this project.
Sincerely,
Richard Andre
President – Vineyard Power Cooperative
100% Recycled Paper
482 Main Street | Dennis, MA 02638
Tel: 508-619-3185 | info@apcc.org | www.apcc.org
Andrew Gottlieb
Executive Director
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Eliza McClennen
President
Steven Koppel
Vice President
Bob Ciolek
Treasurer
Jack Looney
Clerk
John Cumbler
Margo Fenn
Joshua Goldberg
DeeDee Holt
Thomas Huettner
Pat Hughes
Elysse Magnotto-Cleary
Blue Magruder
Stephen Mealy
Wendy Northcross
Kris Ramsay
Robert Summersgill
Charles Sumner
Taryn Wilson
January 20, 2022
Secretary Kathleen Theoharides
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
MEPA Office
Attention: Alexander Strysky, MEPA Analyst
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
RE: New England Wind 1 Connector Final Environmental Impact Report, EEA #
16231
Dear Secretary Theoharides:
The Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC) has reviewed the Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) for the New England Wind 1 Connector project and submits the
following comments.
Founded in 1968, APCC is the Cape Cod region’s leading nonprofit enviro nmental
advocacy and education organization, working for the adoption of laws, policies and
programs that protect and enhance Cape Cod’s natural resources and quality of life.
The FEIR for the NE Wind 1 Connector describes the project, which comprises the
state-jurisdictional elements of the Park City Wind project, as an 800-megawatt
offshore wind energy project that will result in “an annual reduction of
approximately 1.59 million tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) emissions
across New England, or the equivalent of removing approximately 310,000 new cars
from the road.” This project will play an important role in efforts by Massachusetts
to meet is ambitious greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, as required by the
Global Warming Solutions Act. Once operational, it will significantly reduce reliance
on fossil fuels in Massachusetts and across the New England region. Locally, it will
improve the reliability of the energy supply on Cape Cod, with the added—and
critically important—benefit of that energy being clean and renewable.
In comments submitted by APCC for the project’s Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR), we identified several issue areas where we sought clarification or
100% Recycled Paper
482 Main Street | Dennis, MA 02638
Tel: 508-619-3185 | info@apcc.org | www.apcc.org
additional information regarding offshore and onshore elements of the project
relevant to Cape Cod’s natural resources, including the Cape’s surrounding marine
environment. The project applicant responded to APCC’s comments in the FEIR and, based on
the applicant’s responses, APCC believes that our questions have been adequately addressed.
Specifically:
• Information about an Oil Spill Response Plan for offshore refueling of construction vessels.
The Proponent is drafting an Oil Spill Response Plan consistent with federal requirements
for Outer Continental Shelf Facilities, which will be finalized during the federal review
process.
• The preferred method for crossing the Centerville River. The project applicant has identified
a microtunnel as the preferred method of crossing the Centerville River, which would avoid
any impacts to the river or the riverbank. Impacts to riverfront area and wetland buffer
zone would be temporary, resulting in no permanent impacts.
• A finalized Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan for the substation site. A Spill
Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan for the substation site will be finalized
during the project permitting process. However, the FEIR does include a detailed
description of the proposed substation containment system, which appears to provide
sufficient protection of groundwater from potential spills or stormwater runoff, with 110
percent containment capacity for substation dielectric fluid in addition to the capacity to
accommodate stormwater from a Probable Maximum Precipitation event, defined as 30
inches of rain.
• A stormwater pollution prevention plan for onshore construction activity. Stormwater
management and erosion and sediment control measures for construction activity along the
onshore cable route were described in the DEIR. APCC assumes that any necessary
alterations to the plan will be finalized during the permitting process.
• Continued coordination with the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program for
avoiding, minimizing and mitigating potential impacts to rare species habitat, including
finalization of a Piping Plover Protection Plan. The Piping Plover Protection Plan and time of
year restrictions for construction activity in piping plover habitat areas were discussed in
the FEIR. The FEIR also confirms that the project applicant continues to consult with the
Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program regarding avian protection and
conservation measures related to the project. Although the FEIR states that no avian
conservation measures are proposed specifically for the NE Wind 1 Connector portion of
the project (as opposed to the full federally reviewed Park City Wind project), the project
applicant expects continued discussions with NHESP about possible collaboration. APCC
strongly encourages the project applicant and NHESP to determine an appropriate role for
the state-jurisdictional NE Wind 1 Connector in avian and other rare species conservation
100% Recycled Paper
482 Main Street | Dennis, MA 02638
Tel: 508-619-3185 | info@apcc.org | www.apcc.org
measures that could count as a project benefit.
• Proposed mitigation for land clearing at the substation site. The FEIR confirms that the
project applicant will provide a mitigation proposal for land that will be cleared due to
project construction, including for the construction of the substation, durin g the Cape Cod
Commission Development of Regional Impact review process. APCC will review and
comment on the proposed open space mitigation at that time.
APCC once again applauds the project applicant and the town of Barnstable for their
collaboration on utilizing the installation of the onshore cables to at the same time install
sewering for wastewater treatment. APCC strongly encourages continued collaboration on this
initiative. APCC also commends the town for dedicating the project applicant’s host com munity
agreement payment toward the town’s water stabilization fund, which will be set aside for
water infrastructure projects. According to the FEIR, the Vineyard Wind 1 collaboration resulted
in an estimated $3-4 million savings in sewer construction costs, and it is anticipated that
similar savings will be achieved through the NE Wind 1 Connector collaboration.
APCC supports the applicant’s plans to establish an Offshore Wind Protected Marine Species
Mitigation Fund for research on best practices and new technologies to reduce potential sound
impacts and collision threats from the development of offshore wind. APCC also welcomes the
proposal by the applicant to develop a framework for a monitoring program in federal waters
for avian and bat species for the post-construction phase of the Park City Wind project. APCC
also supports the applicant’s statement in the FEIR that, although it will be based on the
framework established for Vineyard Wind 1, the avian and bat monitoring program will
incorporate flexibility to accommodate “new technology and lessons learned.”
The NE Wind 1 Connector project, as the Massachusetts jurisdictional portion of the Park City
Wind project, is a critically important step forward in transitioning away from regional relian ce
on fossil fuels. We call on Massachusetts state, regional and local permitting authorities and the
project applicant to continue to work together to ensure a rigorous, comprehensive and
successful review of this project.
APCC thanks the Secretary for this opportunity to provide comments.
Sincerely,
Andrew Gottlieb
Executive Director
The COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
251 Causeway Street, Suite 800, Boston, MA 02114-2199
Tel. (617) 626-1014 Fax (617) 626-1240 Web Site: www.mass.gov/czm/buar/index.htm
Printed on Recycled Paper
January 20, 2022
Secretary Kathleen A. Theoharides
ATTN: Alexander Strysky, MEPA Unit
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
RE: Final Environmental Impact Report, EEA# 16231 New England Wind 1 Connector (formerly Vineyard Wind
Connector 2), Nantucket Sound, MA
Dear Secretary Theoharides,
The staff of the Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources (BUAR) has reviewed the above-
referenced project’s FEIR dated November 15, 2021, prepared by Epsilon Associates, Inc., on behalf of Park City Wind
LLC. We offer the following comments.
Under Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Ch. 6, s.’s 179-180, and Ch. 91, s. 63, the BUAR has statutory
jurisdiction within state waters and is the sole trustee of the Commonwealth’s underwater heritage, charged with the
responsibility of encouraging the discovery and reporting, as well as the preservation and protection, of underwater
archaeological resources. Underwater archaeological resources located within the waters of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts are property of the Commonwealth, which holds title to these resources and retains regulatory authority over
their use. Under Massachusetts General Law, no person, organization or corporation may “remove, displace, damage, or
destroy” any underwater archaeological resources located within the Commonwealth’s submerged lands except through
consultation with the BUAR and in conformity with the permits it issues.
While the proponent lists the BUAR Special Use Permit in Table 1-6, BUAR Special Use Permits are not granted
as approvals of projects undergoing environmental review, as is the case with other agency permits. Instead, BUAR Special
Use Permits are granted to the project proponent’s qualified archaeological consultants to conduct underwater
archaeological resource identification surveys within the state waters portion of the project area, so that BUAR can assess
and comment on the project's potential impacts to identified resources and develop a plan with the project proponent, their
consultants, and other state and federal agencies for avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating those impacts. These surveys are to
be conducted in conformance with federal and state laws and BUAR's regulations and published Policy Guidance for the
Discovery of Unanticipated Archaeological Resources. BUAR Special Use Permits are required for addressing
unanticipated discoveries and conducting any mitigation activities in state waters. BUAR permits are subject to annual
review and renewal. Archaeological investigation activities and techniques allowed by a Special Use Permit are subject to a
BUAR-approved archaeological research design. All underwater archaeological resources recovered under a BUAR Special
Use Permit remain the property of the Commonwealth. Permit requirements and standards are outlined in the BUAR
Regulations (312 Code of Massachusetts Regulations [CMR] 2.0-2.15) and in the BUAR’s published policy guidance
documents.
In Section 4.2 Marine Archaeology of the FEIR, only BOEM’s requirements are referenced regarding the
Proponent’s conduct of the marine archaeological assessment of the project area and avoidance and mitigation of potential
adverse effects to significant cultural resources resulting from the Project. For reasons noted in the previous paragraph, in
addition to BOEM’s requirements, the underwater archaeological resource assessment survey, responses to unanticipated
discoveries, and any mitigation activities conducted for the Project within the Commonwealth’s waters must also conform
with BUAR's regulations and published Policy Guidance for the Discovery of Unanticipated Archaeological Resources,
and be conducted under a BUAR Special Use Permit.
In the same section of the FEIR, the Proponent states that while “archaeological investigations of the OECC
(within the Nantucket Sound Traditional Cultural Property) have recovered no pre-Contact Native American cultural
materials to date,” and that for “much of the OECC, there is little potential for submerged cultural resources” due to “the
general lack of preserved former terrestrial landscape or landform features,” analysis of geophysical and geotechnical
2
survey data, nonetheless, was reported as indicating the presence of “ancient stream channel, lake, pond, and estuarine
landscape features…scattered throughout the Project area…[that] may have the potential to contain archaeological
materials.” The Proponent adds that “avoidance of these features will likely not be possible.” However, no information to
support any of these conclusions is provided, nor is there any analysis or assessment of the ages and individual
archaeological sensitivities of these distinctly different identified ancient landscape features presented in the FEIR.
Preserved ancient landforms located within the Nantucket Sound Traditional Cultural Property, would, presumably, all
potentially be contributing elements to that Property.
Again, in Section 4.2, the Proponent notes that a “preliminary mitigation proposal is being included with the
marine archaeological resources assessment,” that the report is being prepared for submittal to BOEM, and that the
Proponent will ask BOEM to share the report with BUAR. As title-holder to all underwater cultural resources in
Massachusetts waters, and in conformance with the Massachusetts General Law and the requirements of the Special Use
Permit issued by BUAR for the Proponent’s marine archaeological surveys in Commonwealth, BUAR expects to be
consulted with directly and to receive a copy of the marine archaeological assessment report presenting the results and
recommendations from the survey of the state waters portion of the Project. The BUAR also expects to have an opportunity
to review and comment on the Project’s proposed avoidance and unanticipated discoveries plans and mitigation activities in
state waters prior to and during their implementation, and for these proposed plans and activities to conform with BUAR’s
regulations and published Policy Guidance for Establishing Shipwreck and Underwater Resource Avoidance Protection
Plans and Policy Guidance for the Discovery of Unanticipated Archaeological Resources. As noted above, addressing any
unanticipated discoveries or conducting mitigation activities will require a BUAR Special Use Permit.
Finally, Section 4.2 notes that a single potential shipwreck site was identified and that the site will be avoided. It is
unclear whether this shipwreck is located within or outside of Commonwealth waters or what if any formal avoidance plan
has been developed for this site. If this shipwreck is located within Massachusetts waters, BUAR expects to be consulted
and for a formal avoidance plan to be prepared for the site that conforms withs BUAR’s published Policy Guidance for
Establishing Shipwreck and Underwater Resource Avoidance Protection Plans.
The Board appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments as part of the MEPA review process. Should you
have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at the address above, by email at
David.S.Robinson@mass.gov.
Sincerely,
David S. Robinson
Director
/dsr
Cc: Brona Simon, MHC
Lisa B. Engler, Robert Boeri, Todd Callaghan, and Stephen McKenna, MCZM (via email attachment)
Bettina Washington, WTGH/A (via email attachment)
David Weeden, MWT (via email attachment)
Chris Rodstrom, Vineyard Wind (via email attachment)
Christina Hoffman, Vineyard Wind (via email attachment)
Maria Hartnett, Epsilon (via email attachment)
Kim Smith, Gray & Pape, Inc. (via email attachment)
Cape Cod Climate Change Collaborative
capecodclimate.org | P.O. Box 46, Yarmouth Port, MA 02675 | capecodclimate@gmail.com
BY EMAIL DELIVERY ONLY: alexander.strysky@state.ma.us
January 20, 2021
Alex Strysky, Environmental Analyst
MEPA Office, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston Mass 02114
Re: EEA No. 16231 – New England Wind 1 Connector Final Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mr. Strysky:
On behalf of the Cape Cod Climate Change Collaborative (Climate Collaborative), I am writing to endorse the Park City Wind
project, which includes the New England Wind 1 Connector described in detail in the Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR). We urge a certificate be issued for the FEIR so the project may continue through the state, local, and regional
permitting process and further on to construction.
The Climate Collaborative is a non-profit organization whose mission is to help the Cape and Islands region reach carbon
neutrality—or net zero—by enhancing collaboration, communication, and activism among organizations, institutions and
individuals committed to mitigating the climate crisis. Our membership of more than 2,700 individuals includes leaders from
business, transportation, building, education, science, faith, clean energy, public policy, environmental protection, and activist
communities across the region.
The information contained in the FEIR, much like the DEIR, demonstrates that offshore wind energy can be developed in a
manner that protects wildlife, sensitive habitat, and maritime uses such as commercial fishing and marine navigation, while
mitigating climate change impacts on our region. The project will deliver clean, renewable energy to hundreds of thousands of
homes in starting in 2023 and will help elevate the U.S. to a leadership position in the critically important offshore wind energy
industry. Expected to result in the reduction of approximately 1.59 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, the project
will take the equivalent of approximately 300,000 cars taken off the road in New England each year.
The Climate Collaborative has followed the development of the Vineyard Wind project very closely. We appreciate the care
taken by the project leadership and staff to actively reach out for input from the various constituencies likely to be affected by
the wind farm (fishermen, local towns, marine mammals, etc.). Collaborative members provided input, and our ideas were well
received. The result was a plan that has clear and substantial benefits for the Cape and Islands, and set precedents that are
reflected in the Park City project.
With this history in mind, the Climate Collaborative strongly endorses the Park City Wind project and urges expeditious
consideration of the FEIR to allow this important energy project to move forward.
Sincerely,
Richard Delaney
Richard F. Delaney
President, Board of Directors
The General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Senator Julian Cyr · Representative Dylan Fernandes
Mr. Alex Strysky, Environmental Analyst January 20, 2022
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
Sent via Email: alexander.strysky@state.ma.us
RE: New England Wind 1 Connector Final Environmental Impact Report (EEA No. 16231)
Dear Mr. Strysky,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for New
England Wind 1 Connector, the transmission and grid interconnection plan for Avangrid’s Park City
Wind project. This project is another important step necessary towards meeting the goals of the 2008
Global Warming Solutions Act, to decarbonize New England’s electricity grid, and transition to net zero
emissions using renewable energy sources.
Massachusetts was a first-mover in offshore shore wind energy starting with the 2016 Energy Diversity
Act which called for utility-scale offshore wind energy projects. This act saw broad, bipartisan support,
and an alliance of environmental, labor and business interests who saw not only the clean energy
benefits, but also the opportunity to build a new business sector in the United States. The state’s
bipartisan support for offshore wind energy has only grown since. The recently signed Next Generation
Roadmap Act raised the offshore wind procurement target to 5,600 megawatts, sets a target of net zero
emissions by 2050, and authorizes sector by sector emissions limits. Other states have quickly followed
our example and sought to procure clean affordable offshore wind energy for their ratepayers including
Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York. Avangrid’s projects and similar offshore wind projects are
essential to meeting the region’s emissions reduction targets.
Avangrid’s Park City Wind project will add 800 megawatts of renewable offshore wind energy to the
New England electric grid, increasing grid reliability, improving affordability, and reducing CO2
emissions by 1.59 million annually, the equivalent of removing 320,000 vehicles from roadways. The
energy generated and transmitted from Park City Wind will reduce the region’s reliance on natural gas
and oil for electricity generation and reduce year-round price volatility as natural gas supplies are
already constrained. Not only are new offshore wind projects vital to decarbonize the region’s electricity
sector, they are also essential to replace retiring fossil fuel plants, a key step in reaching environmental
justice in communities where air quality is impacted negatively by such facilities.
The Final Environmental Impact Report for New England Wind 1 Connector is a comprehensive
document offering deep analysis of the project plans and potential environmental impacts. The plans
detailed in the FEIR have many similarities to Avangrid’s first project approved by the Commonwealth,
including a similar transmission cables corridor, similar cable installation methods, and making landfall
and connecting to the electric grid in Barnstable. The project also offers similar benefits including local
economic development, job growth, municipal tax revenue, grid reliability, regional ratepayer savings,
and more. After reviewing the DEIR, we believe that the project’s long-term benefits significantly
surpass the potential impacts, which are expected to be minor or short-term during construction.
Again, we offer our support for New England Wind 1 Connector and urge you to complete a thorough
review without delay.
Respectfully,
Dylan Fernandes Julian Cyr
State Representative State Senator
Barnstable, Dukes, and Nantucket Cape and Islands
Ann G. Berwick
131 Lake Avenue
Newton, MA 02459
January 21, 2022
Alex Strysky
Environment Analyst
MEPA Office
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
alexander.strysky@mass.gov
Dear Mr. Strysky :
I am writing in support of New England Wind 1 Connector, EEA # 16231 (formerly Vineyard
Wind Connector 2) and Park City Wind (together, the “Project”). I was Undersecretary for
Energy in Massachusetts from 2006 to 2010 and chair of the Massachusetts Department of
Public Utilities from 2010 to 2015. From 2006 to 2015 I was also a member of the MA Energy
Facilities Siting Board. I am a member of the board of Vineyard Power and am on the Mothers
Out Front legislative team and chair of its legislative Rapid Response Team.
There is really no way to say this strongly enough: we need more offshore wind. It is the only
way to reach the state’s and the country’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. Here in
New England there is no resource that can compete with offshore wind. After a decade and a
half of vigorous development of solar power in Massachusetts, which is an important resource
even in our climate, we have approximately 2,600 MW of solar nameplate capacity. At a 14%
capacity factor, that means 364 MW of solar power.
Compare the capacity of offshore wind: at 800 MW nameplate capacity and a capacity factor of
45%, the Project alone will contribute 360 MW of power to the NE grid. In other words, more
energy from a single offshore wind project than from a decade and a half of solar development.
Moreover, the state’s recently passed Act Creating a Next-Generation Roadmap for
Massachusetts Climate Policy requires our electric utilities to procure increased amounts of offshore
wind. And President Biden has recently pledged the country to reach 30,000 MW of offshore
wind by 2030.
This Project also brings additional benefits to the state and the region: an increase in the
diversity and reliability of New England’s energy supply, especially critical during the winter and
in light of nuclear plant closings; increases in tax revenues to local governments; and thousands
of local jobs.
I want in particular to highlight the jobs. Avangrid is engaged in a continued effort to train and
develop a New England-based labor force to support aspects of construction, operation, and
maintenance for offshore wind projects, including this Project. These efforts will continue in
collaboration with area universities, community colleges, and vocational progr ams.
Does the Project have any negative impacts? There is no way to build anything without some
negative impacts, but in this case these impacts are largely temporary, and the FEIR provides a
thoughtful analysis, including extensive measures to minimize and mitigate any environmental
effects. I won’t recite all of these measures here, but they include carefully sited buried
transmission; time-of-year restrictions for both marine and upland construction; and
coordination with municipal infrastructure construction, traffic, erosion control, and
stormwater mitigation measures.
And please remember that any minimal impacts from this and other offshore wind projects are
small compared to the massive impacts of climate change: on birds, on fisheries, on humans,
and especially on the most disadvantaged communities. There is no question that the benefits
of the Project far outweigh any negatives which, again, are largely temporary.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
/s/
Ann G. Berwick
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kathleen A. Theoharides, Secretary, EEA
ATTN: Alex Strysky, MEPA Unit
FROM: Lisa Berry Engler, Director, CZM
DATE: January 21, 2022
RE: EEA-16231, FEIR - Vineyard Wind 2/New England Wind 1 Connector
The Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) has completed its review of
the above-referenced Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), noticed in the Environmental Monitor
dated December 22, 2021 and offers the following comments.
Project Description
Vineyard Wind LLC filed the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) and Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the project on June 11, 2020 and March 19, 2021,
respectively. As a result of a corporate restructuring agreement between Avangrid Renewables and
Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners in September 2021, Park City Wind LLC has acquired the rights
in the Project previously held by Vineyard Wind LLC. Therefore, Park City Wind LLC (the proponent)
is now the proponent of this project. The proponent proposes to install two three-core, high-voltage
alternating current (HVAC) offshore export cables to connect a wind energy project located within
federally designated Wind Energy Area lease OCS-A 0534, to the south of the previously proposed
Vineyard Wind 1 project in lease OCS-A 0501. In addition to the corporate restructuring, the
southwestern portion of lease site 0501 was split off to form lease site 0534, the northeastern portion
of which contains Park City Wind. The subject of this FEIR, New England Wind 1 Connector, is part
of a larger project that seeks to permit an 800-megawatt (MW) offshore wind development under the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) called Park City Wind. The FEIR
describes project elements within state waters, including portions of the offshore export cables, the
onshore transmission and substation, and the interconnection to the electrical grid at the existing 345-
kilovolt (kV) West Barnstable Substation.
New England Wind 1 Connector submarine transmission cables will be laid approximately
165 feet apart and at a minimum of 330 feet to the west of the Vineyard Wind Connector 1 cables in
the Offshore Export Cable Corridor (OECC) originally developed for the Vineyard Wind 1 Connector
cables, so no crossing of the first project will be necessary by the second project. The OECC, including
expansion areas of roughly 985 feet along its western edge and along its eastern edge in Muskeget
Channel, extends through waters in the towns of Edgartown, Nantucket, Barnstable, and possibly
Mashpee. With these expansions, the OECC will range from 3,100 to 5,100 feet wide in state waters.
The total length of the OECC associated with Park City Wind is approximately 63 miles with
approximately 23 miles of the OECC located within state waters. The OECC will make landfall at
Craigsville Beach in Barnstable and all onshore project elements will be located entirely within the
Town of Barnstable.
The two offshore export cables (total length of 46 miles) are proposed to be buried
approximately five to eight feet below the seafloor. In the Environmental Notification Form (ENF)
on this project, the proponent estimated that dredged corridors through sand waves present in
Nantucket Sound would be approximately 65 feet wide for each of the cables. In Table 2-7 of the
FEIR, the proponent estimates that the area of sand wave dredging will total 110,000 cubic yards (cy),
slightly higher than the 106,000 cy estimated in the DEIR. According to Table 2-5, the width of each
cable trench is 1.3-3.3 feet wide, and the estimated volume of sand fluidized during cable laying outside
of sand waves is roughly 147,000 cy. The total area disturbed (Table 2-5) by cable laying including
trenching (18 acres), disturbance from tool skids (56 acres), sand wave dredging (26 acres), and
anchoring of work vessels (12.7 acres) is estimated to be 112.7 acres, slightly above the 112 acres
estimated in Table 4-1 of the DEIR. An additional 7.2-21.5 acres of cover may be needed to ensure
adequate cable burial, although the proponent uses 12 acres as the value for calculating mitigation for
the project. The linear and areal extent of hard seafloor that cannot be avoided is 4.4 miles/15.5-29.8
acres (Table 2-8), well above the 1.8 acres estimated in the DEIR where only trench width was used
to calculate the impact to hard seafloor. The linear and areal extent of complex seafloor that cannot
be avoided is 14.7 miles/52.8 acres, again well above the 5.9 acres estimated in the DEIR.
Ocean Plan
In order to lay the combined 46 miles of export cable, the proponent has estimated 18 acres
of trenching impact due to fluidization of sediments during cable laying, 56 acres of disturbance due
to instrument skids, 26 acres of direct dredging impacts in sand waves, 12.7 acres of seafloor disturbed
by anchor setting for construction vessels, and a range for the area of potential long-term cable
protection of 7.2-21.5 acres (as opposed to the 12.7 acres estimated in the DEIR). Of these impacted
areas, the proponent assumes roughly 19 acres will be in mapped hard bottom and roughly 53 acres
will be in complex bottom, both of which together comprise hard/complex seafloor—a Special,
Sensitive, or Unique resource protected by the Massachusetts ocean management plan. These values
are significantly higher than the 1.8 acres in hard bottom and 5.9 acres in complex habitat estimated
in the DEIR.
The FEIR explains how the proponent will use all practicable measures to avoid disturbing
hard/complex seafloor and that No Less Damaging Environmentally Practicable Alternative to the
project exists. The proponent also previously described (in the DEIR) the public benefits of the
project through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and a host community agreement with the
Town of Barnstable. The public benefits include 1.59 million tons per year of carbon dioxide
equivalents, 850 tons per year of NOx, and 450 tons per year of SO2 emissions that will be offset by
the wind energy generated over the lifetime of the project. In addition, the proponent has committed
to a $16 million host community agreement with the Town of Barnstable.
In the DEIR the proponent proposed an ocean development mitigation fee starting at
$285,500, which is within the range of the Class II fee ($100,000-$350,000) set out in the 2021
Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan, based on an anticipated hard cover of 12 acres and 106,000
cubic yards (cy) of sand wave dredging. The proponent also proposed that the fee would increase by
$10,000 for each acre of cable protection required above the assumed 12 acres of cover and would
increase $500 for every 1,000 cy of sand wave dredging required above the 106,000 cy assumed in the
DEIR. In the FEIR the proponent increased the proposed base fee to $287,500 based upon revised
impacts (i.e., 110,000 cy of sand wave dredging). CZM reiterates a previous comment that for the
purpose of calculating an ocean development mitigation fee, a cable laying proponent should include
the areas of disturbance associated with direct trenching, berms and sediment drape due to sediment
fluidization, instrument skids, sand wave dredging, anchor setting for construction vessels, and the
placement of long-term cable protection. Based on the analysis of impacts and considering the public
benefits associated with the New England Wind 1 Connector project, the calculation of the base fee
and additional impacts fee rates proposed in the FEIR are appropriate.
Species of Concern
According to the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP), the draft
Piping Plover Protection Plan will be finalized as part of the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act
(MESA) permitting process that will commence upon the conclusion of the Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) review. In addition, since the filing of the DEIR and as
documented in a supplemental letter dated December 17, 2021, the proponent has committed to
implement a conservation program to research and address impacts of offshore wind development
on coastal waterbird populations. The program will include research, conservation, and habitat
restoration measures for avian populations that nest, forage, or migrate through offshore wind project
areas. The proponent should continue to coordinate with the NHESP and other state agencies to
develop the specifics of the program including partners, funding, timing, and specific projects. The
development of the coastal waterbird conservation program will also be reviewed as part of CZM's
ongoing federal consistency review process.
Cable Laying
The proponent has estimated that it may need as much as six miles of cable protection (three
miles for each cable) covering 7.2-21.5 acres to ensure that its cables are adequately buried beneath
the seafloor. This is an increase above the 3.5 miles/12.7 acres presented in the DEIR. As stated in
previous comments, CZM discourages the use of armoring and the proponent should, when cable
protection is necessary, use a top cover that is comprised of sediments whose grain size and
composition mimics that of the adjacent seafloor. The proponent should work with the permitting
agencies to implement the hierarchy of preferred cable protection methods presented in the FEIR.
Monitoring Plan
In order to compare the predicted impacts as presented through the MEPA process with actual
project impacts, the proponent should implement a monitoring program that includes both short-
term and long-term studies that quantify the physical effects of dredging, plowing, and cable laying on
seafloor topography, benthic infauna, and sediment grain size; the extent, duration, and
concentration/depth of suspended solids/sediment drape and any effects on flora and fauna (e.g.,
eelgrass); and the as-built location and long-term burial of the export cables.
In the FEIR, the proponent proposes two options for structuring a Benthic Habitat
Monitoring Plan (BHMP) associated with the proposed cable laying. Due to the close proximity and
anticipated construction schedules of the New England Wind 1 and New England Wind 2 Connector
projects, the proponent’s preferred option is to not monitor the impacts of laying the two New
England Wind 1 Connector cables. Instead, the proponent suggests monitoring along the New
England Wind 2 cable corridor in 2024 (preconstruction) and later in 2027, 2029, and 2031 (years 1,
3, and 5 after the New England Wind 2 cables are placed).
The alternate BHMP option outlined in the FEIR is to use a Before After Control Impact
(BACI) design with the “impact” sites being within the footprint of the western cable of the New
England Wind 2 project and the “control” sites being the same as the control sites for the Vineyard
Wind 1 BHMP, located roughly 4,000 feet (1,200 meters) to the east of the western cable for New
England Wind 2. Under the second option the BHMP would measure project impacts to and recovery
of benthic habitats in years 1, 3, and potentially 5 after construction of the New England Wind 1
project. CZM notes that in the DEIR, the proponent stated that studies demonstrate that benthic
assemblages in sandy habitat recover to pre-construction biomass and diversity within 100 days to
four years, confirming that the monitoring periods proposed are appropriate for these habitats.
Benthic sampling along the New England Wind 1 Connector would occur at two monitoring sites
within each of the four habitat zones in state waters and each monitoring site would include three grab
sample stations spaced 165 feet (50 m) apart, with three replicate grabs collected at each station. With
this BHMP option, underwater video and multibeam data are proposed for collection for 985 feet
(300 m) along the cable alignment, encompassing the three grab sample stations at each monitoring
site and matching the length of control site video transects collected. Grab samples and video transects
support the understanding of short-term and long-term impacts of cable laying activities. The second
BHMP design is recommended by CZM to ensure the actual impacts of the project are assessed against
those predicted in the MEPA process and to inform impact estimates for future projects.
Acknowledging the complications associated with monitoring the three proposed cable laying
projects, the proponent should continue to engage state and federal agencies in a dialogue as the
project plans and schedules develop to finalize a BHMP for this project.
Geophysical surveys of both export cables should be conducted immediately after
construction to document and ensure cable location and burial depth. These surveys should include
bathymetric analyses that depict the change in seafloor height after construction as compared to
preconstruction. Reports on as-built cable depth and any near-term changes in seafloor topography
should be discussed with the resource agencies so that remediation options, if necessary, can be
discussed and implemented. As part of the MassDEP 401 Water Quality Certification process, the
proponent should develop a plan to assess and ensure cable burial depth at regular intervals and after
significant storm events so that other water-dependent uses are not threatened or impeded by any
exposed cable segment.
Last, total suspended solids concentrations during construction, both within and outside of
the affected construction area should be monitored and an analysis of the depth and extent of
sediment drape associated with the settling of suspended sediments. The goal of this monitoring is to
be discern the magnitude and duration of impacts that occur during construction and to identify
impacts that are beyond the temporal and spatial scope modeled for the project and described in the
ENF and EIR.
Fisheries Mitigation
The FEIR provides an analysis of the predicted economic exposure of Massachusetts
fishermen from the construction and operation of the OECC in Massachusetts waters. Based on the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and National Marine Fisheries Service fishing revenue
data, annual fishing revenue along the OECC is estimated to be $218,152 (2019 dollars). Based on
assumptions relating to the size of the dynamic safety zone and duration of cable laying activities, the
proponent concludes that fishing revenue in areas impacted by cable installation is approximately
$6,149. Further, it is the proponent’s opinion that the expected economic impact of the New England
Wind 1 Connector on commercial fishing revenue during cable installation would be significantly
lower than the estimated economic exposure of $6,149 because any fishing effort diverted from the
OECC to other areas during cable installation would continue to generate at least some of the fishing
revenues lost in the New England Wind 1 Connector area. In response to the possibility that mobile
bottom fishing gear could snag on cable protection that may be installed on the seafloor along
approximately 7% of the entire OECC (within both federal and state waters), the proponent expects
to establish a gear loss/damage protocol to respond to accidents involving fishing gear interacting
with cable protection. CZM will review the analysis of potential economic exposure to Massachusetts
fisheries with the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries through the federal consistency review
process and in keeping with any guidance developed by BOEM.
Underwater Archeological Resources
The underwater archaeological resource assessment survey, responses to unanticipated
discoveries, and any mitigation activities conducted for the project within the Commonwealth’s waters
must conform to the Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources (BUAR )
regulations and published Policy Guidance for the Discovery of Unanticipated Archaeological Resources and be
conducted under a BUAR Special Use Permit. The proponent states that “archaeological
investigations of the OECC (within the Nantucket Sound Traditional Cultural Property) have
recovered no pre-Contact Native American cultural materials to date,” and that for “much of the
OECC, there is little potential for submerged cultural resources ….” However, no information to
support these conclusions is provided, nor is there an analysis or assessment of the ages and individual
archaeological sensitivities of the identified ancient landscape features presented. The proponent
should consult closely with the BUAR, and both the marine archaeological resources assessment and
mitigation proposal should be provided to BUAR to facilitate their review.
Federal Consistency Review
The proposed project is subject to CZM federal consistency review and must be found to be
consistent with CZM's enforceable program policies. For further information on this process, please
contact Robert Boeri, Project Review Coordinator, at robert.boeri@mass.gov, or visit the CZM web
site at https://www.mass.gov/federal-consistency-review-program.
Sincerely,
Lisa Berry Engler
CZM Director
Cc: David Robinson, BUAR
Todd Callaghan, MA CZM
Steve McKenna, MA CZM
Bob Boeri, MA CZM
Dan McKiernan, MA DMF
John Logan, MA DMF
Simi Harrison, MA DMF
Mark Rousseau, MA DMF
Darcy Karle, Town of Barnstable
Jane Varkonda, Town of Edgartown
Alison Verkade, NMFS
Susan Tuxbury, NMFS
Kaitlyn Shaw, NMFS
Ed Reiner, USEPA
Tim Timmermann, USEPA
Amy Hoenig, MA NHESP
Eve Schluter, MA NHESP
David Wong, MA DEP
David Hill, MA DEP
Holly Carlson Johnston, Epsilon
www.massaudubon.org/advocacy
208 South Great Road, Lincoln, MA 01773
781.259.2172 hricci@massaudubon.org
January 21, 2022
Secretary Kathleen Theoharides
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Attention: MEPA Office
100 Cambridge Street Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
Via Email and MEPA Web Portal: alexander.strysky@mass.gov
Re: EEA # 16231, Final Environmental Impact Report, New England Wind 1 Connector
(formerly Vineyard Wind Connector 2)
Dear Secretary Theoharides:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the
New England Wind 1 Connector (formerly Vineyard Wind Connector 2). This is the transmission
connection for the 800 MW Park City Wind project. Park City is part of the New England Wind
project, which also includes the Commonwealth Wind project.
Many environmental organizations are united in support of responsibly developed offshore wind. We
have long advocated for policies and actions needed to bring it to scale in an environmentally protective
manner. Offshore wind provides a tremendous opportunity to fight climate change, reduce local and
regional air pollution, and grow a new industry that will support thousands of well-paying jobs in both
coastal and inland communities.
Responsible development of offshore wind energy: (i) avoids, minimizes, mitigates, and monitors
adverse impacts on marine and coastal habitats and the wildlife that rely on them, (ii) reduces negative
impacts on other ocean uses, (iii) includes robust consultation with Native American tribes and
communities, (iv) meaningfully engages state and local governments and stakeholders from the outset,
(v) includes comprehensive efforts to avoid impacts to environmental justice communities, and (vi) uses
the best available scientific and technological data to ensure science-based and stakeholder-informed
decision making.
Attached are letters that Mass Audubon and other environmental organizations submitted to the Bureau
of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) on the federal environmental review for the New England
Wind project. To the extent these comments are applicable to the New England Wind 1 Connector
portion of this larger overall project, and within state jurisdiction applicable to review under the
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), please consider these comments in your review.
Sincerely,
E. Heidi Ricci
Director of Policy and Advocacy
Comments in Response to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for
the Vineyard Wind South Project Offshore Massachusetts, 86 Fed.
Reg. 34782 (June 30, 2021)
Submitted by National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense
Council, National Audubon Society, Conservation Law Foundation, All
Our Energy, Audubon Connecticut, Connecticut Audubon, Litchfield
Hills Audubon Society, Mass Audubon, Menunkatuck Audubon
Society, NY4WHALES, Ocean Conservation Research, Quinnipiac
Valley Audubon Society, Surfrider Foundation, and Whale and Dolphin
Conservation
July 30, 2021
Submitted Electronically at regulations.gov
Docket ID: BOEM-2021-0047
1
Contents
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 3
II. BOEM’S Obligations Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act ................................................ 5
A. Overview and Scoping .......................................................................................................................... 5
B. Segmentation of the Two Phases ......................................................................................................... 6
C. Responsible Development of Offshore Wind Power ............................................................................ 7
D. Consideration of Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................. 7
E. Analysis of Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................ 9
1. Scope of Reasonably Foreseeable Offshore Wind Development ..................................................... 9
2. BOEM Should Account for Technological Changes in Future Evaluations ...................................... 10
3. BOEM Must Ensure Robust Data Collection and Monitoring at the Project and Regional Levels to
Properly Assess Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................. 10
F. BOEM Must Identify the Climate and Air Quality Benefits ................................................................. 11
G. The Draft EIS Must Consider a Reasonable Range of Alternatives and Mitigation ............................ 13
H. BOEM Must Comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Recognize and
Respect Tribes’ Sovereign Status and Collaborate Directly with Tribal Governments in a Consultative
Process .................................................................................................................................................... 14
III. Comments Regarding Resource and Specific Impacts ........................................................................... 16
A. BOEM Must Be Transparent as to How Impacts are Quantitatively or Qualitatively Assessed ......... 16
B. Ecosystem Change Should Not Be Framed as “Beneficial”................................................................. 16
C. The Vineyard Wind South Draft EIS Should Account for Ecosystem Uncertainty .............................. 17
D. Benthic Resources, Finfish, Invertebrates, and Essential Fish Habitat ............................................... 17
1. Complex Habitats ............................................................................................................................ 18
2. Impacts to Benthic Habitats from the Vineyard Wind South project ............................................. 20
3. Other Impacts Specific to the OECC and Inter Array Cable ............................................................ 22
4. Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 24
E. Impacts to Marine Mammals .............................................................................................................. 25
1. Status of Marine Mammals in the Project Area .............................................................................. 25
2. BOEM Must Use Best Available Scientific Information to Analyze Impacts to Marine Mammals . 33
3. Advancing Monitoring and Mitigation During Offshore Wind Energy Development ..................... 34
4. The Project Must Adopt Strong Measures to Protect the North Atlantic Right Whale and Other
Large Whales During Construction and Operations ........................................................................... 36
5. Cumulative Impacts - Marine Mammals ......................................................................................... 40
F. Impacts to Sea Turtles ......................................................................................................................... 47
1. Status of Sea Turtles in the Project Area ........................................................................................ 47
2. Acoustic Impact Considerations for Sea Turtles ............................................................................. 49
2
3. Vessel Strike Mitigation .................................................................................................................. 50
4. Pile Driving & High Resolution Geophysical and Geotechnical Survey Mitigation ......................... 50
G. Impacts to Birds .................................................................................................................................. 51
1. The Draft EIS Must Consider the Full Scope of Impacts to Federally Protected Birds and Species
that Trigger Conservation Obligations ................................................................................................ 51
2. The Draft EIS Should Consider Local Population-level Impacts Based on the Best Available Science
............................................................................................................................................................ 55
3. BOEM Should Base Its Impact Analyses on Methods Appropriate for Each Species that Triggers
Conservation Obligations .................................................................................................................... 55
4. The Draft EIS Should Account for the Limitations in the Survey Methods Used to Assess Vineyard
Wind South for Avian Species Present ................................................................................................ 56
5. The Draft EIS Should Address Collision Risk for Species Most at Risk of Collision and be
Transparent in Its Use of Collision Risk Models .................................................................................. 60
6. BOEM Cannot Assume that Larger Turbines, Further Apart, Reduces Risks to Birds ..................... 65
7. The Draft EIS Cannot Ignore the Habitat Loss that Birds May Experience Beyond the Footprint of
Vineyard Wind South’s Construction and Operation ......................................................................... 66
8. The Draft EIS Should Outline BOEM’s Expectation for Monitoring and Adaptive Management
Meant to Address Realized Impacts to Birds Resulting from Project Construction and Operation ... 67
9. The Draft EIS Should Evaluate Cumulative Impacts to Avian Populations from Vineyard Wind
South and All Other Foreseeable Development Offshore .................................................................. 70
10. Adaptive Management and Mitigation for Birds .......................................................................... 71
11. Compensatory Mitigation for Birds............................................................................................... 73
H. Impacts to Bats ................................................................................................................................... 74
1. BOEM Must Require a Rigorous Monitoring Plan to Better Understand Bat Risk Offshore .......... 75
2. BOEM Should Incorporate Available Motus Wildlife Tracking System Data Into Their Analysis .... 76
3. BOEM Should Consult with USFWS About Including the Indiana Bat in Analyses of Affected
Biological Resources ............................................................................................................................ 77
4. Potential Impacts to Cave-hibernating Bats, Including the Federally-listed Northern Long-eared
Bat, from Offshore Components of the Project Must Be Assessed .................................................... 78
5. Seasonal Use of the WEA by Migratory Tree Bats Does Not Imply Low Impact ............................. 79
6. BOEM’s Risk Analysis Must Account for Likely Attraction by Bats to Offshore Wind Turbines ..... 80
7. BOEM Should Not Assume that Fewer, Larger Turbines Reduce Risks to Bats .............................. 81
8. Bat Risk Offshore is Likely Greater than Characterized in the COP ................................................ 81
9. Cumulative Impact Analysis for Bats ............................................................................................... 82
IV. The Economic Impacts Associated with the Project and Future Growth in the Offshore Wind Industry
Must Be Adequately Considered ................................................................................................................ 86
V. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 86
3
I. Introduction
On behalf of National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Audubon
Society, Conservation Law Foundation, All Our Energy, Audubon Connecticut, Connecticut Audubon,
Litchfield Hills Audubon Society, Mass Audubon, Menunkatuck Audubon Society, NY4WHALES, Ocean
Conservation Research, Quinnipiac Valley Audubon Society, Surfrider Foundation, Whale and Dolphin
Conservation, and our millions of members and supporters, we submit these scoping comments to
inform the preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS or Draft EIS) by the Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) for the Construction and Operations Plan (COP) produced by
Vineyard Wind, LLC’s proposed wind energy facility offshore Massachusetts (the Project or Vineyard
Wind South),1 immediately to the southwest of Vineyard Wind’s recently approved 800 MW project.
Vineyard Wind South will occur in two phases with a maximum of 130 wind turbine generators (WTGs).2
Phase One, the 804 megawatt (MW) Park City Wind project, will contribute to the State of Connecticut’s
mandate of 2,000 MW of offshore wind energy by 2030 through a Power Purchase Agreement with the
Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority. Phase Two, which would provide approximately 1,200-
1,500 MW of energy, does not have a power purchaser or a name at this time.3
The Biden Administration has set forth an ambitious and necessary goal for the nation to have net-zero
global greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century or before4 and committed the U.S. to reducing net
greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52% below 2005 levels in 2030.5 As the Administration has recognized,
offshore wind energy is one of the most abundant sources of zero emissions energy and it must play a
significant role if the nation is going to meet these goals. Our organizations are united in support of
responsibly developed offshore wind. We have long advocated for policies and actions needed to bring
it to scale in an environmentally protective manner. Offshore wind provides a tremendous opportunity
to fight climate change, reduce local and regional air pollution, and grow a new industry that will
support thousands of well-paying jobs in both coastal and inland communities.
Responsible development of offshore wind energy: (i) avoids, minimizes, mitigates, and monitors
adverse impacts on marine and coastal habitats and the wildlife that rely on them, (ii) reduces negative
impacts on other ocean uses, (iii) includes robust consultation with Native American tribes and
communities, (iv) meaningfully engages state and local governments and stakeholders from the outset,
(v) includes comprehensive efforts to avoid impacts to environmental justice communities, and (vi) uses
the best available scientific and technological data to ensure science-based and stakeholder-informed
decision making. These comments seek to provide BOEM with recommendations for what legal and
environmental factors must be considered to ensure a responsibly developed project as the agency
drafts an EIS.
With BOEM’s Record of Decision for Vineyard Wind 1 signaling a critical milestone in the launch of this
industry, this is a pivotal moment in America’s nascent offshore wind story and the fight to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the impacts of climate change. The Biden Administration’s new
1 86 Fed. Reg. 34,782 (June 30, 2021); Vineyard Wind: Draft Vineyard Wind South Construction and Operations
Plan (VWS COP), available at https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/vineyard-wind-south-
construction-and-operations-plan
2 VWS COP at S-1
3 86 Fed. Reg. at 34,783.
4 Proclamation No. 14008, 86 Fed. Reg. 7619 (EO 14008).
5https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/United%20States%20of%20America%20First/Un
ited%20States%20NDC%20April%2021%202021%20Final.pdf
4
offshore wind goals plan to deploy 30 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind by 2030, creating more than
44,000 well-paying union jobs and triggering over $12 billion per year in capital investment in offshore
wind projects on both coasts.6 Meeting this objective unlocks a larger, long-term goal of expanding
offshore wind to 110 GW by 2050, generating more economic opportunity, and conveying the benefits
of clean energy and renewable power to future generations.7 The Vineyard Wind South Draft EIS is
another crucial opportunity for this Administration to conduct an analysis of a major offshore wind
project from Draft EIS to a Record of Decision that sets a high standard for how to develop a project that
protects wildlife and their habitats. As BOEM reviews and permits projects, it is imperative that the
agency’s analyses build and improve upon what we have learned from Vineyard Wind 1, include
significant new information created in recent years, and be responsive to changing ocean conditions;
therefore BOEM should not rely on conclusions provided in the EIS for Vineyard Wind 1 in its impact
assessment for Vineyard Wind South. Setting the right standard here will help future projects come
online more quickly with strong protections, supporting the Administration’s goals.
In addition to these robust federal goals, many east coast states, including Connecticut, are rapidly
mobilizing to tap into the booming offshore wind global industry and harness the abundant, clean
energy available off their shores. The State of Connecticut has a statutory mandate to achieve 2,000
megawatts of energy by 2030.8 Other possible purchasers for power from Phase Two include the State
of Rhode Island with its goal of 100% renewable energy by the end of this decade,9 and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts with an offshore wind mandate of 4,000 MW by 2027.10 This two
phased, approximately 2,000-2,300 MW project will be critical to such states meeting these targets.
The Project, if responsibly developed to avoid, minimize, mitigate, and monitor potential environmental,
cultural, and economic impacts, will provide substantial benefits to society and the environment. It is
part of the urgent transition away from dirty, climate-altering fossil fuels to the clean energy
economy envisioned by the Biden Administration that is necessary to avoid catastrophic warming. This
rapid transition to a clean energy economy is paramount to preserving wildlife and the environment.
Absent a substantial shift from carbon intensive sources of energy to solutions like offshore wind, we
face ever greater impacts from climate change, which is already threatening entire ecosystems.
Protecting the complicated webs of biology for future generations is vital to preserving the economic,
social, and environmental well-being that our society relies on for our health and survival.11
As recognized by the United Nations Environment Program Convention on the Conservation of
Migratory Species of Wild Animals, migratory species, such as migratory marine species, are particularly
vulnerable to climate change impacts.12 Similarly, a report by National Audubon Society found that bird
6 FACT SHEET: Biden Administration Jumpstarts Offshore Wind Energy Projects to Create Jobs, 2021 White House
Statements and Releases (Mar. 29, 2021).
7 Id.
8 Connecticut Public Act 19-71;
http://www.dpuc.state.ct.us/DEEPEnergy.nsf/$EnergyView?OpenForm&Start=30&Count=30&Expand=45&Seq=
2.
9 Rhode Island Governor Executive Order 20-01 (Jan. 2020).
10 See https://www.offshorewind.biz/2021/03/30/massachusetts-to-procure-additional-2-4-gw-of-offshore-wind-
by-2027
11 World Institute for Development Economics Research, The Economics of Transnational Commons 97 -102,
Clarendon Press, (1997).
12 UNEP/CMS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, Migratory Species and Climate Change: Impacts of a Changing
Environment on Wild Animals (2006) at 40-41 (available
5
species, already facing threats from habitat loss and other stressors, face significant impacts from
climate change that can be ameliorated if we prevent warming from reaching higher levels.13
Against this backdrop, it is imperative that all offshore wind development activities move forward with
strong protections in place for already stressed coastal and marine habitats and wildlife, using science-
based measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, and monitor impacts on valuable and vulnerable wildlife
and ecosystems. BOEM must consider sufficient measures to protect our most vulnerable threatened
and endangered species and require a robust plan for pre-, during, and post-construction monitoring
that can enable effective adaptive management strategies.
We submit the following comments to guide BOEM in meeting its obligations under the National
Environmental Policy Act in preparing a Draft EIS for the Project.
II. BOEM’S Obligations Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
A. Overview and Scoping
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)14 is one of the most important laws for ensuring the
Project is developed in an environmentally responsible and beneficial manner. NEPA is the fundamental
tool for ensuring a proper vetting of the impacts of major federal actions on wildlife, natural resources,
and communities; for ensuring reasonable alternatives are considered and identifying the most
environmentally preferable alternative; and for giving the public a say in federal actions that can have a
profound impact on their lives and livelihoods.
For over a half-century, NEPA has ensured that federal agency decision-making is based on a thorough
consideration of the environmental impacts of federal decisions. NEPA requires “efforts which will
prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of
man”15 and mandates that “to the fullest extent possible” the “policies, regulations, and public laws of
the United States shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with [NEPA].”16 To comply with
NEPA, an EIS must, inter alia, include a “full and fair discussion” of environmental impacts,17 including
positive as well as negative impacts, and assess possible conflicts with other federal, regional, state,
tribal, and local authorities.18 The scoping process in NEPA is a critical step, designed to “to determine
the scope of issues for analysis in an environmental impact statement, including identifying the
at http://www.cms.int/publications/pdf/CMS_CimateChange.pdf). “As a group, migratory wildlife appears to be
particularly vulnerable to the impacts of Climate Change because it uses multiple habitats and sites and a wide
range of resources at different points of their migratory cycle. They are also subject to a wide range of physical
conditions and often rely on predictable weather patterns, such as winds and ocean currents, which might
change under the influence of Climate Change. Finally, they face a wide range of biological influences, such as
predators, competitors and diseases that could be affected by Climate Change. While some of this is also true for
more sedentary species, migrants have the potential to be affected by Climate Change not only on their
breeding and non-breeding grounds but also while on migration.”
13 Wilsey, C, B Bateman, L Taylor, JX Wu, G LeBaron, R Shepherd, C Koseff, S Friedman, R Stone. Survival by
Degrees: 389 Bird Species on the Brink. National Audubon Society: New York
(2019), https://www.audubon.org/sites/default/files/climatereport-2019-english-lowres.pdf.
14 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.
15 Id. § 4321.
16 Id. § 4332
17 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1.
18 Id. § 1502.16(a)(5).
6
significant issues and eliminating from further study non-significant issues”19 The scoping process
requires the agency to “invite the participation of likely affected Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies
and governments, the proponent of the action, and other likely affected or interested persons”20 as well
as involve the public.21 The ability of the public and other stakeholders to shape the scope of critical
issues analyzed in a subsequent environmental impact statement is critical to ensuring that the EIS
properly considers all appropriate impacts and alternatives.
B. Segmentation of the Two Phases
The Vineyard Wind South project is unique. Unlike a single project with a power purchaser (like Vineyard
Wind 1) or two interrelated projects both with power purchasers and overlapping construction
schedules (like Empire Wind 1 and 2), Vineyard Wind has two distinct phases. Phase One has a power
purchaser and a relatively defined, high level construction schedule. Phase Two has neither a power
purchaser nor any defined construction schedule. As such, the two phases are arguably distinct. The first
phase is ready for NEPA review given the relative certainty that it will be developed and in the near
term. While it is likely that at some point the proposed power from Phase Two will be purchased, there
is far less certainty over when there will be a buyer for the power and how that will impact the timing of
construction and perhaps other significant factors involving Phase Two.
As such, Phase Two may be built at a time relatively far down the road when circumstances have
changed. For example, several other offshore wind developments now at various phases of review may
be constructed and operating. These projects may give us new and significant information regarding
how offshore wind projects impact a variety of resources and communities. Ocean conditions may have
significantly changed, as well as the conservation status or behavior patterns of key species. New
technologies may develop that could significantly impact construction, turbine size, turbine foundations,
layout, or other significant factors, including impact minimization strategies.
Courts have ruled that “where a multistage project can be modified or changed in the future to
minimize or eliminate environmental hazards disclosed as the result of information that will not become
available until the future, and the Government reserves the power to make such a modification or
change after the information is available and incorporated in a further EIS, it cannot be said that
deferment violates the ‘rule of reason.’ Indeed, in considering a project of such flexibility, it might be
both unwise and unfair not to postpone the decision regarding the next stage until more accurate data
is at hand.”22 As such, in circumstances like this Project, where information regarding Phase Two of the
project may significantly change prior to the construction of the project, including our understanding of
the impacts from offshore wind, BOEM has the authority to segment review of the two phases and
perform a NEPA analysis for Phase One at this time, and a separate NEPA analysis for Phase Two when
the project has a power purchaser and is closer to moving forward. Accordingly, BOEM is encouraged to
consider deferring the EIS for Phase Two of the project until more details, such as the proposed
construction schedule, are resolved for Vineyard Wind South Phase Two.
19 Id. § 1501.9(a).
20 Id. § 1501.9(b).
21 Id. § 1501.9 (d)
22 Suffolk County v. Secretary of the Interior, 562 F.2d 1368, 1378 (2d Cir. 1977).
7
C. Responsible Development of Offshore Wind Power
The NEPA process should inform all interested parties about how to responsibly proceed with
developing the promising and abundant resource of offshore wind power. Several decades of offshore
wind development in Europe have shown that offshore wind power can be developed responsibly with
regard to wildlife, provided that all siting and permitting decisions are based on sound science and
informed by key experts and stakeholders. The European experience shows us that avoiding sensitive
habitat areas, requiring strong measures to protect wildlife throughout each stage of the development
process, and comprehensive monitoring of wildlife and habitat before, during, and after construction
are essential for the responsible development of offshore wind energy.23
Despite offshore wind’s rapid growth in Europe, United States offshore wind remains a new industry,
with the nation’s first commercial project – the Block Island Wind Farm (30 MW) – only coming online in
December 2016. BOEM recently issued a Record of Decision approving a major project that will be built
immediately adjacent to this project –Vineyard Wind 1– and is considering multiple other projects off
the east coast. Commenters have provided ample comments on those projects which should provide
guidance for this NEPA process as well.
BOEM needs to rigorously review the potential impacts of offshore wind development on wildlife and
their habitats, including potential impacts related to future projects at the scale envisioned by the
President’s offshore wind goals, to ensure appropriate mitigation measures are developed and adopted.
Various potential impacts associated with offshore wind construction and operations could directly,
indirectly, and cumulatively impact species and habitats in the coastal zone and offshore environment
along the coast. In addition to a thorough examination of direct and indirect impacts, as well as
mitigation measures, assessing cumulative impacts is essential to understanding the impact of offshore
wind on species and ecosystems along the coast.
D. Consideration of Cumulative Impacts
In July 2020, the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) published a final rule revising long-standing
NEPA regulations. These regulations went into effect on September 14, 2020.24 Pursuant to President
Biden’s Executive Order 13990, these rules are being reviewed for possible repeal or replacement. They
have also been challenged as illegal by several groups, including groups that have signed onto these
comments.25 Additionally, Department of the Interior Secretary Haaland issued a Secretarial Order
stating that the 2020 rule will not be applied “in a manner that would change the application level of
NEPA that would have been applied to a proposed action before the 2020 Rule went into effect on
September 14, 2020.”26
23 O’Brien, Sue. “Lessons learned from the European experience.” Presentation at the State of the Science
Workshop on Wildlife and Offshore Wind Energy Development. Nov. 13-14, 2018.
24 Federal Register, The Daily Journal of the United States Government , Council on Environmental Quality (July 16,
2020), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/16/2020 -15179/update-to-the-regulations-
implementing-the-procedural-provisions-of-the-national-environmental.
25 See, e.g., Wild Virginia v. Council on Environmental Quality, No. 3:20-cv-00045-NKM (W.D. Va. July 29, 2020).
Attorneys for the DOJ requested that the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia stay
proceedings in this lawsuit while the Biden Administration reviews the NEPA revis ions, including the repeal of 40
C.F.R. §1508.7.
26 The Secretary of the Interior, Secretarial Order No. 3399, § 5 (a) (Apr. 16, 2021).
8
Consistent with the Secretary’s order, in drafting the Draft EIS, BOEM should ignore the Trump
Administration's repeal of 40 C.F.R. §1508.7, which required the consideration of cumulative impacts.
Rather, BOEM should include an analysis of cumulative impacts, as defined under the former 40 C.F.R.
§1508.7:
Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact
of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking
place over a period of time.
BOEM must include a robust cumulative impacts analysis in the Draft EIS, which is required by
longstanding case law interpreting NEPA and in no way prohibited by the current regulations.27 The
notice of intent states that:
The draft EIS will identify and describe the potential effects of the Proposed Action on the
human environment that are reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal
relationship to the Proposed Action. This includes such effects that occur at the same time and
27 Courts recognized the requirement to examine the cumulative impacts of a project well before regulations
requiring a cumulative impacts analysis were promulgated in 1978. For instance, in 1972, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit found that when making a determination regarding whether or not an action is
subject to NEPA, agencies should consider, inter alia, “the absolute quantitative adverse environmental effects
of the action itself, including the cumulative harm that results from its contribution to existing adverse
conditions or uses in the affected area.” Hanly v. Kleindienst, 471 F.2d 823, 830-31 (2d Cir. 1972). The Court went
on to highlight that, “it must be recognized that even a slight increase in adverse conditions that form an existing
environmental milieu may sometimes threaten harm that is significant. One more factory polluting air and water
in an area zoned for industrial use may represent the straw that breaks the back of the environmental camel.
Hence the absolute, as well as comparative, effects of a major federal action must be considered.” Hanly v.
Kleindienst, 471 F.2d at 831. Likewise, in 1975, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated that,
“NEPA is clearly intended to focus concern on the ‘big picture’ relative to environmental problems. It recognizes
that each ‘limited’ federal project is part of a large mosaic of thousands of similar projects and that cumulative
effects can and must be considered on an ongoing basis.” Swain v. Brinegar, 517 F.2d 766 (7th Cir. 1975)
(recognizing that an EIS should consider comprehensive, cumulative impacts, but resolving the case on the
grounds that the federal agency had impermissibly delegated the EIS to Illinois state authorities.) Similarly, in
1976, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of examining cumulative effects under NEPA,
concluding that, “Cumulative environmental impacts are, indeed, what require a comprehensive impact
statement.” Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 413 (1976). Although 40 C.F.R. §1508.7 currently remains
repealed, in a January 20, 2021 executive order, President Biden ordered the “immediate review of agency
actions taken between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021” that are inconsistent with his Administration’s
policies of “promot[ing] and protect[ing] our public health and the environment”; conserving, “restor[ing] and
expanding our national treasures and monuments”; “listen[ing] to the science”; and “reduc[ing] greenhouse gas
emissions.” Exec. Order No. 13,990, 86 Fed. Reg. 7037 (Jan. 20, 2021). President Biden directed the heads of
agencies to immediately review all regulations and other agency actions promulgated, issued, or adopted
between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021, that are inconsistent with these Adminis tration policies, and
for any such actions identified, “the heads of agencies shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law,
consider suspending, revising, or rescinding the agency actions.” Id. It is possible that the Biden Administration’s
review of Trump Administration regulatory actions will result in a reinstatement of 40 C.F.R. §1508.7.
9
place as the Proposed Action or alternatives and such effects that are later in time or occur in a
different place.28
Although the notice of intent did not clearly state that there would be a full cumulative impacts analysis,
BOEM must conduct such an analysis.
Additionally, under NEPA, BOEM must make every attempt to obtain and disclose data necessary to its
analysis in order to provide a "full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts.”29 Under
previous regulations, the simple assertion that no information or inadequate information exists will not
suffice. Unless, under the 1978 regulations, the costs of obtaining the information are exorbitant, NEPA
requires that it be obtained.30 Under the 1978 regulations, agencies were further required to identify
their methodologies, indicate when necessary information is incomplete or unavailable, acknowledge
scientific disagreement and data gaps, and evaluate indeterminate adverse impacts based upon
approaches or methods “generally accepted in the scientific community.”31 Such requirements become
acutely important in cases where, as here, so much about an activity’s impacts depend on newly
emerging science. Finally, NEPA does not permit agencies to “ignore available information that
undermines their environmental impact conclusions.”32
E. Analysis of Cumulative Impacts
1. Scope of Reasonably Foreseeable Offshore Wind Development
Critical to a proper cumulative impacts analysis is its scope. In Vineyard Wind 1’s June 2020
Supplemental EIS, BOEM greatly expanded the “scope for future offshore wind development . . . from
what was considered in the Draft EIS [for Vineyard Wind], which only considered in detail projects that
had submitted construction plans (approximately 130 MW) in federal waters at that time).”33 BOEM
kept this scope for the Vineyard Wind 1 Final EIS, issued on March 12, 2021.34 Likewise, the January
2021 South Fork Draft EIS also used this broader scope for its cumulative impact analysis.35 This scope is
described as the state capacity planned commitment for existing Atlantic leases (21.8 GW, or
approximately 22 GW). While this was a reasonably foreseeable scope for offshore wind development at
the time, now that the first U.S. offshore wind facility has been permitted with Vineyard Wind 1, life has
been injected into the industry. Paired with an ever-greater urgency to address increasing climate
28 86 Fed. Reg. at 34,784.
29 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1.
30 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22 (repealed 2020); see also 42 U.S.C. §4332(G) (agencies shall “make available to states,
counties, municipalities, institutions, and individuals, advice and information useful in restoring, maintaining,
and enhancing the quality of the environment”). The current regulations require that such information be
obtained if “the overall costs of obtaining it are not unreasonable.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.21(b).
31 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.22(b)(2), (b)(4), 1502.24 (repealed 2020). Current regulations at 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.21(c),
1502.23 have similar provisions that are not inconsistent with the application of the more robust previous
regulations.
32 Hoosier Environmental Council v. U.S. Department of Transportation , 2007 WL 4302642 *13 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 10,
2007).
33 Vineyard Wind 1 Offshore Wind Energy Project, Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (J une
2020), at ES-2. (VW1 SEIS)
34 Vineyard Wind 1 Offshore Wind Energy Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement (Mar. 2021), at 1 -5. (VW1
FEIS).
35 South Fork Wind Farm and South Fork Export Cable Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Jan. 4,
2021), at 1-6. (SFWF DEIS).
10
change impacts, the offshore wind industry is materializing quickly. As such, state capacity planned
commitment should be re-evaluated to consider a larger role for pledged commitments in cumulative
impacts assessment. We urge BOEM to consider expanding the Vineyard Wind South Draft EIS to include
the Administration’s goal of building 30 GW of offshore wind within the next nine years, future
development in the newly identified Wind Energy Areas (WEAs) in the New York Bight, and North
Carolina’s new commitment for 8 GW of offshore wind by 2040. Moreover, turbine technology and
spacing needs are rapidly evolving and technical resource potential should be reexamined to ensure that
the cumulative impacts evaluation is keeping pace with technology and political needs. Given the speed
at which offshore wind commitments are increasing, the appropriate scope for reasonably foreseeable
offshore wind development could differ between Vineyard Wind South Phase One and Phase Two,
depending on the development schedule for Phase Two. If this is the case, BOEM may need to segment
the NEPA reviews of the two phases, as discussed in Section II(B) above.
2. BOEM Should Account for Technological Changes in Future Evaluations
As acknowledged in previous environmental reviews of offshore wind projects,36 in assessing how future
wind sites may be constructed, operated, and sited, it is reasonable to assume that future projects will
employ higher output turbines that can generate more power by using fewer physical turbines of larger
size. This could change impacts related to hub height, rotor diameter, and total height of turbines for
future projects, as well as, inter alia, the number of turbines and the length of inter-array cables.37
As mentioned in Section II(B), projects, particularly projects further on the time horizon, may have
increasingly larger turbines that could impact the design and layout of the operation. As BOEM has
already noted, for future projects, BOEM should assume that “the largest turbine that is presently
commercially available” be used to evaluate potential impacts.38 Changes in turbine size could have
beneficial impacts (such as fewer turbines spaced further apart) as well as potentially negative impacts
(larger rotation zones that could impact certain species like higher flying birds). We urge BOEM to
ensure that future cumulative impact models continue to keep pace with technology.
3. BOEM Must Ensure Robust Data Collection and Monitoring at the Project and
Regional Levels to Properly Assess Cumulative Impacts
BOEM must consider strong and intentional action in the preparation of the EIS to advance robust
monitoring, which will assess impacts and enable adaptive management. As previously noted, offshore
wind remains a new technology in the United States and, as such, BOEM must closely monitor the
impact of offshore wind construction and operations on marine wildlife and the ocean ecosystem to
guide its adaptive management and future development.
It is necessary to understand baseline environmental conditions prior to large-scale offshore wind
development in the United States, so offshore wind impacts can be clearly understood with relation to
pre-development environments. To this end, BOEM must ensure the creation of a robust, long-term
scientific plan to monitor the effects of offshore wind development on marine mammals, sea turtles,
fish, bats, birds, and other species and their habitats before, during, and after the first large-scale
commercial projects are constructed. This monitoring data must be made readily available to
36 See SFWF DEIS at E4-10 (“it is difficult to accurately predict future technology for . . . offshore wind”).
37 See SFWF DEIS at E4.
38 SFWF DEIS at E4-10.
11
stakeholders and the public to help inform future decisions in the growing offshore wind industry and
minimize risks associated with offshore development.
Without strong monitoring in place, we lose the ability to detect and understand potential impacts and
risk setting an under-protective precedent for offshore wind development. Monitoring must inform and
drive future project siting, design, implementation, and mitigation as well as potential changes to
existing operations to avoid or minimize negative impacts to wildlife and other natural resources.
BOEM must collaborate with state efforts and agencies (e.g., Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection, Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, and the relevant state
agencies from whichever state purchases power from Phase Two of the Project), scientists, non-
governmental organizations, the wind industry, and other stakeholders to use information from
monitoring and other research and evolving practices and technology to inform cumulative impacts
analyses moving forward.
Likewise, the Draft EIS must include more specific information related to how monitoring impacts of
offshore wind development and operation on wildlife and their habitats will inform management
practices as new information becomes available. As monitoring should inform management practices,
BOEM must require continued monitoring and employment of adaptive management practices in the
Draft EIS as a condition of continued operation and maintenance by Vineyard Wind South. This will
ensure that BOEM can swiftly minimize damages of unintended or unanticipated impacts to coastal
ecosystems or wildlife, as well as inform strategies for future wind projects to avoid potential impacts.
F. BOEM Must Identify the Climate and Air Quality Benefits
Climate change will result in a wide range of significant adverse environmental impacts in the Project
Area. As identified by BOEM in a previous environmental analysis for an offshore wind project, these
impacts include:
• “alter[ation of] ecological characteristics of benthic habitat, EFH [essential fish habitat],
invertebrates, and finfish, primarily through increasing water temperatures.”39
• ocean acidification, contributing to “reduced growth or the decline of reefs and other habitats
formed by shells” and to “the reduced growth or decline of invertebrates that have calcareous
shells” and “lead to shifts in prey distribution and abundance.”40
• ocean warming, which affects coastal habitats and “influence[s] finfish and invertebrate
migration and may increase the frequency or magnitude of disease.”41
These climate impacts affect a broad range of species utilizing coastal and marine ecosystems including
marine mammals, turtles, birds, and fish. A number of impact-producing factors (IPFs) in previous
offshore wind environmental reviews are related to climate change. For instance, “increased storm
frequency and severity during breeding season can reduce productivity of bird nesting colonies and kill
adults, eggs, and chicks.”42 These same IPFs may result in “changes in nesting and foraging habitat
39E.g., SFWF DEIS at 3-15.
40 E.g., Id. at E3-4, 3-15, E2-7.
41 E.g., Id. at 3-6.
42 E.g., Id. at E2-7.
12
abundance and distribution, and changes to migration patterns and timing.”43 For sea turtles, climate
change is altering existing habitats, rendering some areas unsuitable for some species and more suitable
for others.44 These IPFs also have the potential to “result in impacts on marine mammals” including
physiological stress and behavioral changes,”45 as well as “reduced breeding, and/or foraging habitat
availability, and disruptions in migration.”46 These impacts must be accounted for in the Vineyard Wind
South Draft EIS.
Additionally, as BOEM noted in a prior analysis, offshore wind generation will likely directly displace
fossil fuel generation. Due to offshore wind’s ability to displace more highly polluting fossil resources,
the climate impacts of the proposed offshore wind buildout would be net climate beneficial.
Consequently, cumulative effects of offshore wind development may result in long-term, low-intensity
beneficial cumulative impacts on wildlife and long-term beneficial impacts on demographics,
employment, and economics.47
The buildout of offshore wind is a key component of meeting the climate and clean energy goals of the
Biden Administration. These benefits should be accounted for in the Vineyard Wind South Draft EIS. As
explained in prior comments to the agency, if 22 GW of offshore wind displaced coal generation, over a
30-year period this would result in a net reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of 2.89 billion
tons.48 If these 22 GW offshore wind energy were displacing gas, it would still be displacing nearly 1.5
billion tons of CO2 emissions and significant methane emissions. The climate benefits would only
increase with the new Biden Administration’s offshore wind goal of 30 GW, future development in the
newly identified WEAs in the New York Bight, and North Carolina’s new commitment for 8 GW of
offshore wind by 2040.
These climate benefits can also be monetized using the social cost of carbon to illustrate differences
between the social benefits of a project and the relative social cost of the alternatives. The social and
environmental costs of greenhouse gas emissions are readily quantifiable and BOEM should consider
them in evaluating project impacts and impacts of alternatives. For example, the Interagency Working
Group on Social Cost of Carbon has produced estimates for the social cost of carbon in order to “allow
agencies to incorporate the social benefits of reducing CO2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses of
regulatory actions that impact cumulative global emissions.”49 The working group presents values for
social costs from 2015 to 2030, assuming discount rates of 5%, 3%, 2.5% and the 95th percentile of the
3% discount rate.50 These values range from $11 to $212 (in 2007 dollars) per metric ton of CO2.51 These
values could be used to monetize the costs imposed by the net greenhouse gas emissions associated
43 E.g., Id. at H-45.
44 E.g., Id. at H-68.
45 E.g., Id. at E3-15, E3-17.
46 E.g., Id. at E3-19.
47 E.g., Id. at H-68, E3-25, E3-29.
48 Comments of National Wildlife Federation et al. Submitted in Response to the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Deepwater South Fork Wind Farm and South Fork
Export Cable Project, 86 Fed. Reg. 1520 (January 8, 2021) (submitted Feb. 22, 2021) at 9-13.
49 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government, Technical Support Document: -
Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis – Under Executive Order 12866 at 2
(July 2015 revision), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc -tsd-final-july-
2015.pdf.
50 Id.
51 Id.
13
with failing to procure the full 22 GW of offshore wind. Using the working group values, annual climate
costs of procuring electricity from 22 GW of coal rather than 22 GW of offshore wind range (assuming a
50% capacity factor in both cases) range from just over $1 billion/year (in 2007$) using a 5% discount
rate and the 2020 social cost of carbon52 to more than $8.3 billion/year (in 2007$) using a 2.5% discount
rate and the 2050 social cost of carbon of $95/ton.53 These social benefits would increase when
calculated for 30 GW of offshore wind.
Even absent direct quantification through the social cost of carbon, there are adverse economic impacts
from climate change that exist and should be accounted for in the Vineyard Wind South Draft EIS. These
impacts include, as noted in previous BOEM analysis:
• Property or infrastructure damage and increased insurance costs and reduced economic viability
of coastal communities resulting from sea level rise and increased storm severity/frequency;
• Damage to structures, infrastructures, beaches, and coastal land, with numerous economic
impacts resulting from erosion and deposition of sediments;
• Adverse impacts on commercial and for-hire fishing, individual recreational fishing, and
sightseeing resulting from ocean acidification, altered habitats, altered migration patterns, and
increased disease frequency in marine species.54
Air emissions present a similar story to climate emissions, but with the additional dimension of
locational benefits to pollution impacts. Based on previous analyses of offshore wind projects, air quality
impacts should be anticipated during construction with smaller and more infrequent impacts anticipated
during decommissioning.55 Previous analyses have shown a “minor beneficial” improvement in air
quality is expected from offshore wind development coming online and displacing fossil fuels.56 These
impacts, including the beneficial impacts, need to be considered in the Draft EIS.
In considering the environmental justice impacts, BOEM must look at how power plants are frequently
located in or close to population centers and disproportionately located in or near communities of color,
lower income communities, and Indigenous communities. The ability of offshore wind to displace fossil
fuel generation thus has a potentially important environmental justice benefit. This displacement could
be particularly pronounced, as offshore wind facilities’ generation often coincides with afternoon peak
demand.57 Offshore wind may be especially helpful in displacing the dirtiest peaking units, providing
especially large air quality benefits and benefits to environmental justice communities.
G. The Draft EIS Must Consider a Reasonable Range of Alternatives and Mitigation
An EIS must “inform decision makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or
minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment.”58 This requirement has
52 23.9 million metric tons CO2 * $12/ton CO2 * (22 GW/6 GW) = $1.05 billion (2007$).
53 23.9 million metric tons CO2 * $95/ton CO2 * (22 GW/6 GW) = $8.3 billion (2007$).
54 SFWF DEIS at E3-29.
55 Id. at A-45.
56 See e.g., Vineyard Wind FEIS, at ES-14.
57 Dep’t of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Top 10 Things You Didn’t Know About Offshore
Wind Energy, https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/top-10-things-you-didnt-know-about-offshore-wind-
energy (last visited Apr. 28, 2021).
58 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1.
14
been described in former regulations as “the heart of the environmental impact statement.”59 The
courts describe the alternatives requirement equally emphatically, citing it as the “linchpin” of the EIS.60
Even under current regulations, the agencies must therefore “[e]valuate reasonable alternatives to the
proposed action, and, for alternatives that the agency eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the
reasons for their elimination.”61 Consideration of alternatives is required by (and must conform to the
independent terms of) both sections 102(2)(C) and 102(2)(E) of NEPA.
As organizations, we are eager to see responsibly developed offshore wind power advance and
recognize the benefits of a carefully implemented project design envelope approach. Offshore wind
energy technology and construction practices are evolving rapidly, and project design and planning
takes years. A flexible permitting system that ensures developers can capitalize on new opportunities for
environmental impact mitigation or cost reduction is beneficial for both the industry and wildlife.
Project developers must not be discouraged from pursuing opportunities to take advantage of
technologies and practices currently progressing through the research and development process that
could help facilitate the increasingly responsible development of offshore wind energy.
However, to ensure BOEM can perform a sufficient NEPA review of a project, a project’s COP must
provide enough specifics on each possible configuration covered by the proposed envelope to enable
evaluation of impacts on affected species and to fully evaluate the proposal. For example, it would be
insufficient to simply identify the total number of turbines that might be built, because the timing of pile
driving is also critical to evaluating noise-related impacts to marine mammals and other species.
Additionally, to encompass the full range of reasonably foreseeable impacts, BOEM’s analysis must
include an alternative that combines the most disruptive components for each option included in the
envelope. The design envelope alternative also cannot be conceived or analyzed so broadly that it
impairs BOEM’s duty to effectively “inform decision makers and the public of the reasonable
alternatives which would avoid or minimize impacts,” as NEPA requires.62
H. BOEM Must Comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and
Recognize and Respect Tribes’ Sovereign Status and Collaborate Directly with Tribal
Governments in a Consultative Process
During preparation of this EIS, BOEM intends to ensure that the NEPA process will meet its National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) obligation. The construction of wind turbine generators (WTGs),
offshore substation, installation of electrical support cables, operations and maintenance (O&M) facility,
port facilities, and development of staging areas are ground- or seabed-disturbing activities that could
directly affect archaeological resources. Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to “take into
account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties.”63 It also gives the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment.64 The Section 106 process balances historic
preservation concerns with the needs of federal agencies while involving interested parties.65
59 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14 (repealed 2020).
60 Monroe County Conservation Council v. Volpe , 472 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1972).
61 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a).
62 Id. § 1502.1.
63 36 C.F.R. § 800.1.
64 Id.
65 Id.
15
Robust consultation with states and tribes under Section 106 is paramount to ensuring the Project
appropriately considers impacts on historic state and tribal resources.66 Additionally, it is necessary that
during development proper precautions are taken in case unknown cultural resources are uncovered.67
It is critical that the project include best management practices developed collaboratively with tribes for
cultural resource protection in order to avoid, minimize, and mitigate any potential adverse impacts to
cultural resources.
Executive Order 13175 mandates all executive agencies recognize and respect tribal sovereign status
and engage in “regular, meaningful, and robust consultation with Tribal officials in the development of
Federal policies that have Tribal implications.”68 We encourage BOEM to also adopt early consultation as
envisioned in Secretary Haaland’s recent Secretarial Order:
Bureaus/Offices will proactively begin consultation with potentially impacted Tribes, both those
currently in the proposed area and those with a historic presence, as well as engage potentially
impacted environmental justice communities early in the project planning process. “Early in the
project planning process” includes when a Bureau/Office has enough information on a proposed
action to determine that an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement
will be prepared.69
Native American and Alaska Native Tribes are sovereign governments recognized as self-governing
under federal law, and the U.S. government has a “trust responsibility” to those tribes.70 The federal
government has special fiduciary obligations to protect Native resources and uphold the rights of
Indigenous peoples to govern themselves on tribal lands.71 In carrying out this duty, federal officials are
“bound by every moral and equitable consideration to discharge the federal government’s trust with
66 Successful compliance with Section 106 involves identifying state, tribal, and private interests involved in historic
preservation within the development areas. Relevant State or Tribal Historical Preservation officers
(SHPO or THPO respectively) must be involved in the Section 106 process, along with any private preservation
groups with appropriate legal or economic interests. BOEM must identify which historic properties are listed,
or are eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places that could be affected by the
project. BOEM must assess the project’s impact on these properties to determine if any adverse effects
“diminish the characteristics qualifying a property for inclusion in the national register.” (36 C.F.R §
800.5.) Collaborative efforts between BOEM, SHPO, THPO, and any private preservation groups can result in
agreed upon measures to minimize or mitigate known adverse effects. These collaborations
should continue throughout project development in case any unknown cultural or archeologic resources are
discovered during development.
67 If any additional or previously unidentified cultural resources are located during project implementation, the find
must be protected from operations and reported immediately to the SHPO or THPO staff. All operations in the
vicinity of the find will be suspended until the site is visited and appropriate recordation and evaluation is made
by the SHPO or THPO staff.
68 Exec. Order No. 13,175, 65 Fed. Reg. 67,249, 67,249–50 (Nov. 6, 2000) (mandating that agencies “respect Indian
tribal self-government and sovereignty” when “formulating and implementing policies” that affect tribal
interests). Reinforced in the Memorandum on Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation -to-Nation
Relationships. Jan. 26, 2021. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-
actions/2021/01/26/memorandum-on-tribal-consultation-and-strengthening-nation-to-nation-relationships/.
69 Secretarial Order No. 3399, at § 5(c). Apr. 16, 2021.
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3399-508_0.pdf.
70 Id.
71 Eric v. Sec'y of U. S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 464 F. Supp. 44 (D. Alaska 1978).
16
good faith and fairness.”72 Acting in accord with these trust responsibilities requires nation-to-nation
consultation from the first opportunity.
III. Comments Regarding Resource and Specific Impacts
The following recommendations for the project’s impact assessments apply generally to the resource or
ecosystem evaluation of impacts, as well as comments concerning impacts to species.
A. BOEM Must Be Transparent as to How Impacts are Quantitatively or Qualitatively
Assessed
The definitions of potential adverse and beneficial impact levels (i.e., negligible, minor, moderate, and
major) include language that provides minimal guidance on how impacts may be quantified. BOEM
should look to previous analyses for more meaningful definitions. For example, adverse moderate and
major impact levels in previous analyses include “notable and measurable” and “regional or population-
level impact.”73 In addition, the definitions of negative factors included in previous analyses specify
“habitat” and “species common to the proposed Project area,” which places the impact analyses in an
ecosystem context instead of a species-by-species context.74 For example, “The extent and quality of
local habitat for both special-status species and species common to the Lease area,” and “The richness or
abundance of local species common to the Lease Area.”75 The terms “richness” and “abundance” are
both quantifiable ecological terms that have been described in decades of ecological literature.
More transparent information on how the level of an IPF is quantitatively or qualitatively assessed is
needed. As a general matter, the impact analysis should be undertaken in an objective, transparent,
and, where possible, quantitative manner. In the absence of available data, BOEM should acknowledge
that an IPF is indeterminate and that additional research is needed. BOEM should provide detail on how
IPFs and associated criteria have been quantitatively or qualitatively measured in the Draft EIS.
B. Ecosystem Change Should Not Be Framed as “Beneficial”
The Draft EIS should not use value-laden terms (e.g., “beneficial”) to describe changes in ecosystems or
species. It should instead be objectively described as ecosystem change. While we agree that some
offshore wind activities may result in a change in the ecosystem and, in some cases, an increase in the
abundance of certain species or in overall diversity, we caution against the Vineyard Wind South Draft
EIS representing these changes as “beneficial.” This is especially the case because it is unclear what
implications these changes may have on the wider ecosystem. We recommend that the Vineyard Wind
72 United States v. Payne, 264 U.S. 446, 448 (1924); accord Yukon Flats School Dist. V. Native Village of Venetie
Tribal Govt’t, 101 F.3d 1286 (9th Cir. 1996) rev’d on other grounds 522 U.S. 520 (1998); see also 84 Fed. Reg.
1200–01 (Feb.1, 2019) (including 229 Alaska Native entities in the list of tribes recognized as having the
immunities and privileges of “acknowledge Indian tribes by virtue of their government -to-government
relationship with the United States.”) Note that the trust doctrine includes duties to manage natural resources
for the benefit of tribes and individual landowners, and the federal government has been held liable for
mismanagement. (See United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (holding that the Department of the Interior
was liable for monetary damages for mismanaging timber resources of the Quinault tribe in violation of the
agency’s fiduciary duty.)
73 E.g., SFWF DEIS at 3.1.1, Tbl 3.1.1-1 and 3.1.1-2.
74 E.g., Id.
75 E.g., Id. (emphasis added).
17
South Draft EIS remain objective in language used in its impact analysis (e.g., by using terminology such
as “increase,” “decrease,” and “change”).
C. The Vineyard Wind South Draft EIS Should Account for Ecosystem Uncertainty
BOEM should adopt a precautionary approach to account for fundamental gaps in our understanding of
species and their behavioral responses and employ the best available scientific methods to monitor and,
if necessary, design mitigation strategies. As a general matter throughout the development and
operation of offshore wind projects, BOEM should ensure the necessary research and monitoring is
carried out to address the substantial uncertainties regarding offshore wind and wildlife interactions.
For instance, we do not know the degree to which bats, marine birds, and nocturnal migrants may
interact with offshore wind turbines in U.S. waters and whether those interactions will lead to
population-level impacts. Many of these species are currently facing stressors on land, which may make
their populations more vulnerable to additional take. Based on this research, mitigation options may be
needed to ensure species’ health and provide the certainty that will allow for further ramp up of the
industry. Improved and sustained data compilation before and after construction as well as during
operation would also advance understanding of species’ occurrence in the Vineyard Wind South Project
Area and region. As the United States offshore wind industry moves forward, we recommend BOEM
support the comprehensive analysis of these baseline data and ongoing data compilation and analyses
and undertake a regional approach to data analysis to enhance collaboration with developers, scientists,
managers, and other stakeholders.
As a general matter, BOEM should also take immediate measures to address data uncertainty related to
the influence of climate change on coastal and marine species and habitats (e.g., range shifts).
Acknowledging global climate change as a potential cumulative impact is not enough. BOEM should act
expeditiously to obtain additional empirical data on current shifts in species and habitat distributions
and work to improve its predictive modeling of future species distributions and factor this information
into offshore wind project siting, construction, and operations to account for uncertainty related to
climate-induced dynamic shifts in distribution (e.g., marine mammals, birds, forage fish, and sharks). 76
BOEM also retains the ability to consider adoption of supplemental mitigation measures if monitoring or
the agency’s data collection efforts identify an unexpected negative impact. While it would be
inappropriate for BOEM to rely on an adaptive management plan to address environmental
considerations in lieu of necessary mitigation measures, the agency is allowed and encouraged to adopt
further adaptive management measures if needed.
D. Benthic Resources, Finfish, Invertebrates, and Essential Fish Habitat
The Draft EIS must present a detailed assessment of the anticipated impacts of Vineyard Wind South on
benthic resources, finfish, invertebrates, and essential fish habitat (EFH). The Draft EIS should also
contain a quantification of complex and non-complex habitats; examine additional alternatives to
conserve marine habitats and resources and avoid, mitigate, and minimize impacts to complex habitats;
and include additional mitigation and monitoring requirements for the Vineyard Wind South project.
76 40 C.F.R. § 1502.21(b) (Explaining the propositions that the agency has an obligation to obtain information
essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives, unless the cost of doing so is unreasonable).
18
Initially, we note that the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act77 requires
federal agencies, such as BOEM, to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on
activities that could adversely affect EFH.78 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) defines EFH as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or
growth to maturity.”79 NOAA also identifies habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs), which are high-
priority areas for conservation, management, or research because the areas are rare, sensitive, stressed
by development, or important to ecosystem function.80 HAPCs are discrete subsets of EFH that provide
important ecological functions or are especially vulnerable to degradation. In completing the Draft EIS,
not only should BOEM include a detailed evaluation of the impacts of the project on EFH, but particular
attention should be given to areas designated as an HAPC.
Vineyard Wind South will take place in EFH designated for many species, including several overfished
fish populations such as Atlantic cod, Atlantic wolffish, winter flounder, witch flounder, yellowtail
flounder, and ocean pout.81 There are also four fish species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act
(ESA) that are present in the Project Area, including giant manta ray, Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon,
and shortnose sturgeon.82
1. Complex Habitats
In general, benthic habitats can be classified based on their level of physical complexity, ranging from
relatively simple habitats to more complex habitats.83 Habitats where sand and mud substrates are
predominant are low in physical complexity and considered non-complex or “simple” habitats.
Conversely glacial moraine and coarse sediment are classified as more complex habitats because
boulders, cobbles, and pebbles are predominant in such areas.84 These more complex habitats provide a
heterogeneous variety of hard surfaces and fine material that provide habitat for many different
species.
77 16 U.S.C. §1801 et seq.
78 16 U.S.C. §1855(b)(2). The Magnuson Stevens Act Fishery Conservation and Management Act also allows
“Regional Fishery Management Councils” to comment on and make recommendations to NMFS and/or other
federal agencies concerning activities that affect EFH. 16 U.S.C. §1855(b)(3).
79 Guide to Essential Fish Habitat Designations in the Northeastern United States, NOAA (2018), available at
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1409/ML14090A199.pdf.
80 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern within Essential Fish Habitat, NOAA (last visited June 9, 2021), available at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/southeast/habitat-conservation/habitat-areas-particular-concern-within-
essential-fish-habitat.
81Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2, Volume 2 EFH a nd HAPC Designation Alternatives and
Environmental Impacts, NEFMC & NMFS, at 13-14, 19, 24-25, 36-41, 52-54 (October 2017), available at
https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/application/efhmapper/oa2_efh_hapc.pdf#page=18 ; Operational Assessment of
19 Northeast Groundfish Stocks, NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, at 31, 72, 167, 177, 195 (October
2017), available at https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/16091.
82 VWS COP Vol. III, 6-151.
83 Peter J. Auster and Richard W. Langton, The Effects of Fishing on Fish Habitat, National Undersea Research
Center for the North Atlantic & Great Lakes and Maine Department of Marine Resources, at M-6, M-36 (May
1998).
84 Id.
19
More specifically, glacial moraine habitats are a complex habitat that is composed of consolidated and
unconsolidated geologic debris that is directly deposited by glacial movement.85 In the contiguous
United States, glacial moraines are mainly limited in distribution to the outer continental shelf near New
England.86 Glacial moraines are important habitats for a diversity of fish and benthic species. Given their
relative structural permanence and complexity, glacial moraines create a unique bottom topography,
which enables a high level of biodiversity.
Complex, hard bottom habitat provides EFH for a number of species, including both juvenile and adult
Atlantic cod. Offshore, both juvenile and adult cod prefer structurally complex hard bottom habitats
comprising mostly pebbles, cobble, and boulders.87 Cobble substrate is critical for the survival of juvenile
cod because it helps juvenile cod avoid predators.88 Studies have also shown that hard bottom habitats
are important for cod reproduction.89 Atlantic cod demonstrate spawning site fidelity, meaning they
return to the same bathymetric locations year-after-year to spawn.90
Boulders and cobbles, which are more prevalent in complex habitats, also provide EFH for other species
such as black sea bass juveniles and adults, Atlantic sea scallop larvae, ocean pout and herring eggs, as
well as certain invertebrates that attach to hard surfaces, including mussels, oysters, starfish, sea urchin,
etc.91 Complex, hard bottom habitat is also important for Atlantic wolffish spawning as wolffish prefer to
nest under boulders and rocks.92 Because of the depleted status of Atlantic wolffish, Atlantic wolffish has
been designated as a zero-possession species, meaning that fishing vessels holding a federal groundfish
permit may not fish for, possess, or land Atlantic wolffish.93
In a study of the Block Island Wind Farm, non-complex habitats, consisting mainly of sand and mud,
demonstrated a high rate of recovery.94 Conversely, complex habitats have been shown to take longer
to recover from offshore wind construction. In the Block Island study, 0% of complex habitat areas,
containing mainly cobbles and pebbles, had completely recovered from baseline conditions after the
wind farm had been in operation for nearly two years.95 Given the importance of complex habitats to
many species’ reproduction and survival, in the Draft EIS, BOEM must adequately assess the impacts to
85 South Fork Wind Benthic Habitat Mapping to Support Essential Fish Habitat Consultation , Inspire Environmental,
at 15, June 16, 2020, available at https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/about-
boem/AppN2_SFW_HabitatMapping_Report_2020-06-16.pdf.; VWS COP Vol. III at 6-85.
86 Id.
87 Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2, Volume 2 EFH and HAPC Designation Alternatives and
Environmental Impacts, NEFMC & NMFS, at 10-14 (October 25, 2017).
88 Id.
89 G.R. Decelles, et al, Using Fishermen’s Ecological Knowled ge to Map Atlantic Cod Spawning Ground on Georges
Bank, 74 ICES Journal of Marine Science, 1587 -1601 (April 2017).
90 Douglas R. Zemeckis, Spawning Site Fidelity by Atlantic Cod in the Gulf of Maine: Implications for Population
Structure and Rebuilding, 71 ICES Journal of Marine Science, 1356-1365 (September 2014); Jon Egil Skjaeraasen,
et al., Extreme Spawning-Site Fidelity in Atlantic Cod, 68 ICES Journal of Marine Science, 1472-1477 (April 2011).
91 Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2, Volume 2 EFH and HAPC Designation Alternatives and
Environmental Impacts, NEFMC & NMFS, at 23, 85, 88 (October 2017); SFWF DEIS at 3 -37.
92 Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2, Volume 2 EFH and HAPC Designation Alternatives and
Environmental Impacts, NEFMC & NMFS, at 17 (October 25, 2017).
93 Species directory: Atlantic Wolffish, NOAA Fisheries (last visited, July 19, 2021), available at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/atlantic-wolffish.
94 Anwar A. Khan & Kevin Smith, Seafloor Disturbance and Recovery Monitoring at the Block Island Wind Farm,
BOEM, at 27-28 (March 2020), available at https://espis.boem.gov/final%20reports/BOEM_2020-019.pdf.
95 Id.
20
complex habitats from the project and, as part of its analysis, account for the demonstrated lack of
recovery for complex habitats from offshore wind projects.
2. Impacts to Benthic Habitats from the Vineyard Wind South project
Based on surveys conducted of the Southern Wind Development Area (SWDA), the area appears to be
comprised mostly of “fine unconsolidated substrate with predominantly sand and silt sized material.”
Surveys of the SWDA observed the following substrate types: (1) muddy sand; (2) sandy mud; and (3)
sand (fine/very fine, medium, and very coarse/coarse). However, the main substrate type observed in
the area is muddy sand.96
While the observed substrates in the SWDA are low in physical complexity, the offshore export cable
corridor (OECC) contains a number of areas with physically complex substrates. In particular, the surveys
identified several areas in the Muskeget Channel portion of the OECC containing more complex habitats
where pebble and cobble substrate are the predominant substrates.97 The Vineyard Wind South COP
notes that the cobble and pebble substrates in the Muskeget Channel area of the OECC correspond to
the “most productive habitats” of the OECC, “with the highest number of invertebrate species and
observations of fish.”98 In several instances, the surveys observed secondary habitats of “partially buried
or dispersed boulders” in Muskeget Channel.99 In fact, in parts of the Muskeget Channel area, hard
bottom areas cover the full width of the proposed OECC.100
Atlantic cod EFH is designated in the SWDA and OECC for egg, larvae, juvenile, and adult stages.101
Additionally, part of the Vineyard Wind South OECC crosses HAPC for juvenile Atlantic cod in
Massachusetts state waters.102 The juvenile cod HAPC is a subset of the area designated as juvenile cod
EFH, and is defined as the inshore areas of Southern New England between 0 to 66 feet deep relative to
mean high water. This HAPC contains structurally complex hard bottom habitats that provide juvenile
cod with protection from predators and supports juvenile cod prey.103 Given the predominance of
complex, hard bottom substrate in Muskeget Channel, this area signifies an important subarea of HAPC
for juvenile cod. The Draft EIS must adequately evaluate impacts to Atlantic cod EFH and HAPC,
including the area of Muskeget Channel, and BOEM should require Vineyard Wind to undertake
measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to these important habitats.
The COP observes that the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan (MA Ocean Plan) has mapped a
number of complex, hard bottom areas in the vicinity of the planned OECC in Muskeget Channel.104 The
MA Ocean Plan identifies special, sensitive, or unique (SSU) marine habitats, which includes
“hard/complex seafloor.”105 The MA Ocean Plan defines “hard/complex seafloor” as “seabed
96 VWS COP Vol. II-A at 5-6, 5-7.
97 Id. at 5-9- 5-10, VWS COP Vol. II-H at 49.
98 VWS COP Vol. II-A at 5-10.
99 VWS COP Vol. II-H at 69.
100 VWS COP Vol. III at 6-85.
101 Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2, Volume 2 EFH and HAPC Designation Alternatives and
Environmental Impacts, NEFMC & NMFS, at 13-14 (October 2017).
102 Id. at 109-111.
103 Id.
104 VWS COP Vol. II-A at 5-24, 5-26.
105 2015 Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan, MA Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs --Office
of Coastal Zone Management, at 2-31 (January 2015).
21
characterized singly or by any combination of hard seafloor, complex seafloor, artificial reefs, biogenic
reefs, or shipwrecks and obstructions.”106 Under the regulations governing the MA Ocean Plan,
“activities proposed in the Ocean Management Planning Area are presumptively excluded from the
[SSU] Resource areas delineated on maps contained in the Ocean Management Plan and maintained in
the Ocean Management Plan.”107 This presumption may be overcome by demonstrating that the maps
delineating the SSU are inaccurate or by demonstrating as follows:
[1.] No less environmentally damaging practicable alternative exists. For the purposes of this
standard, an alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being done after taking into
consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics with respect to the purpose of the Activity;
and
[2.] The Proponent has taken all practicable measures to avoid damage to [SSU] Resources, and
the Activity will cause no significant alteration to [SSU] Resources. Demonstrating compliance
with this standard may include the incorporation of measures to avoid resources and impacts
through time of year controls such that the construction, operation, or removal of the Activity
will not occur when the [SSU] Resource is present or may be adversely effected; and
[3.] The public benefits associated with the proposed Activity outweigh the public detriments to
the Special, Sensitive or Unique Resource.108
The MA Ocean Plan designates areas for offshore wind transmission cables, which are in presumptive
compliance with the management standards for SSU resources, provided that:
Investigations and survey confirm the predominance of soft-bottom seafloor (i.e., the general
absence of hard-bottom substrate) within the preliminary areas for offshore wind transmission
cables such that sufficient burial depths for cables can be reasonably expected. The presence of
relatively small areas of hard-bottom substrate, such that the cable route cannot be practicably
located without going through these areas of hard-bottom substrate, within acceptable limits, is
permissible, based on review and determination by the Secretary in consultation with [MA
Energy and Environmental Affairs] agencies.109
While much of the proposed route of the OECC is designated as an offshore wind transmission cable
area, including most of the section in Muskeget Channel, and, thus, presumptively in compliance with
the MA Ocean Plan management standards for SSU resources, this presumption assumes that the
seafloor in the area of the cable is predominantly soft bottom. Vineyard Wind acknowledges in the COP
that although the MA Ocean Plan identifies hard bottom and complex seafloor on either side of the
planned OECC route, its own surveys “show that hard bottom habitat covers a majority of the OECC
through Muskeget Channel’s shallow water passage” and that several locations in the Muskeget
Channel area of the OECC likely meet the definition of SSUs due to containing pebble-cobble with
sponge habitats.110 Because 301 CMR 28.04(6)(a) presumes soft-bottom seafloor, if Vineyard Wind
106 Id. at 2-7
107 301 CMR 28.04(2)(a).
108 301 CMR 28.04(2)(b).
109 301 CMR 28.04(6)(a).
110 Id. at 5-26. The VWS COP also notes that the surveys demonstrate a general lack of coarse material in the
deepest portion of Muskeget Channel and to its south. Id.
22
identifies complex, hard bottom areas in the OECC route, Vineyard Wind must avoid these areas unless
it meets the criteria of 301 CMR 28.04(2)(b).
Where cable routes intersect with hard bottom habitats, impacts can be long-term and/or
permanent.111 Therefore, when installing the OECC, Vineyard Wind South should employ micro-routing
to avoid complex, hard bottom habitat. Vineyard Wind claims that it will be impossible to avoid all hard
bottom areas in Muskeget Channel, especially in the areas where hard bottom extends across the entire
corridor.112 However, only to the extent that Vineyard Wind demonstrates that there is no “practicable
alternative” to siting the OECC in complex, hard bottom areas; that it will take “all practicable measures
to avoid damage” to these resources; and that the public benefits associated with the proposed activity
outweigh the public detriments to the SSU resources,113 may Vineyard Wind route cables in such areas.
In instances where Vineyard Wind demonstrates that there is no alternative to routing the OECC across
hard bottom areas, Vineyard Wind South should minimize the length of hard bottom habitat traversed
to reduce impacts. As part of the Draft EIS, BOEM should assess impacts to complex habitats from the
OECC placement and whether alternate routes or seasonal restrictions on cable installation would
minimize or mitigate impacts to complex habitats. Further, BOEM may only authorize the Vineyard Wind
South project if Massachusetts makes a determination that the placement of the OECC is consistent with
the MA Ocean Plan, including its provisions relating to SSU resources and “complex/hard seafloor.”114
3. Other Impacts Specific to the OECC and Inter Array Cable
The Draft EIS should sufficiently analyze the impacts from the subsea cables installed in the OECC and
inter array cable. Installation of subsea cables can result in mortality, injury, or displacement of benthic
fauna in the path of construction.115 Static subsea cable installation would result in temporary
displacement of species inhabiting the cable route, including Atlantic cod and American lobster.116
Vineyard Wind intends to primarily employ jet plow technology to bury the subsea cable. While jet
plows have lower impacts than other technologies, use of jet plows for cable installation still results in
entrainment of benthic larvae, and eggs and larvae of pelagic finfish and invertebrates, resulting in 100%
mortality.117 Entrainment would affect several overfished species that have EFH in the route of the
cable, including Atlantic cod and yellowtail flounder. The Draft EIS should adequately assess the impacts
from entrainment of eggs and larvae during cable installation and burial.
The Draft EIS should also assess whether the impacts from entrainment during cable burial could be
reduced or avoided by requiring cable burial during certain seasons. For example, with the Vineyard
Wind 1 offshore wind project, Vineyard Wind committed to conducting burial activities in Nantucket
Sound outside of the spring and summer spawning seasons for a number of benthic invertebrates and
111 VW FEIS at 3-7; Anwar A. Khan & Kevin Smith, Seafloor Disturbance and Recovery Monitoring at the Block Island
Wind Farm, BOEM, at 27-28 (March 2020).
112 VW COP Vol. III at 4-37, Vol. III-F at 32;
113 301 CMR 28.04(2)(b).
114 See 15 C.F.R. §§930.50-930.66; see also 16 U.S.C.§1456 (Each Federal agency activity within or outside the
coastal zone that affects any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone shall be carried out in a
manner which is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enfo rceable policies of approved State
management programs).
115 Id. at 3-27.
116 Id.
117 Id. at 3-11, 3-27, 3-54.
23
fish that lay demersal eggs, including commercially important species.118 Here, the Draft EIS should
analyze whether similar seasonal restrictions could avoid or mitigate entrainment impacts to
invertebrates and fish.
Cable laying also results in resuspension and deposition of sediments and increased turbidity. Where
displaced sediment is thick enough, benthic species can be smothered, resulting in mortality. Sediment
deposition can increase mortality rates for benthic eggs and larvae.119 The installation of the cable is also
likely to result in increased turbidity, which is more likely to affect benthic species than pelagic species.
For organisms that are unable to escape the increased sediment plumes, impacts may range from
mortality to reduced fitness.120 Turbidity may further displace mobile juvenile and adult finfish species,
which could expose them to increased predation and reduce prey availability.121 Additionally, suspended
particles, which result from cable laying, and dredge and fill activities have been found to result in
moderate impacts to juvenile Atlantic cod HAPC.122 The Draft EIS should adequately assess the impacts
from increased turbidity and sediment deposition on benthic resources, finfish, EFH, and invertebrates
during cable installation and require Vineyard Wind to undertake measures to avoid, minimize, and
mitigate these impacts.
Further, both marine and diadromous species can sense electric and/or magnetic fields and the
generation of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from subsea cables may affect the ability of organisms to
navigate and detect prey.123 Buried cables reduce, but do not eliminate, EMF. Demersal species living on
or near the seabed, where cable EMF is stronger, are more likely to be exposed to EMF than pelagic
species.124 Although there have been few studies of EMF impacts from buried cables on invertebrates,
research has demonstrated that American lobster held in cages displayed behavioral differences when
exposed to EMF. In that same study, little skate, an electrosensitive elasmobranch, demonstrated even
greater sensitivity to EMF.125 As part of the Vineyard Wind South project, BOEM and/or NMFS should
118 Id. at 3-27.
119 Wilber, D.H., and D.G. Clarke. Biological Effects of Suspended Sediments: A Review of Suspended Sediment
Impacts on Fish and Shellfish with Relation to Dredging Activities in Estuaries. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 21, 855-875 (2001).
120 Id.; Berry, W.J., N.I. Rubinstein, E.K. Hinchey, G. Klein-MacPhee, and D.G. Clarke, Assessment of Dredging
Induced Sedimentation Effects on Winter Flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) Hatching Success: Results
of Laboratory Investigations, Proceedings of the Western Dredging Association Technical Conference and Texas
A&M Dredging Seminar, Nashville, Tennessee, (June 5-8, 2011).
121 Wilber, D.H., and D.G. Clarke, Biological Effects of Suspended Sediments: A Review of Suspended Sediment
Impacts on Fish and Shellfish with Relation to Dredging Activities in Estuaries, North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 21, 855-875 (2001); VW 1 FEIS at 3-54.
122 Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2, Volume 2 EFH and HAPC Designation Alternatives and
Environmental Impacts, NEFMC & NMFS, at 110 (October 2017). However, the overall impact levels from utility
lines to juvenile Atlantic cod HAPC remain unknown. Id.
123 Normandeau, E., Tricas, T., & Gill, A., Effects of EMFs from Undersea Power Cables on Elasmobranchs and Other
Marine Species, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (2011); Peters, R. C.,
Eeuwes, L. B. M., & Bretschneider, F, On the electrodetection threshold of aquatic vertebrates with ampullary or
mucous gland electroreceptor organs, 82 Biological Reviews 361–373 (2007).
124 Id.
125 Hutchison, Z.L., P. Sigray, H. He, A.B. Gill, J. King, and C. Gibson, Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Impacts on
Elasmobranch (Shark, Rays, and Skates) and American Lobster Movement and Migration from Direct Current
Cables. BOEM (2018), available at https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/renewable -
energy/state-activities/Vineyard-Wind-1-FEIS-Volume-2.pdf.
24
establish a program for monitoring the effects of EMF from the project’s subsea cables on marine
wildlife, including finfish and invertebrates.
4. Recommendations
a) Information to Include and Consider in the Draft EIS
Given that important complex, hard bottom habitats in Muskeget Channel are considered HAPC for
juvenile Atlantic cod and the fact that Atlantic cod demonstrate spawning site fidelity to such habitats, it
is crucial that the Vineyard Wind South Draft EIS fully consider and analyze these issues and all available
information on Atlantic cod habitat as part of its impact analysis. For the Revolution Wind project, BOEM
is funding an acoustic telemetry study to better understand the distribution and habitat of spawning
cod.126 BOEM should consider conducting a similar study in complex, hard bottom habitat areas of the
SWDA and OECC and including it in the analysis for the Vineyard Wind South Draft EIS to fully measure
the project’s impacts on Atlantic cod.
Additionally, as part of the EIS for South Fork Wind, BOEM and NMFS have worked to quantify benthic
habitats in the area of South Fork Wind as either complex or non-complex and to assess the areal extent
of impacts to complex habitats.127 Because of the importance of habitats in the path of the OECC, and
particularly Muskeget Channel, to Atlantic cod and other species, BOEM should conduct a similar
quantification of habitat types in the OECC area to ensure that its evaluation of impacts to EFH and
benthic resources in the Draft EIS is as complete and accurate as possible. The Draft EIS should also
provide a more particularized and species-based analysis of the impacts to EFH corresponding with
complex habitats in the area of the SWDA and OECC, specifically including overfished species.
Further, impact levels to EFH may vary depending on the biological status of each EFH species and
whether an EFH species is abundant in an area. In the Draft EIS, BOEM should discuss the biological
status of each EFH species and which EFH species are abundant and non-abundant in the area of
Vineyard Wind South and the overall impact to these species’ EFH.
b) WTGs and the OECC Should Be Sited Away from Complex, Hard Bottom Areas
Because of the importance of complex, hard bottom habitats in the Vineyard Wind South area to
overfished Atlantic cod reproduction and growth and other vulnerable groundfish species; designation
of most of the route of the Vineyard Wind South OECC as an HAPC for juvenile Atlantic cod; Atlantic cod
spawning site fidelity in complex habitats; and the lack of recovery for complex habitats from offshore
wind construction as demonstrated by research at the Block Island Wind Farm, BOEM should require
Vineyard Wind South to avoid siting WTGs and the OECC cable in complex, hard bottom areas, to the
greatest extent possible. Avoiding siting in complex habitats would result in fewer acres of complex
habit disturbed by WTG construction and cable burial, which would decrease the overall impacts to EFH
and benthic resources.
c) Additional Mitigation and Monitoring Measures
BOEM and Vineyard Wind should work closely with Massachusetts fishery managers and NMFS to
consider and implement appropriate mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential
adverse impacts to EFH, finfish, benthic resources, and invertebrate populations which may be affected
126 See Revolution Wind Farm (RWF) COP at 394.
127 See SFWF DEIS at 3-16, 3-34.
25
by construction activities, particularly during vulnerable times of spawning, larval settlement, and
juvenile development. In addition to the mitigation measures already identified in COP, we encourage
BOEM to require Vineyard Wind South to undertake additional actions including but not limited to (1)
conducting site-specific benthic habitat assessments and Atlantic cod spawning surveys to inform siting
of WTGs and the subsea cable; (2) time of year restrictions on cable installation to avoid disruption of
fish spawning activities; and (3) requiring post-construction monitoring to document habitat disturbance
and recovery and require that Vineyard Wind consult with NMFS and BOEM before conducting
monitoring to address agency comments prior to implementation.
Moreover, because the offshore wind industry is in its infancy, a comprehensive monitoring effort is
crucial. Thus, BOEM and/or Vineyard Wind, in consultation with Massachusetts fishery managers and
NMFS, should conduct long-term monitoring before, during, and after construction to document
impacts to benthic habitat and EFH, and habitat recovery, and if necessary, design appropriate adaptive
mitigation strategies to address the impacts identified.
E. Impacts to Marine Mammals
1. Status of Marine Mammals in the Project Area
Fourteen marine mammal species occur regularly in waters in and near the Project Area.128 Of these
species, four (North Atlantic right, fin, sei, and sperm whale) are listed as endangered under the ESA,
and as depleted and strategic stocks under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). In addition,
humpback whales occurring off Rhode Island are part of the Gulf of Maine stock which is considered
strategic under the MMPA.129 Vocalizations of blue whales, which are endangered under the ESA, have
been detected from acoustic devices located in the Project Area.130 However, due to the far detection
range of a blue whale vocalization (>200 km)131 and the lack of blue whale sightings in the Project Area
during recent surveys,132 these vocalizing blue whales were likely not within the Project Area. Therefore,
this species is not considered a regularly occurring species for the Project Area. Harbor porpoise are
expected to be common to the Project Area in the winter and spring; while not a listed species or
strategic stock, the marked sensitivity of the harbor porpoise to noise requires BOEM’s specific
attention.
128 Kraus, S.D., S. Leiter, K. Stone, B. Wikgren, C. Mayo, P. Hughes, R.D. Kenney, C.W. Clark, A.N. Rice, B. Estabrook,
and J. Tielens. 2016. Northeast Large Pelagic Survey Collaborative Aerial and Acoustic Surveys for Large Whales
and Sea Turtles. OCS Study BOEM 2016-054. Sterling, Virginia: US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management. Stone, K.M., S.M. Leiter, R.D. Kenney, B.C. Wikgren, J.L. Thompson, J.K.D. Taylor, and S.D.
Kraus. 2017. Distribution and abundance of cetaceans in a wind energy development area offshore of
Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Journal of Coastal Conservation 21(4):527 -543. Quintana, E., S. Kraus, and M.
Baumgartner. 2019. Megafauna aerial surveys in the Wind Energy Areas of Massachusetts and Rhode Island with
emphasis on large whales. Summary report - Campaign 4, 2017-2018. Prepared by New England Aquarium,
Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. O’Brien, O., K. McKenna, B.
Hodge, D. Pendleton, M. Baumgartner, and J. Redfern. 2021. Megafauna aerial surveys in the Wind Energy Areas
of Massachusetts and Rhode Island with emphasis on large whales. Summary Report - Campaign 5, 2018-2019.
Agreement No.: M17AC00002. OCS Study BOEM 2021-033. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management.
129 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2020. Draft U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stock
assessments -- 2020.
130 Kraus, S.D., et al., 2016, supra.
131 Id.
132 Id.; Stone, K.M., et al., 2017, supra; Quintana, E., et al., 2019, supra; O’Brien, O., et al., 2021, supra.
26
a) North Atlantic Right Whales
As the agency is aware, the conservation status of the North Atlantic right whale rests on a knife-edge.
Despite more than 50 years of federal protections, the species has never recovered to a sustainable
level133 and indeed remains “one of the world’s most endangered large whale species.”134 Recent
scientific analysis confirms that the right whale population has been declining since 2010 due primarily
to entanglements in commercial fishing gear and vessel strikes.135 However, the species has recently
experienced a “more precipitous drop than previous years.”136 In the wake of an alarming number of
human-caused deaths of North Atlantic right whales in 2017, NMFS declared an Unusual Mortality Event
(UME) under the MMPA for all U.S. waters in which right whales occur.137 This designation is still in
effect. At least 34 whales are known to have been killed since 2017, and an additional 16 whales have
been documented with serious injuries from which they will likely not recover.138 Four calves born
during the last two calving seasons (2019-2021) have either been confirmed or presumed dead.139
However, recent scientific analysis estimated that observed carcasses account for only 29% of all
estimated deaths since 2010, meaning the actual number of dead right whales since 2017 is likely to be
more than three times higher.140
The best population estimate for 2019 is just 368 individuals141 and four animals have since been
reported to have died and eight reported as seriously injured.142 Moreover, the best population estimate
133 See generally Recovery Plan for North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis), NMFS (Aug. 2004), available at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/recovery -plan-north-atlantic-right-whale-eubalaena-
glacialis.
134 10 Things You Should Know About North Atlantic Right Whales, NMFS (Oct. 17, 2019),
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/10-things-you-should-know-about-north-atlantic-right-whales.
135 Richard M. Pace, III et al., State-space mark-recapture estimates reveal a recent decline in abundance of North
Atlantic right whales, ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION (Sept. 18, 2017); Sarah M. Sharp et al., Gross and histopathologic
diagnoses from North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis mortalities between 2003 and 2018, DISEASES OF
AQUATIC ORGANISMS (June 20, 2019).
136 Heather M. Pettis et al., North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2020 Annual Report Card, N. ATL. RIGHT WHALE
CONSORTIUM (Jan. 2021), at 4.
137 2017–2021 North Atlantic Right Whale Unusual Mortality Event, NMFS (last visited Jul. 28, 2021),
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2021-north-atlantic-right-whale-
unusualmortality-event.
138 Id.
139 First Known North Atlantic Right Whale Calf of the Season Washes Up Dead off North Carolina, NMFS (Nov. 23,
2020), https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/first-known-north-atlantic-right-whale-calf-season-
washesdead-north-carolina; Dead North Atlantic Right Whale Sighted off New Jersey, NMFS (June 29, 2020),
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/dead-north-atlantic-right-whale-sighted-new-jersey; North
Atlantic Right Whale Calf Injured by Vessel Strike, NMFS (Jan. 30, 2020),
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/featurestory/north-atlantic-right-whale-calf-injured-vessel-strike; North Atlantic
Right Whale Calf Stranded Dead in Florida, NMFS (Feb. 14, 2021), https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature -
story/north-atlantic-right-whale-calfstranded-dead-florida.
140 Richard M. Pace, III et al., Cryptic mortality of North Atlantic right whales, CONSERVATION SCI. & PRACTICE
(Feb. 2, 2021).
141 Pace, R.M., “Revisions and further evaluations of the right whale abundance model: Improvements for
hypothesis testing.” NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-269. April 2021. Available at:
https://appsnefsc.fisheries.noaa.gov/rcb/publications/tm269.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdeliver
y.
142 NMFS, “2017-2021 North Atlantic right whale Unusual Mortality Event,” supra.
27
for the beginning of 2018 has been revised down from 412 individuals143 to 383 individuals.144 The new
2019 and revised 2018 estimates demonstrate a significant decrease in survival during the last three
years as a result of the ongoing UME. Additionally, scientists from the New England Aquarium now
believe that “low birth rates coupled with whale deaths means there could be no females left in the next
10 to 20 years.”145 The decline of the species over the past decade is also deeply disturbing. Based on
the best population estimate for the species as well as recently documented deaths, approximately 127
animals have been killed since 2011.146
Further, documented serious injuries and deaths only represent a small fraction of whales that are
injured or killed by human activities.147 A recently published scientific study concludes only 29% (2
standard error = 2.8%) of North Atlantic right whale carcasses were detected from 2010 to 2017.148
Females are more negatively affected than males by the lethal and sublethal effects of human activity,
now surviving to only 30-40 years of age with an extended inter-calf interval of approximately ten
years.149 Calf survival is also severely diminished. Three calves born during the last two calving seasons
are already either confirmed or likely dead due to vessel strikes.150 One of the calves’ mothers has been
declared seriously injured due to the strike that killed her calf, one mother has not been resighted, and
the third has been seriously injured from entanglement in fishing gear.151 A fourth calf was found to
have died of natural causes.152
In 2019, North Atlantic right whales were listed as a NOAA “Species in the Spotlight” indicating that they
are one of nine marine species to be at greatest risk of extinction in the United States.153 In July 2020,
143 Pettis, H.M., Pace III, R. M., and Hamilton, P.K., “North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2019 Annual Report
Card,” Report to the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium (2019). Available at:
https://www.narwc.org/uploads/1/1/6/6/116623219/2019reportfinal.pdf.
144 Pettis, H.M., Pace III, R. M., and Hamilton, P.K., “North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2020 Annual Report
Card.” Report to the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium (2020). Available at:
https://www.narwc.org/uploads/1/1/6/6/116623219/2020narwcreport_cardfinal.pdf.
145 Davie, E., “New population estimate suggests only 356 North Atlantic right whales left,” CBC News (Oct. 29,
2020). Available at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/356-north-atlantic-right-whales-left-2020-
population-1.5779931.
146 Pettis, H.M., et al., “North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2020 Annual Report Card,” supra.; Pace, R.M.,
“Revisions and further evaluations of the right whale abundance model: Improvements for hypothesis testing,”
supra; NMFS, “2017-2021 North Atlantic right whale Unusual Mortality Event,” supra.
147 Sharp, S.M., McLellan, W.A., Rotstein, D.S., Costidis, A.M., Barco, S.G., Durham, K., Pitchford, T.D., Jackson, K.A.,
Daoust, P-Y., Wimmer, T., Couture, E.L., Bourque, L., Frasier, T., Frasier, B., Fauquier, D., Rowles, T., Hamilton,
P.K., Pettis, H., and Moore, M.J., “Gross and histopathologic diagnoses from North Atlantic right whale
Eubalaena glacialis, mortalities between 2003 and 2018,” Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, vol. 135, pp. 1 -31
(2019).; Pace III, R. M., Williams, R., Kraus, S. D., Knowlton, A. R. and Pettis, H. M.,” Cryptic mortality of North
Atlantic right whales,” Conservation Science and Practice, art. e346 (2021).
148 Pace III, R. M., et al., id.
149 Corkeron, P., Hamilton, P., Bannister, J., Best, P., Cha rlton, C., Groch, K.R., Findlay, K., Rowntree, V., Vermeulen,
E., and Pace, R.M., “The recovery of North Atlantic right whales, Eubalaena glacialis, has been constrained by
human-caused mortality,” Royal Society Open Science, vol 5, art. 180892 (2018).
150 NMFS, “2017-2021 North Atlantic right whale Unusual Mortality Event,” supra.
151 Id.
152 Id.
153 NMFS, “North Atlantic right whale – In the Spotlight.” Available at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangeredspecies -conservation/species-spotlight-action-plan-
accomplishments.
28
the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) reclassified the North Atlantic right whale
from “endangered” to “critically endangered” on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, one step
away from “extinction.”154
Since 2010, North Atlantic right whale distribution and habitat use has shifted in response to climate
change-driven shifts in prey availability.155 Best available scientific information, including recent regional
aerial surveys,156 acoustic detections,157 photo-identification data,158 stranding data,159 a series of
154 Cooke, J.G., “Eubalaena glacialis,” The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, e.T41712A162001243 (2020).
Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T41712A162001243.en
155 Record, N., Runge, J., Pendleton, D., Balch, W., Davies, K., Pershing, A., Johnson, C., Stamieszkin, K., Ji, R., Feng,
Z. and Kraus, S., “Rapid Climate-Driven Circulation Changes Threaten Conservation of Endangered North Atlantic
Right Whales,” Oceanography, vol. 32, pp. 162-169 (2019).
156 Kraus, S.D., et al., 2016, supra; Stone, K.M., et al., 2017, supra; Quintana, E., et al., 2019, supra; O’Brien, O., et
al., 2021, supra. Leiter, S.M., K.M. Stone, J.L. Thompson, C.M. Accardo, B.C. Wikgren, M.A. Zani, T.V.N. Cole, R.D.
Kenney, C.A. Mayo, and S.D. Kraus. 2017. North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis occurrence in offshore
wind energy areas near Massachusetts and Rhode Island, USA. Endangered Species Research 34:45 –59.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center and Southeast Fisheries Science Center, “2018 Annual Report of a
Comprehensive Assessment of Marine Mammal, Marine Turtle, and Seabird Abundance and Spatial Distribution
in US waters of the Western North Atlantic Ocean – AMAPPS II.” (2019). Available at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/publication-database/atlantic-marine-assessment-program-protected-
species.
157 Kraus, S.D., et al., 2016, supra. Davis, G.E., Baumgartner, M.F., Bonnell, J.M., Bell, J., Berchick, C., Bort Thorton,
J., Brault, S., Buchanan, G., Charif, R.A., Cholewiak, D., et al., “Long‐term passive acoustic recordings track the
changing distribution of North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) from 2004 to 2014,” Scientific Reports,
vol. 7, p. 13460 (2017). Davis, G.E., M.F. Baumgartner, J.M. Bonnell, J. Bell, C. Berchok, J. Bort Thornton, S.
Brault, G. Buchanan, R.A. Charif, D. Cholewiak, C.W. Clark, P. Corkeron, J. Delarue, K. Dudzinski, L. Hatch, J.
Hildebrand, L. Hodge, H. Klinck, S. Kraus, B. Martin, D.K. Mellinger, H. Moors-Murphy, S. Nieukirk, D.P. Nowacek,
S. Parks, A.J. Read, A.N. Rice, D. Risch, A. Širović, M. Soldevilla, K. Stafford, J.E. Stanistreet , E. Summers, S. Todd,
A. Warde, and S.M. Van Parijs. 2017. Long-term passive acoustic recordings track the changing distribution of
North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) from 2004 to 2014. Scientific Reports 7(1):13460. Davis, G.E.,
M.F. Baumgartner, P.J. Corkeron, J. Bell, C. Berchok, J.M. Bonnell, J. Bort Thornton, S. Brault, G.A. Buchanan,
D.M. Cholewiak, C.W. Clark, J. Delarue, L.T. Hatch, H. Klinck, S.D. Kraus, B. Martin, D.K. Mellinger, H. Moors -
Murphy, S. Nieukirk, D.P. Nowacek, S.E. Parks, D. Parry, N. Pegg, A.J. Read, A.N. Rice, D. Risch, A. Scott, M.S.
Soldevilla, K.M. Stafford, J.E. Stanistreet, E. Summers, S. Todd, and S.M. Van Parijs. 2020. Exploring movement
patterns and changing distributions of baleen whales in the western North Atlantic using a decade of passive
acoustic data. Global Change Biology 26(9):4812-4840. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, “Autonomous
Real Team Marine Mammal Detections: Cox Ledge, Winter 2019-2020,” Available at:
http://dcs.whoi.edu/cox1219/cox1219_we16.shtml.
158 Leiter, S.M., et al., 2017, supra. Hamilton, P., “North Atlantic Right Whale Catalog Update, Recent Genetic
Findings and Whale Naming Results,” Presentation at the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium Annual
Meeting (Oct. 29, 2020).
159 2017–2021 North Atlantic Right Whale Unusual Mortality Event.
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2021-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-
mortality-event.
29
Dynamic Management Areas (DMAs) declared by NMFS pursuant to ship strike rule,160 and prey data,161
indicate that North Atlantic right whales now rely heavily on the waters within, and regionally proximate
to, the Project Area year-round. Recent aerial surveys and passive acoustic studies conducted by the
Northeast Large Pelagic Survey Collaborative (NLPSC) have detected North Atlantic right whales in and
near the Massachusetts and Rhode Island WEAs during all seasons.162 Acoustics studies often record the
presence of right whales when aerial surveys do not; therefore, it is important to consider all data
sources when assessing the occurrence of right whales. For example, during the NLPSC campaigns from
October 2011 through June 2015, right whales were only sighted via the aerial surveys during winter and
spring, but this species was acoustically detected during all seasons.163
Not only are right whales present in the Project Area year-round, but their presence appears to be
increasing. A new scientific analysis comparing the NLPSC aerial survey campaigns conducted in 2011-
2015 with those conducted in 2017-2019 show that right whale occurrence has increased during the
study period.164 Since 2017, right whales have been sighted in the area nearly every month, with peak
sighting rates between late winter and spring.165 Modeling suggests that 23% of the species’ population
is present from December through May each year, and that mean residence time has tripled to an
average of 13 days during these months.166 A total of 327 unique right whales were identified during the
combined survey effort off southern New England between March 2011 and December 2019; by the end
of 2019, 87% of the current population had been sighted.167 The discovery curve had a steep slope
during the 2011−2015 surveys and was even steeper in 2017−2018, suggesting an open population or
that sightings in the area were underestimated.168
All demographic classes of right whales have been documented in or near the Project Area and the age-
ratio of the whales using the area is reflective of the species.169 Both reproductive females and
conceptive females have been seen in the study area. Forty-five of the 108 reproductively active females
(42%) known to be alive during the study were sighted in the southern New England region, and 17 were
resighted in multiple years. The overall yearly proportions of reproductively active females varied from
160 NOAA Fisheries Interactive DMA Analyses https://apps-nefsc.fisheries.noaa.gov/psb/surveys/interactive-
monthly-dma-analyses/. Although there are challenges in the use of opportunistic sightings data (no area
systematically surveyed, effort not corrected for, and potential for counting an individual whale more than
once), they are a proxy for habitat used by North Atlantic right whales, as validated by NMFS’s management
actions based on these data, including the implementation of DMAs.
161 Pendleton, D.E., Pershing, A., Brown, M.W., Mayo, C.A., Kenney, R.D., Record, N.R., and Cole, T.V .N., “Regional-
scale mean copepod concentration indicates relative abundance of North Atlantic right whales,” Marine Ecology
Progress Series, vol. 378, pp. 211-225 (2009); NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center, “Ecology of the
Northeast US Continental Shelf – Zooplankton.” Available at: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/ecosystem-
ecology/zooplankton.html. Quintana, E., et al., 2019, supra.
162 Id.; Kraus, S.K., et al., 2017, supra; O’Brien, O., et al., 2021, supra.
163 Kraus, S.K., et al., id.
164 Quintana-Rizzo E., Leiter, S., Cole, T.V.N., Hagbloom, M.N., Knowlton, A.R., Nagelkirk, P., O’Brien, O., Khan, C.B.,
Henry, A.G., Duley, P.A., Crowe, L.M., Mayo, C.A., and Kraus, S.D., “Residency, demographics, and movement
patterns of North Atlantic right whales Eubalaena glacialis, in an offshore wind energy development in Southern
New England, USA,” Endangered Species Research, vol. 45, pp. 251-268 (29 Jul. 2021).
165 Id.
166 Id.
167 Id.
168 Id.
169 Id.; Leiter, S.M., et al., 2017, supra; Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021, supra.
30
0.25 to 0.57 (0.4 +/- 0.05).170 In the case of conceptive females, only 4 females were identified in 4 years
(2011, 2012, 2017, 2018), and their yearly proportion varied from 0 to 0.14 (0.03 +/- 0.02).171 The area
also provides important habitat for cow-calf pairs. Six different calves (inferred by the presence of
known mothers) were recorded during the study in southern New England (4 in 2011, 1 in 2015, 1 in
2019; 89 calves were born in the population during this time). Three calves were sighted twice in the
same year.172
The Project Area represents important habitat for socializing and feeding right whales. Feeding was
observed in all seasons and years during the 2011-2019 survey period, and social behaviors were
observed mainly in the winter and spring in most, but not all, years, suggesting that right whales may
use this area for courtship and mating.173 Indeed, feeding behaviors have been observed in the Project
Area by all whale species and small cetaceans regularly occurring in this area.174 Oceanographic studies
in the Project Area, which were part of the NLPSC campaigns, confirmed the presence of a zooplankton
community composition is similar to that of Cape Cod Bay, which is a known hotspot for right whale
feeding.175 A feeding Biologically Important Area (BIA) for fin whales is designated March to October east
of Montauk Point176 and feeding humpback whales are regularly observed, particularly during March and
April.177 Courtship behaviors in the area have also been observed by humpback whales.178
Protection of North Atlantic right whale foraging and mating habitat is essential, and further research to
determine whether North Atlantic right whales are currently engaging in these behaviors should be
undertaken during site assessment. Foraging areas with suitable prey density are limited relative to the
overall distribution of North Atlantic right whales, and a decreasing amount of habitat is available for
resting, pregnant, and lactating females.179 This means that unrestricted and undisturbed access to
suitable areas, when they exist, is extremely important for the species to maintain its energy budget.180
Scientific information on North Atlantic right whale functional ecology also shows that the species
employs a “high-drag” foraging strategy that enables them to selectively target high-density prey
patches, but is energetically expensive.181 Thus, if access to prey is limited in any way, the ability of the
170 Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021, supra.
171 Id.
172 Id.
173 Id.
174 Id.
175 Id.; O’Brien, O., et al., 2021, supra.
176 LaBrecque, E., C. Curtice, J. Harrison, S.M.V. Parijs, and P.N. Halpin. 2015. Biologically important areas for
cetaceans within U.S. waters – East Coast region. Aquatic Mammals 41(1):17-29.
177 Leiter, S.M., et al., 2017, supra.
178 Kraus et al., 2017, supra.
179 Van der Hoop, J., Nousek-McGregor, A.E., Nowacek, D.P., Parks, S.E., Tyack, P., and Madsen, P, “Foraging rates
of ram-filtering North Atlantic right whales.” Functional Ecology, vol. 33, pp. 1290-1306 (2019); Plourde, S.,
Lehoux, C., Johnson, C. L., Perrin, G., and Lesage, V. “North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) and its food:
(I) a spatial climatology of Calanus biomass and potential foraging habitats in Canadian waters.” Journal of
Plankton Research, vol. 41, pp. 667-685 (2019); Lehoux, C., Plourde S., and Lesage, V., “Significance of dominant
zooplankton species to the North Atlantic Right Whale potential foraging habitats in the Gulf of St. Lawrence: a
bioenergetic approach.” DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) Research Document 2020/033
(2020). Gavrilchuk, K., Lesage, V., Fortune, S., Trites, A.W., and Plourde, S., “A mechanistic approach to
predicting suitable foraging habitat for reproductively mature North Atlantic right whales in t he Gulf of St.
Lawrence.” DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) Research Document 2020/034 (2020).
180 Id.
181 Van der Hoop, J., et al., Id.
31
whale to offset its energy expenditure during foraging is jeopardized. In fact, researchers have
concluded: “[R]ight whales acquire their energy in a relatively short period of intense foraging; even
moderate changes in their feeding behavior or their prey energy density are likely to negatively impact
their yearly energy budgets and therefore reduce fitness substantially.”182 North Atlantic right whales
are already experiencing significant food-stress; juveniles, adults, and lactating females have
significantly poorer body condition relative to southern right whales, and the poor condition of lactating
females may cause a reduction in calf growth rates.183 Indeed, North Atlantic right whale body lengths
have been decreasing since 1981, a change associated with entanglements in fishing gear as well as
other cumulative stressors.184 Undisturbed access to foraging habitat is necessary to adequately protect
the species, as is the minimization of disturbance during the species’ energetically expensive migration.
The Project Area is also part of the NMFS-designated migratory corridor BIA for the North Atlantic right
whale.185 While helpful in identifying key areas of importance, the BIAs are not comprehensive and are
intended to be periodically reviewed and updated to reflect the best available scientific information.186
All of the East Coast marine mammal BIAs were defined in 2015 before evidence emerged of the new
foraging areas south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket. Until the current review is completed for the
East Coast, NMFS should not rely on the North Atlantic right whale migratory corridor BIA as the sole
indicator of habitat importance for the species.
b) Other Large Whale Species
Ongoing UMEs exist for humpback and minke whales. There have been UMEs for the Atlantic population
of minke whales since January 2017 and humpback whales since January 2016. Alarmingly, 107 minke
whales have stranded between Maine and South Carolina from January 2017 to July 2021.187 Elevated
numbers of humpback whales have also been found stranded along the Atlantic Coast since January
2016 and, in a little over five years, 150 humpback whale mortalities have been recorded (data through
28 July 2021) with strandings occurring in every state along the East Coast.188 Partial or full necropsy
182 Id.
183 Christiansen, F., Dawson, S.M., Durban, J.W., Fearnbach, H., Miller, C.A., Bejder, L., Uhart, M., Sironi, M.,
Corkeron, P., Rayment, W., Leunissen, E., Haria, E., Ward, R., Warick, H.A., Kerr, I., Lynn, M.S., Pettis, H.M., &
Moore, M.J., “Population comparison of right whale body condition reveals poor state of the North Atlantic right
whale.” Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 640, pp. 1-16 (2020).
184 Stewart, J.D., Durban, J.W., Knowlton, A.R., Lynn, M.S., Fearnback, H., Barbaro, J., Perryman, W.L., Miller, C.A.,
and Moore, M.J., “Decreasing body lengths in North Atlantic right whales,” Current Biology, published online (3
June 2021). Available at: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(21)00614-X.
185 LaBrecque, E., C. Curtice, J. Harrison, S.M.V. Parijs, and P.N. Halpin. 2015. Biologically important areas for
cetaceans within U.S. waters – East Coast region. Aquatic Mammals 41(1):17-29.
186 “However, these BIAs are meant to be living documents that should be routinely reviewed and revised to
expand the number of species covered and to update the existing BIAs as new information becomes available.”
Van Parijs, S. M., “Letter of introduction to the Biologically Important Areas issue.” Aquatic Mammals, vol. 41,
p.1 (2015).
187 NOAA-NMFS, “2017-2021 Minke whale Unusual Mortality Event along the Atlantic Coast,” supra; NOAA-NMFS,
“2017-2021 North Atlantic right whale Unusual Mortality Event.” Available at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2021-minke-whale-unusual-mortality-event-
along-atlantic-coast.
188 NOAA-NMFS, “2016-2021 Humpback whale Unusual Mortality Event along the Atlantic Coast.” Available at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2016-2021-humpback-whale-unusual-mortality-
event-along-atlantic-coast; NOAA-NMFS, “2017-2021 Minke whale Unusual Mortality Event along the Atlantic
Coast.” Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine -life-distress/2017-2021-minke-whale-
unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast.
32
examinations have been conducted on approximately half of the stranded animals and a significant
portion showed evidence of pre-mortem vessel strikes. NMFS recently proposed to designate the Gulf of
Maine humpback whale stock, which occurs off Rhode Island and Massachusetts, as a strategic stock
under the MMPA based on the total estimated human-caused average annual mortality and serious
injury to this stock, including from vessel strikes.189 The declaration of these UMEs by NMFS in the past
few years for three large whale species for which anthropogenic impacts are a significant cause of
mortality, and the recent classification of humpback whales as a strategic stock by the agency,
demonstrates an increasing risk to whales from human activities along the East Coast.
c) Other Marine Mammals
Harbor porpoises also require special attention during offshore wind energy development because of
their extreme sensitivity to noise. Harbor porpoises are substantially more susceptible to temporary
threshold shift (i.e., hearing loss) from low-frequency pulsed sound than are other cetacean species that
have thus far been tested.190 European studies demonstrate that harbor porpoises are easily disturbed
by the low-frequency noise produced by pile-driving operations during offshore wind energy
development. Harbor porpoises have been reported to react to pile driving beyond 20 km and may be
displaced from areas for months or years after construction.191 High-amplitude pile driving noise may
also negatively affect harbor porpoise foraging by decreasing their catch success rate and increasing the
termination rate of their fish-catching attempts.192 Both captive and wild animal studies show harbor
porpoises abandoning habitat in response to various types of pulsed sounds at well below 120 dB (re 1
uPa (RMS))193 and, in fact, evidence of the acoustic sensitivity of the harbor porpoise has led scientists to
189 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2020. Draft U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stock
assessments -- 2020. The revised SAR for humpback whales was presented in draft stages but withdrawn for
final publication due to delay in publication of supporting documents.
190 Lucke, K., Siebert, U., Lepper, P.A., and Blanchet, M.A., “Temporary shift in masked hearing thresholds in a
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) after exposure to seismic airgun stimuli.” Journal of the Acoustical Society
of America, vol. 125 (2009): 4060-4070.
191 See, e.g., Carstensen, J., Henriksen, O. D., and Teilmann, J., “Impacts of offshore wind farm construction on
harbour porpoises: acoustic monitoring of echolocation activity using porpoise detectors (T -PODs).” Mar. Ecol.
Prog. Ser. vol. 321 (2006): 295-308; Evans, P.G.H. (ed.), “Proceedings of the ECS/ASCOBANS Workshop: Offshore
wind farms and marine mammals: impacts and methodologies for assessing impacts.” ESC Special Publication
Series, no. 49 (2008): 50-59, 64-65, available at
http://www.ascobans.org/sites/default/files/document/MOP6_5-06_WindFarmWorkshop_1.pdf; Tougaard, J.,
Carstensen, J., Teilmann, J., Skov, H., and Rasmussen, P., “Pile driving zone of responsiveness extends beyond 20
km for harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena, (L.)).” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 126
(2009): 11-14.; Brandt, M. J., Diederichs, A., Betke, K., and Nehls, G., “Responses of harbor porpoises to pile
driving at the Horns Rev II offshore wind farm in the Danish North Sea,” Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 421
(2011): 205-216.; Dähne, M., Gilles, A., Lucke, K., Peschko, V., Adler, S., Krügel, K., Sunderleyer, J., and Siebert,
U., “Effects of pile-driving on harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) at the first offshore wind farm in
Germany.” Environmental Research Letters, vol. 8 (2013): 025002.
192 Kastalein, R.A., L.A.E. Huijser, S. Cornelisse, L. Helder -Hoek, N. Jennings, and C.A.F. de Jong. 2019. Effect of pile-
driving playback sound level on fish-catching efficiency in harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Aquatic
Mammals 45(4):398-410.
193 See, e.g., Bain, D.E., and Williams, R., “Long-range effects of airgun noise on marine mammals: responses as a
function of received sound level and distance” Report by Sea Mammal Research Unity (SMRU), 2006.; Kastelein,
R.A., Verboom, W.C., Jennings, N., de Haan, D., “Behavioral avoidance threshold level of a harbor porpoise
(Phocoena phocoena) for a continuous 50 kHz pure tone.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 123
(2008): 1858-1861.; Kastelein, R.A., Verboom, W.C., Muijsers, M., Jennings, N.V., van der Heul, S., “The influence
of acoustic emissions for underwater data transmission on the behavior of harbour porpoises (Phocoena
33
call for a revision to the NMFS acoustic exposure criteria for behavioral response.194 Impacts to harbor
porpoises must, therefore, also be minimized and mitigated to the full extent practicable during
offshore wind siting and development in the waters off Rhode Island and Massachusetts.
The agency is obligated by NEPA to consider the full range of potential impacts on all marine mammal
species and to protect the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale from additional harmful
impacts of human activities. Considering the elevated threat to federally protected large whale species
and populations in the Atlantic, emerging evidence of dynamic shifts in the distribution of large whale
habitat, and acoustic sensitivity of the harbor porpoise, BOEM must ensure that any potential stressors
posed by site assessment activities on affected species and stocks are avoided, minimized, mitigated,
and monitored to the full extent possible.195
2. BOEM Must Use Best Available Scientific Information to Analyze Impacts to Marine
Mammals
As stated in III(E)1 above, distribution and habitat use of North Atlantic right whales and other large
whale species and stocks have undergone significant climate-driven shifts. Best available scientific
information indicates that North Atlantic right whales now heavily rely on the waters off Rhode Island
and Massachusetts year-round and that this region is an increasingly important seasonal foraging
habitat for other species and stocks of endangered and strategic large whales.
To adequately assess the occurrence of and potential impacts to marine mammals, it is extremely
important that BOEM consider a variety of local and regional data sources. For example, aerial survey
and passive acoustic monitoring data must be combined to provide a comprehensive look at the
seasonal and annual occurrence of large whales. Data sources that should be assessed include NLPSC
aerial surveys and passive acoustic studies,196 the Center for Coastal Studies surveys,197 and the Atlantic
Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS) data.198 Where possible, density estimate
modeling for the WEAs should include these multiple data sources, particularly the most recent data for
this region.199
BOEM currently relies on estimates of marine mammal densities derived from the habitat-based density
model (the “Roberts et al.” model) produced by the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology
phocoena) in a floating pen.” Mar. Enviro. Res. Vol. 59 (2005): 287-307; Olesiuk, P.F., Nichol, L.M., Sowden, M.J.,
and Ford, J.K.B., “Effect of the sound generated by an acoustic harassment device on the relative abundance and
distribution of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Retreat Passage, British Columbia.” Marine Mammal
Science, vol. 18 (2002): 843-862.
194 Tougaard, J., Wright, A. J., and Madsen, P.T., “Cetacean noise criteria revisited in the light of proposed exposure
limits for harbor porpoises,” Marine Pollution Bulletin. vol. 90 (2015): 196-208.
195 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(5)(D)(ii)(I)(2020).
196 Kraus, S.D., et al., 2016, supra; Stone, K.M., et al., 2017, supra; Quintana, E., et al., 2019, supra; O’Brien, O., et
al., 2021, supra; Leiter, S.M., et al., 2017, supra.
197 See https://coastalstudies.org/right-whale-research/population-monitoring/.
198 NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center) and SEFSC (Southeast Fisheries Science Center). 2020; 2019 annual
report of a comprehensive assessment of marine mammal, marine turtle, and seabird abundance and spatial
distribution in US waters of the western North Atlantic Ocean - AMAPPS II.
199 The Vineyard Wind South COP Volume III fails to mention the most recent NLPSC studies and data (see VWS
COP, Vol III. p. 6-191 and 6-268).
34
Laboratory.200 However, the current “Roberts et al.” model, which was released in 2020, does not
include all of the site-specific data. This model includes the NLPSC survey data from 2011-2015 and
2017-2018 (campaigns 1-4) but does not include any data from 2019-2020 (campaigns 5-6).201 (Note that
campaign 6 is scheduled to go through July 2021.) The North Atlantic right whale model has been
updated with additional regional data; this latest Version 11 was released in February 2021.202 The
Roberts et al. model for the U.S. Atlantic will be updated again during Spring 2022.203 It is unclear
whether these updates will include all of the NLPSC survey data collected to date. Stone et al. (2017)
conducted density modeling of the site-specific NLPSC campaign data from October 2011 through June
2015 to generate site-specific abundance/density estimates of some marine mammal species.204 Yet,
abundance/density modeling has not been conducted using the most recent campaign data, which
would include the higher number of large whale sightings, or is not yet available to the public.
Therefore, BOEM should not use the Duke University habitat-density models as the sole information
source when estimating marine mammal occurrence, density, and impact. Project Area-specific and
regional survey data, including aerial survey data from all NLPSC campaigns, and passive acoustic data
should be utilized to provide a comprehensive assessment of occurrence and density to evaluate
potential impacts to marine mammal species.
3. Advancing Monitoring and Mitigation During Offshore Wind Energy Development
While the best available scientific information justifies the use of seasonal restrictions to temporally
separate development activity from North Atlantic right whales in some areas, it is becoming
increasingly clear that there may not be a time of “low risk” for this species, particularly off Rhode Island
and Massachusetts where right whales are known to occur year-round. The population size is now so
small that any individual-level impact is of great concern. In addition, climate-driven changes in
oceanographic conditions, and resulting shifts in prey distribution, are rapidly changing the spatial and
temporal patterns of habitat use for North Atlantic right whales and other large whale species.205
Therefore, we recommend BOEM work with NMFS and other relevant agencies, experts, and
200 Roberts, J.J., Best, B.D., Mannocci, L., Fujioka, E., Halpin, P.N., Palka, D.L., Garrison, L.P., Mullin, K.D., Cole, T.V.,
Khan, C.B. and McLellan, W.A., “Habitat based cetacean density models for the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico,”
Scientific Reports, vol. 6, p.22615 (2016); Roberts J.J., Mannocci L., and Halpin P.N., “Final Project Report: Marine
Species Density Data Gap Assessments and Update for the AFTT Study Area, 2016 -2017 (Opt. Year 1).”
Document version 1.4. Report prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic by the Duke
University Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab, Durham, NC (2017); Roberts J.J., Mannocci L., Schick R.S., and Halpin
P.N., “Final Project Report: Marine Species Density Data Gap Assessments and Update for the AFTT Study Area,
2017-2018 (Opt. Year 2).” Document version 1.2 - 2018-09-21. Report prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, Atlantic by the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab, Durham, NC. (2018).
201 Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Surveys
https://www.masscec.com/marine-mammal-and-sea-turtle-surveys
202 https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/EC/EC_North_Atlantic_right_whale_history.html
203 https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/EC/
204 Stone, K.M., et al., 2017, supra.
205 Davis, G.E., et al., “Exploring movement patterns and changing distributions of baleen whales in the western
North Atlantic using a decade of passive acoustic data,” supra note 87; Davis, G.E., Baumgartner, M.F., Bonnell,
J.M., Bell, J., Berchick, C., Bort Thorton, J., Brault, S., Buchanan, G., Charif, R.A., Cholewiak, D., et al., “Long‐term
passive acoustic recordings track the changing distribution of North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis)
from 2004 to 2014,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, p. 13460 (2017); Record, N., Runge, J., Pendleton, D., Balch, W.,
Davies, K., Pershing, A., Johnson, C., Stamieszkin, K., Ji, R., Feng, Z. and Kraus, S., “Rapid Climate -Driven
Circulation Changes Threaten Conservation of Endangered North Atlantic Right Whales,” Oceanography, vol. 32,
pp. 162-169 (2019).
35
stakeholders, towards developing a robust and effective near real-time monitoring and mitigation
system for North Atlantic right whales and other endangered and protected species (i.e., fin, sei, minke,
and humpback whales) during all phases of offshore wind energy development.
The ability to reliably detect North Atlantic right whales and other species on a near real-time basis and
adjust survey/construction activities accordingly (e.g., if an endangered whale species is detected within
X meters distance of the survey/construction area, then no survey/construction activity will be
undertaken within a defined time period) would enable BOEM and NMFS to adaptively manage and
mitigate risks to protected species in near real-time while affording flexibility to offshore wind energy
developers. This approach could be used in conjunction with seasonal restrictions in North Atlantic right
whale primary foraging areas (e.g., off southern New England) or potentially year-round in the Mid-
Atlantic region (as long as a mandatory 10-knot vessel speed restriction is in place) where a changing
climate is leading to novel spatial and temporal habitat-use patterns. A near real-time monitoring and
mitigation approach would also minimize risks posed by North Atlantic right whale seasonal restrictions
to other protected species that may be present at high densities at times when North Atlantic right
whales are expected to be present in lower numbers (e.g., fin whale foraging that occurs in the summer
months east of Montauk Point when North Atlantic right whale presence may be relatively low). An
added benefit is that the biological data collected could be used to inform future wind energy
development activities and adaptive management.
There are several technologies in various stages of development that would allow near real-time
detection of protected species (e.g., Robots4Whales,206 SeaTrac207) and convey that information to
decision makers (e.g., “Mysticetus”208) to inform mitigation action. Near real-time monitoring systems
are already being deployed to mitigate risks to North Atlantic right whales. For example, an unmanned
acoustic glider capable of auto-detecting North Atlantic right whale calls is currently informing decisions
being made by Transport Canada on when to impose vessel speed restrictions in the Laurentian
Channel. Ten-knot speed limits can be issued within an hour of North Atlantic right whales being
detected.209 BOEM should coordinate with NMFS to evaluate the current status of near real-time
detection technologies and develop recommendations for an integrated near real-time monitoring and
mitigation system that combines, at minimum, both visual and acoustic detections. As part of this work,
the acoustic detection ranges for different species of large whale should be modeled for each offshore
wind energy area (i.e., accounting for site-specific oceanographic conditions, ambient and
anthropogenic noise levels, etc.) to inform the subsequent expansion of the near real-time monitoring
and mitigation approach to other protected large whale species.
It is also of paramount importance that BOEM encourages and promotes adaptive management and
robust long-term monitoring to assess impacts as offshore wind energy is developed and operational.
This is imperative considering the effects of a changing climate on large whale species and other
cumulative anthropogenic stressors. With U.S. offshore wind energy still in its infancy, it is critical that
the impact of offshore wind operations on marine wildlife and the ocean ecosystem be closely
monitored to guide the industry’s adaptive management and future development. It is vital that we gain
206 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution WHOI and WHOI/WCS, “Robots4Whales,” supra note 39.
207 https://www.seatrac.com/
208 Available at: https://www.mysticetus.com/.
209 See, e.g., CBC News, “Underwater glider helps save North Atlantic Right Whales from Ship Strikes” (Aug. 30,
2020). Available at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/nb-north-atlantic-right-whales-
underwater-glider-1.5701984.
36
an understanding of baseline environmental conditions prior to large-scale offshore wind energy
development in the U.S. To this end, BOEM must coordinate with NMFS to establish and fund a robust,
long-term scientific plan to monitor the effects of offshore wind energy development on marine
mammals and other species before, during, and after large-scale commercial projects are constructed.
Without strong baseline data collection and environmental monitoring in place, we risk losing the ability
to detect and understand potential impacts and risk setting an under-protective precedent for future
offshore wind energy development. Such monitoring must inform and drive future mitigation as well as
potential practical changes to existing operations to reduce any potential impacts to natural resources
and wildlife.
4. The Project Must Adopt Strong Measures to Protect the North Atlantic Rig ht Whale
and Other Large Whales During Construction and Operations
The imperiled status of the North Atlantic right whale demands the implementation of strong protective
measures to safeguard this species during construction and operations of the Vineyard Wind South
Project. BOEM must also require strong protections for other endangered and threatened marine
mammal species, including those currently experiencing a UME. BOEM must take all necessary
precautions to reduce the number of Level A takes (any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance that has
the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild) and Level B takes (any act
that has the potential to disturb [but not injure] a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
by disrupting behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering)210 for large whales to be as close to zero as possible. In general, when designing
mitigation, BOEM must require the most protective measures possible for all endangered and at-risk
species, including fin whales, humpback whales, and minke whales, as well as harbor porpoises.
BOEM should also work with NMFS to advance a robust and effective near real-time monitoring and
mitigation system for North Atlantic right whales and other endangered and protected species (see
Section III(E)3, “Advancing Monitoring and Mitigation During Offshore Wind Energy Development”).
Pile driving noise during the construction phases has been identified as a stressor of high concern for
marine mammals. Potential impacts of unmitigated exposure to pile driving noise include physical injury,
hearing impairment, disruption of vital behaviors such as feeding, breeding, and communication, habitat
displacement, stress, and other health effects. Although not considered in the Project’s design envelope,
there are commercially available options for the construction of offshore wind turbines that do not
require pile driving and thus avoid the significant noise impacts stemming from this activity. These
options, referred to here as “quiet foundations,” currently include various designs of suction bucket (or
“caisson”), gravity-based foundations, and jack-up foundations.211 We recommend BOEM incentivize the
use of quiet foundations as a means of avoiding underwater noise during offshore wind for all fixed-
foundation wind energy projects in the United States.
a) North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Recommendations During Construction and
Operations
The mitigation measures below reflect our current (July 2021) set of recommendations for North
Atlantic right whales during construction and operations of fixed foundation turbines along the East
Coast. While these mitigation measures were designed specifically for North Atlantic right whales, some
210 16 U.S.C. 1361 §§ 101(a)(5)(A) and (D), 86 Fed. Reg. 1520 (Posted January 4, 2021).
211 http://www.windbaseoffshore.com.
37
offer co-benefits to other large whale species (as identified in parentheses below). Please note that
these recommendations may be subject to change as new information becomes available, additional or
updated mitigation measures are incorporated, and a near real-time monitoring and mitigation system
for large whales is advanced (see Section III(E)3).
a. Prohibition on pile driving during times of highest risk (North Atlantic right whales only):
i. Pile driving should not occur during periods of highest risk to North Atlantic right
whales, defined as times of highest relative density of animals during their migration,
and times when mother-calf pairs, pregnant females, surface active groups (indicative of
breeding or social behavior), or aggregations of three or more whales (indicative of
feeding or social behavior) are, or are expected to be, present, as supported by review
of the best available science at the time of the activity.
ii. If a near real-time monitoring system and mitigation protocol for North Atlantic right
whales and other large whale species is developed and scientifically validated, the
system and protocol may be used to dynamically manage the timing of pile driving and
other construction activities to ensure those activities are undertaken during times of
lowest risk for all relevant large whale species.
b. Diel restrictions on pile driving (all large whale species):
i. Pile driving shall not be initiated within 1.5 hours of civil sunset or in times of low
visibility when the visual “clearance zone” and “exclusion zone” (as hereinafter defined)
cannot be visually monitored, as determined by the lead Protected Species Officer
(PSO)212 on duty.
ii. Pile driving may continue after dark only if the activity commenced during daylight
hours and must proceed for human safety or installation feasibility reasons,213 and if
required nighttime monitoring protocols are followed (see subsection e).
c. Clearance Zone distances (for a minimum of 10-12 dB noise reduction (see subsection h); North
Atlantic right whales only):
i. A visual clearance zone and exclusion zone shall extend at minimum 5,000 m in all
directions from the location of the driven pile.
ii. An acoustic clearance zone shall extend at minimum 5,000 m in all directions from the
location of the driven pile.
iii. An acoustic exclusion zone shall extend at minimum 2,000 m in all directions from the
location of the driven pile.
212 The term “PSO” refers to an individual with a current National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) approval letter
as a Protected Species Observer.
213 Installation feasibility refers to ensuring that the pile installation event results in a usable foundation for the
wind turbine (i.e., foundation installed to the target penetration depth without refusal and with a horizontal
foundation/tower interface flange). In the event that pile driving has already started and nightfall occurs, the
lead engineer on duty will make a determination through the following evaluation: 1) Use the site-specific soil
data on the pile location and the real-time hammer log information to judge whether a stoppage would risk
causing piling refusal at re-start of piling; and 2) Check that the pile penetration is deep enough to secure pile
stability in the interim situation, taking into account weather statistics for the relevant season and the current
weather forecast. Such determinations by the lead engineer on duty will be made for each pile location as the
installation progresses and not for the site as a whole. This information will be included in the reporting for the
project. For the avoidance of doubt, the determination that pile driving must proceed for human safety reasons
need not be made by the lead engineer on duty.
38
iv. BOEM, in consultation with NMFS, should design clearance and exclusion zone distances
for other large whale species in a manner that eliminates Level A take and minimizes
behavioral harassment to the full extent practicable.
d. Shutdown requirements (for a minimum of 10-12 dB noise reduction (see subsection h); North
Atlantic right whales only):
i. When the application of monitoring methods defined in subsection (e), below, results in
either an acoustic detection within the acoustic clearance zone or a visual detection
within the visual clearance zone of one or more North Atlantic right whales, pile driving
should not be initiated.
ii. When the application of monitoring methods defined in subsection (e) results in a visual
detection within the visual exclusion zone or an acoustic detection within the exclusion
zone of one or more North Atlantic right whales, piling shall be shut down unless
continued pile driving activities are necessary for reasons of human safety or installation
feasibility.214
iii. In the event that a North Atlantic right whale is visually detected by PSOs at any
distance from the pile, piling activities shall be shut down unless continued pile driving
activities are necessary for reasons of human safety or installation feasibility.
iv. Once halted, pile driving may resume after use of the methods set forth in subsection
(e) and the lead PSO confirms no North Atlantic right whales or other large whale
species have been detected within the relevant acoustic and visual clearance zones.
e. Real-time monitoring requirements and protocols during pre-clearance and when pile driving
activity is underway (all large whale species):
i. Monitoring of the acoustic clearance and exclusion zone will be undertaken using near
real-time PAM,215 assuming a detection range of at least 10,000 m, and should be
undertaken from a vessel other than the pile driving vessel, or from a stationary unit, to
avoid the hydrophone being masked by the pile driving vessel or development-related
noise.
ii. Monitoring of the visual clearance and exclusion zone will be undertaken by vessel-
based PSOs stationed at the pile driving site and on additional vessels circling the pile
driving site, as required. On each vessel, there must be a minimum of four PSOs
following a two-on, two-off rotation, each responsible for scanning no more than 180°
of the horizon per pile driving location. Additional vessels must survey the clearance and
exclusion zones at speeds of 10 knots or less.
iii. Acoustic and visual monitoring should begin at least 60 minutes prior to the
commencement or re-initiation of pile driving and should be conducted throughout the
duration of pile driving activity. Visual observation should continue until 30 minutes
after pile driving.
iv. Passive acoustic monitoring and infrared technology must be used during any pile
driving activities that extend into periods of darkness.
214 In the event that the lead PSO directs that impact pile driving be halted because of a visual observation or
acoustic detection of a North Atlantic Right Whale within the Clearance Zone, installation feasibility shall be
determined by the lead engineer on duty.
215 Throughout these comments “PAM” refers to a real-time passive acoustic monitoring system, with equipment
bandwidth sufficient to detect the presence of vocalizing North Atlantic right whales and/or if available at the
time of construction other similar high performance sound monitoring systems and arrays.
39
v. The deployment of additional observers and monitoring technologies (e.g., infrared,
thermal cameras, drones, hydrophones, 25x150 power “big eye” binoculars) should be
undertaken, as needed, to ensure the ability to effectively monitor the established
clearance and exclusion zones.
f. Vessel speed restrictions (all large whale species):
i. All Project-associated vessels should adhere to a 10-knot speed restriction at all times
except in limited circumstances where the best available scientific information
demonstrates that whales do not use the area.
ii. The Project may develop, in consultation with NOAA, an “Adaptive Plan” that modifies
these vessel speed restrictions. However, the monitoring methods that inform the
Adaptive Plan must be proven effective using vessels traveling 10 knots or less and
following a scientific study design. If the resulting Adaptive Plan is scientifically proven to
be equally or more effective than a 10-knot speed restriction, the Adaptive Plan could
be used as an alternative to a 10-knot speed restriction.
g. Other vessel-related measures (all large whale species):
i. All personnel working offshore should receive training on observing and identifying
North Atlantic right whales and other large whale species.
ii. Vessels must maintain a separation distances of 500 m for North Atlantic right whales
and 100 m for other large whale species, maintain a vigilant watch for North Atlantic
right whales and other large whale species, and slow down or maneuver their vessels as
appropriate to avoid a potential interaction with a North Atlantic right whale or other
large whale species.
iii. All vessels responsible for crew transport (i.e., service operating vessels) should carry
automated thermal detection systems to assist monitoring efforts while vessels are in
transit (while maintaining a speed of 10 knots).
h. Underwater noise reduction:
i. BOEM should require a combination of near field (e.g., reduced blow energy, resonant
panel noise abatement system,216 Hydrosound Damper) and far field noise mitigation
(e.g., single bubble curtain), and/or a combination system (double bubble curtain),
expected to achieve at least 15dB (SEL) noise attenuation taking, as a baseline,
projections from prior noise measurements of unmitigated piles from Europe and North
America. A minimum of 10 dB (SEL) must be attained in the field during construction in
combined noise reduction and attenuation.217
ii. Field measurements should be conducted on at least the first pile installed, and ideally
data should be collected from a random sample of piles throughout the construction
period. We do not, however, support field testing using unmitigated piles.
iii. Sound source validation reports of field measurements must be evaluated by both
BOEM and NMFS prior to additional piles being installed.
216 See, e.g., AdBm Demonstration at Butendiek Offshore Wind Farm with Ballast Nedam “Attenuation of up to
36.8 dB was realized across all hammer strikes at this location.”
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/AdBm-2014.pdf
217 Attenuation factors of 0 dB, 6 dB, 12 dB, and 18 dB were applied to all impact pile driving scenarios to evaluate
potential mitigated underwater noise impacts (VWS COP, Appendix III-M, at 34).
40
i. Reporting:
i. BOEM should require the Project to report all visual observations and acoustic
detections of North Atlantic right whales to NMFS or the Coast Guard as soon as
possible and no later than the end of the PSO shift. We note that, in some cases, such as
with the use of near real-time autonomous buoy systems, the detections will be
reported automatically on a preset cycle.
ii. The Project must immediately report an entangled or dead North Atlantic right whale or
other large whale species to NMFS, the Marine Animal Response Team (1-800-900-
3622), or the United States Coast Guard immediately via one of several available
systems (e.g., phone, app, radio). Methods of reporting are expected to advance and
streamline in the coming years, and BOEM should require projects to commit to
supporting and participating in these efforts.
5. Cumulative Impacts - Marine Mammals
a) BOEM Should Prepare a Programmatic EIS for the North Atlantic Right Whale
To best account for the impacts of the simultaneous development of multiple lease areas on the North
Atlantic right whale, we stress that the agency must prepare a full Programmatic EIS encompassing all
United States’ East Coast renewable energy development as soon as possible to inform future offshore
wind development. Currently, impact analyses are undertaken, and mitigation measures prescribed, on
a project-by-project basis leading to inconsistency and inefficiency. It would be highly beneficial to
collectively consider available information on North Atlantic right whales in United States’ waters to
build a picture of responsible development accounting for the lifespan and migratory movements of the
species, which have the potential to overlap with every WEA along the United States’ East Coast on a
twice-yearly basis (i.e., northern and southern migration). A Programmatic EIS is also particularly timely
given the climate-driven shifts in North Atlantic right whale habitat use observed over the past decade218
as well as significant changes in their conservation status and major threats.219 Such an approach will
ensure that alternatives and mitigation measures are considered at the scale at which impacts would
occur and may potentially help increase the pace of environmentally responsible offshore wind
development along the United States’ East Coast.
b) Vessel Speed Restrictions and Vessel Noise Reduction Must Be Incorporated into
Cumulative Impact Analysis
Notwithstanding the preparation of a Programmatic EIS, all future cumulative impact analysis must
include the following considerations concerning vessel speed restrictions and vessel noise reduction.
Vessel strikes remain one of the leading causes of large whale injury and mortality and are a primary
driver of the existing UMEs. Serious injury or mortality can occur from a vessel traveling above 10 knots
218 Albouy, C., Delattre, V., Donati, G. et al. “Global vulnerability of marine mammals to global warming” Scientific
Reports, vol. 10, No. 548 (2020); Silber, G.K., Lettrich, M.D., Thomas, P.O., et al., “Projecting Marine Mammal
Distribution in a Changing Climate,” Frontiers of Marine Science, vol. 4, no. 413 (2017).
219 EarthTalk, January 18, 2010, “Despite Gains, One Third of the World’s Marine Mammals Seen at Greater Risk,”
Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-talks-marine-mammals/, accessed July
22, 2020.; Marine Mammal Commission, “Status of Marine Mammal Species and Populations,”
https://www.mmc.gov/priority-topics/species-of-concern/status-of-marine-mammal-species-and-populations/.
41
irrespective of its length,220 and vessels of any length travelling below this speed still pose a serious
risk.221 The number of recorded vessel collisions on large whales each year likely grossly underestimates
the actual number of animals struck, as animals struck but not recovered, or not thoroughly examined,
cannot be accounted for.222 In fact, observed carcasses of North Atlantic right whales from all causes of
death may have only accounted for 36% of all estimated death during 1990-2017.223
Vessel strikes are one of the two main factors driving the North Atlantic right whale to extinction. North
Atlantic right whales are particularly prone to vessel strike given their slow speeds, their occupation of
waters near shipping lanes, and the extended time they spend at or near the water’s surface.224 Some
types of anthropogenic noise have been shown to induce sub-surface positioning in North Atlantic right
whales, increasing the risk of vessel strike at relatively moderate levels of exposure.225 Scientists have
deemed it “likely” that noise from pile driving during offshore wind development could lead to
displacement of large whales and that this potential impact should be treated as “high importance.”226 It
is possible that noise from large-scale site assessment and characterization activities will have the same
effect. BOEM should therefore act conservatively and implement mitigation measures to prevent any
further vessel collisions for North Atlantic right whales or other species of large whale currently
experiencing an UME (i.e., humpback whales and minke whales), as well as species such as fin whales,
which, in light of the broad distributional shifts observed for multiple species, may be at potential future
risk of experiencing an UME.
BOEM has significantly downplayed the risk of vessel strike to endangered whales in previous offshore
wind permitting documents.227 For example, in the recent South Fork Draft EIS, the agency notes that up
to an additional 207 construction vessels associated with offshore wind development may be operating
within the geographic analysis area at the peak of projected offshore wind farm development in 2025.228
Without further quantitative analysis of relative risk, BOEM states that “the overall increase in vessel
activity is small relative to the baseline level and year to year variability of vessel traffic in the analysis
area. In addition, the risk of marine mammal collisions is negligible for most wind farm construction
220 NOAA-NMFS, “Reducing ship strikes to North Atlantic right whales.” Available at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/reducing-ship-strikes-north-atlantic-
right-
whales#:~:text=All%20vessels%2065%20feet%20(19.8,endangered%20North%20Atlantic%20right%20whales. To
reflect the risk posed by vessels of any length, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts established a mandatory
vessel speed restriction for all vessels (including under 20 m) in the Cape Cod Bay SMA.
221 Kelley, D. E., Vlasic, J. P. and Brilliant, S. W., “Assessing the lethality if ship strikes on whales using simple
biophysical models,” Marine Mammal Science, vol. 37, pp. 251-267 (2020).
222 Reeves, R.R., Read, A.J., Lowry, L., Katona, S.K., and Boness, D.J., “Report of the North Atlantic Right Whale
Program Review.” 13–17 March 2006, Woods Hole, Massachusetts (2007) (prepared for the Marine Mammal
Commission); Parks, S.E., Warren, J.D., Stamieszkin, K., Mayo, C.A., and Wiley, D., “Dangerous dining: surface
foraging of North Atlantic right whales increases risk of vessel collisions.” Biology Letters, vol. 8, p. 57 -60 (2011).
223 Pace III, R. M., Williams, R., Kraus, S. D., Knowlton, A. R. and Pettis, H. M.,” Cryptic mortality of North Atlantic
right whales,” Conservation Science and Practice, e346 (2021).
224 NOAA-NMFS, “Recovery plan for the North Atlantic right whale” (August 2004).
225 Nowacek, D.P., Johnson, M.P., and Tyack, P.L., “Right whales ignore ships but respond to alarm stimuli,”
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, vol. 271, no. 1536 (2004).
226 Kraus, S.D., Kenney, R. D. and Thomas, L., “A Framework for Studying the Effects of Offshore Wind Development
on Marine Mammals and Turtles,” Report prepared for the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, Boston,
MA 02110, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (May 2019).
227 See, e.g., SFWF DEIS
228 Id. 3-50.
42
activities.”229 BOEM then cites the following mitigation as a means to minimize the potential for vessel
collisions:
Timing restrictions, use of PSOs, and other mitigation measures required by BOEM and NMFS
would further minimize the potential for fatal vessel interactions. These measures would
effectively minimize but not completely avoid collision risk. Any incremental increase risk must
be considered relative to the baseline level of risk associated with existing vessel traffic. Project
O&M would involve fewer vessels that are smaller in size, and the level of vessel activity would
be far lower than during construction. Smaller vessels (i.e., less than 260 feet in length) pose a
lower risk of fatal collisions than larger vessels (Laist et al. 2001).230
These arguments are flawed and do not represent current understanding of the vessel collision risk to
large whales.
First, any interaction between a vessel and whale poses a risk of serious injury or mortality. This is true
irrespective of the number of other vessels operating in the same location. As demonstrated by the
documented deaths of North Atlantic right whale calves in July 2020 and February 2021, and the serious
injury, thus, likely death of a third calf in January 2020, an addition of even a single vessel traveling at
speeds over 10 knots poses an unacceptable risk. Thus, when analyzing impacts from vessel traffic,
BOEM should concern itself less with “relative risk” and instead focus on the actual risk to the animal
and the offshore wind project vessel.
Second, even through the lens of relative risk, the North Atlantic right whale cannot currently withstand
a single vessel strike if the species is to survive. Reasonably foreseeable wind development activities will
primarily occur off New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and just outside this region,
meaning that vessel activity associated with construction, including vessel transits, will be similarly
concentrated in that region. As previously discussed (see Section III(E)1.a above), waters in and around
the Project Area represent an important year-round habitat for the North Atlantic right whale, a species
for which vessel strike is a leading factor in its trajectory towards extinction. Vessel strikes therefore
pose an unacceptable risk in this region and BOEM must acknowledge that any vessel operating in that
region has the potential to strike a North Atlantic right whale and, in doing so, expedite the species’
decline.
Third, BOEM’s assumptions about smaller vessels posing lower risk of a fatal collision are not supported
by best available science. Vessel strikes can result in either “blunt force trauma,” where
injuries can range from non-lethal superficial abrasions and contusions to severe lethal impact
wounds resulting from contact with a non-rotating feature of the vessel, or “propeller-
induced trauma,” that results in incising wounds resulting from contact with the sharp, rotating,
propeller of the vessel (also termed “sharp force trauma”).231 Observations compiled by Laist et al.
229 Id.
230 Id.
231 Van der Hoop, J., Barco, S.G., Costidis, A.M., Gulland, F.M., Jepson, P.D., Moore, K.T., Raverty, S. and McLellan,
W.A., “Criteria and case definitions for serious injury and death of pinnipeds and cetaceans caused by
anthropogenic trauma,” Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 103(3), pp.229-264 (2013);; Sharp, S.M., McLellan, W.A.,
Rotstein, D.S., Costidis, A.M., Barco, S.G., Durham, K., Pitchford, T.D., Jackson, K.A., Daoust, P.Y., Wimmer, T. and
Couture, E.L., “Gross and histopathologic diagnoses from North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis
mortalities between 2003 and 2018,” Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 135(1), pp.1-31 (2020).
43
(2001) 232—the primary reference cited by BOEM—suggest that the most severe injuries occur as a result
of vessel strikes by large ocean-going vessels; this research has led to a number of mitigation and
management actions in the United States and internationally. However, there is increasing recognition
that smaller vessels can also cause lethal injury, even when traveling at relatively low speeds (i.e., below
10 knots).233 The NMFS Large Whale Ship Strike Database reveals that blood was seen in the water—
indicative of serious injury—in at least half of the cases where a vessel known to be less than 65 feet in
length struck a whale.234 This is likely an underestimate of the magnitude of the threat, as small vessel
collisions with whales are underreported.235 Passengers have been knocked off their feet or thrown from
the boat upon impact with a whale,236 demonstrating this is also a significant human safety issue.
Fourth, BOEM’s assertion that existing federally required mitigation measures will “minimize” collision
risk is flawed. NOAA requires a mandatory vessel speed restriction of vessels 65 feet and greater within
Seasonal Management Areas (SMAs) to reduce the risk to North Atlantic right whales and voluntary 10-
knot speed reduction zones (i.e., NOAA DMAs and North Atlantic right whale “Slow Zones”) offer an
additional layer of protection.237 However, a recent analysis undertaken by NMFS shows that compliance
with voluntary speed reductions is woefully low.238 BOEM recently required additional sector-specific
vessel speed restrictions for the Vineyard Wind 1 project, including a requirement that project-related
vessels of any length must adhere to SMAs and DMAs and that all vessels must travel at 10 knots or less
when transiting to, from, or within the project site, except for certain geographic areas and crew
transfer vessels, that may travel faster than 10 knots upon submission of a North Atlantic right whale
“strike management plan.”239 We encourage BOEM to continue to strengthen vessel speed
requirements for future projects.
PSOs stationed aboard a vessel may increase the likelihood that a whale is detected, but this approach
cannot be relied upon particularly in periods of darkness or reduced visibility, and the whale would need
to be detected with adequate time for the vessel captain to be alerted and to undertake evasive action
(which may inadvertently strike another undetected whale). The use of vessel based PSOs may therefore
provide some additional benefit when a vessel is already traveling at slow speeds (i.e., less than 10
knots), but will provide little benefit for faster vessels.
232 Laist, D.W., Knowlton, A.R., Mead, J.G., Collet, A.S. and Podesta, M., “Collisions between ships an d
whales,” Marine Mammal Science, 17(1), pp.35-75 (2001).
233 Kelley, D.E., Vlasic, J.P. and Brillant, S.W., “Assessing the lethality of ship strikes on whales using simple
biophysical models,” Marine Mammal Science, 37(1), pp.251-267 (2021).
234 Jensen, A.S. and Silber, G. K., “Large Whale Ship Strike Database,” U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-25 (Jan. 2004) at 12–37.
235 Hill, A.N., et al., “Vessel collision injuries on live humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in the southern
Gulf of Maine,” Marine Mammal Science, vol. 33, pp. 558–573 (2017). A.S. Jensen and G.K. Silber, Large Whale
Ship Strike Database, U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-25 (Jan. 2004),
at 12–37.
236 Bigfish123, Comment to Collision at Sea, The Hull Truth (May 1, 2009, 5:44 am),
http://www.thehulltruth.com/boating-forum/222026-collision-sea.html.
237 73 Fed. Reg. 60,173 (Oct. 10, 2008).
238 National Marine Fisheries Service, “North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) Vessel Speed Rule
Assessment,” supra.
239 BOEM. Vineyard Wind 1 Offshore Wind Energy Project Construction and Operations Plan. Record of Decision.
May 10, 2021. Available at: https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/renewable -energy/state-
activities/Final-Record-of-Decision-Vineyard-Wind-1.pdf.
44
Vessel speed restrictions and additional mitigation and monitoring measures must therefore be
explicitly required as part of the permitting process. BOEM should acknowledge the significant risk
vessel strikes pose to North Atlantic right whales and other large whales and require the industry to
reduce vessel speeds to 10 knots or less and take further measures to mitigate vessel collision risk.
Data are readily available (e.g., on the Northeast Ocean Data Portal240) to undertake a quantitative
analysis of additional vessel strike risk posed by vessels associated with the offshore wind industry (i.e.,
total number of vessels, proportion of vessels associated with reasonably foreseeable offshore wind
activities, locations of the primary route between ports and WEAs, and marine mammal occurrence and
density). We encourage BOEM to undertake this quantitative analysis to provide a more robust analysis
in its future environmental impact statements.
Additionally, BOEM should consider the level and potential impacts of vessel-related noise during
construction, particularly noise emitted by dynamic positioning systems. Reported source levels of noise
from dynamical positioning system (DPS) vary among 177, 162–180, and 121–197 dB re 1 μPa (SPL) at 1
m.241 The latter intensity range reports frequencies in the 50–3,200 Hz range, within the hearing
frequency of large whales and fish, and may have biologically significant effects. For example, research
has shown mesopelagic fish migrate deeper in the water column upon exposure of DPS noise,242 and
there is extensive scientific literature on the impacts of continuous low frequency vessel noise on
marine mammals and fish.243
DPS and other vessel noise differs from pile driving noise in its frequency spectrum and the fact it is
continuous rather than impulsive noise. DPS and vessel noise will also occur in the construction area
during times when pile driving is not occurring (i.e., before and after a pile is driven). Thus, it should not
be expected that the noise from pile driving will simply negate the effects of vessel-related noise. BOEM
should undertake an analysis of DPS and vessel-related noise associated with the construction of
Vineyard Wind South, as well as cumulatively for existing and reasonably foreseeable projects in the
Rhode Island and Massachusetts WEAs.
c) BOEM Should Analyze Large-scale Habitat Displacement for the North Atlantic Right
Whale
We recommend that BOEM take a precautionary approach and acknowledge that it is not possible to
assess all of the potential hazards of physical structures in water column at the current time and commit
to an explicit monitoring plan that will allow for future assessment (i.e., pre-, during-, and post-
construction monitoring). The report, “A framework for studying the effects of offshore wind
development on marine mammals and turtles,”244 outlines detailed recommendations for monitoring
the potential impacts of offshore wind on marine mammals, including long-term avoidance and/or
240 See https://www.northeastoceandata.org/.
241 MMO, 2015. Modelled mapping of continuous underwater noise generated by activities. A report produced for
the marine management organisation, technical annex, MMO Project, 1097. ISBN: 978-1-909452-87-9. Tech. rep.
43 pp.
242 Peña, M., 2019. Mesopelagic fish avoidance from the vessel dynamic positioning system. ICES Journal of Marine
Science, 76(3), pp.734-742.
243 Erbe, C., Marley, S.A., Schoeman, R.P., Smith, J.N., Trigg, L.E. and Embling, C.B., 2019. The effects of ship noise
on marine mammals—a review. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, p.606.
244 Kraus, S.D., et al., “A Framework for Studying the Effects of Offshore Wind Development on Marine Mammals
and Turtles,” supra.
45
displacement, by the top scientists and experts working in this field. It is vital that we gain an
understanding of baseline environmental conditions prior to large-scale offshore wind development in
the United States. To this end, BOEM must establish and help fund a robust, long-term scientific plan to
monitor effects of offshore wind development on marine mammals before the first large-scale
commercial projects are constructed. Without this in place, we risk losing the ability to detect and
understand potential impacts and set an under-protective precedent for future offshore wind
development.
Given the acute vulnerability of the North Atlantic right whale, it is essential that, at a minimum, BOEM
conduct a technical, quantitative analysis of the cumulative impacts of offshore wind development
against a baseline of other reasonably foreseeable actions on the North Atlantic right whale population.
This analysis should be incorporated into the agency’s NEPA compliance documents. We note that the
analyses proposed below are also relevant for other species of large whale found within the Mid-
Atlantic Bight. We recommend that the analysis quantify the percentage of the North Atlantic right
whale population potentially exposed to conceivable impacts from offshore wind development on an
annual basis245 and, as a worse-case scenario, the potential impact on population viability of a
permanent loss of foraging and other habitat within all lease areas expected to be developed. The
analysis should also examine the additional energetic expenditure experienced if right whales were to
avoid all lease areas expected to be developed during their migration. This is particularly important in
light of new scientific information indicating the need for North Atlantic right whales to undertake
efficient and uninterrupted foraging in order to maintain their energy budget.246 The energetic
implications for displacement of pregnant females during their southern migration (e.g., offshore into
the Gulf Stream) should also be taken into consideration.
Habitat avoidance may also result in North Atlantic right whales being displaced into shipping lanes,
thereby increasing their risk of vessel strike. The analysis should therefore estimate the additional
potential risk that habitat displacement into shipping lanes and the increased vessel traffic directly
resulting from wind development activities may pose in terms of serious injury and mortality along the
East Coast and evaluate that risk against that of species extinction. Such an analysis will allow BOEM to
determine if existing mitigation measures are adequate or if potential impacts need to be managed as
projects are developed concurrently and sequentially. For example, considering vessel collision risk for
the entire East Coast may illuminate that more comprehensive vessel speed mitigation measures need
to be in place at the project level in order to reduce the overall cumulative risk.
BOEM should conservatively assess the potential loss to the right whale of communication and listening
range and assume that any substantial decrement will result in adverse impacts on the species’ foraging,
mating, or other vital behavior. A conservative approach is justified given the species’ extreme
vulnerability, where any additional stressor may potentially result in population-level impacts, and the
difficulty in obtaining empirical data on population-level impacts on wild animals.
245 For example, by following the approach of Dr. Wing Goodale, Biodiversity Research Institute, in the analysis of
“cumulative adverse effects” on four bird taxa. See, Goodale, W. (2018). Cumulative adverse effects of offshore
wind energy development on wildlife. Presentation at the New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority “State of the Science Workshop on Wildlife and Offshore Wind Development,” Fox Hollow, Woodbury,
New York, Nov. 14, 2018. Available at:
http://www.briloon.org/uploads/BRI_Documents/Wildlife_and_Renewable_Energy/NYSERDA_workshop_Wing
Goodale_CumulativeImpacts.pdf.
246 Van der Hoop, J., et al., “Foraging rates of ram-filtering North Atlantic right whales,” supra.
46
d) BOEM Should Develop Regional Construction Calendars to Reduce Cumulative Noise
Impacts
Offshore wind energy development in the Rhode Island and Massachusetts WEAs includes multiple
leaseholders developing individual projects on parallel timelines. If not well coordinated, these
combined activities have the potential to lead to significant cumulative noise impacts on marine
mammals and other marine life. BOEM should proactively address this issue and develop regional
construction calendars in coordination with its sister agencies that schedule (spatially and/or
temporally) noisy pre-construction and construction development activities in a way that reduces
cumulative noise impacts.
e) BOEM Should Monitor for Oceanographic Changes Caused by Large-Scale Build-Out of
Offshore Wind Energy That May Affect the Marine Mammal Prey Base
The design of an offshore wind farm, such as the location, number of turbines, and foundation types,
may affect local and regional hydrodynamics.247 As tidal currents move past the offshore wind
foundations, they generate a turbulent wake that will contribute to a mixing of the stratified water
column.248 The loss of stratification within the wake of a single offshore wind turbine has been observed
in the German Bight, a relatively shallow area of the North Sea with typical water depths between 20
and 50 m.249 A single monopile was found to be responsible for 7-10% additional mixing to that of the
bottom mixed layer, whereby approximately 10% of the turbulent kinetic energy generated by the
structure is used in mixing.250 Although the effect of a single turbine on stratification is relatively low,
large-scale build-out of offshore wind energy (i.e., 100 km2) could significantly affect the vertical
structure of a weakly stratified water column, and could modify the stratification regime and water
column dynamics on a seasonal scale, depending on local conditions and turbine layout.251 NOAA
Fisheries recently acknowledged that large-scale build out of offshore wind energy in the Northeast
region may cause local oceanographic changes that may affect the distribution of North Atlantic right
whale prey.252
BOEM should explicitly consider the cumulative effects of offshore wind on oceanographic conditions,
including stratification, and the resulting effects on fish habitat, as part of the Vineyard Wind South EIS.
The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) is funding research to
model the effects of offshore wind development on Cold Pool stratification.253 BOEM should incorporate
247 Segtnan OH, Christakos K. 2015. Effect of offshore wind farm design on the vertical motion of the ocean. Energy
Procedia 80(2015): 213-222.
248 Schultze, L. K. P., L. M. Merckelbach, J. Horstmann, S. Raasch, and J. R. Carpenter. "Increased mixing and
turbulence in the wake of offshore wind farm foundations." Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 125, no. 8
(2020): e2019JC015858.
249 Id.
250 Id.
251 Id.; Carpenter JR, Merckelbach L, Callies U, Clark S, Gaslikova L, Baschek B (2016) Potential Impacts of Offshore
Wind Farms on North Sea Stratification. PLoS ONE 11(8): e0160830.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160830
252 NOAA Fisheries, “State of the Ecosystem New England,” Presentation to the New England Fishery Management
Council, 15 April 2021.
253 See, https://portal.nyserda.ny.gov/servlet/servlet.FileDownload?file=00Pt000000DS6ouEAD.
47
the results of this study and findings from Europe254 into the analysis for the Vineyard Wind South. In
addition, BOEM, in collaboration with NOAA and the states of Rhode Island and Massachusetts, should
establish baseline stratification conditions for the area off southern New England and design and
implement a monitoring system capable of detecting deviations from that baseline. In addition, BOEM
should undertake research similar to that conducted in Europe255 to better understand the effects of
individual turbines and the cumulative effects of large-scale build out of offshore wind energy on mixing
and stratification in the area off southern New England.
f) BOEM Should Address Limitations of NMFS’s Acoustic Thresholds
In determining the potential impact of noise from geophysical surveys and construction and operations
activities, BOEM should request new guidelines on thresholds for marine mammal behavioral
disturbance from NMFS that are sufficiently protective and consistent with the best available science.
Multiple marine species have been observed to exhibit strong, and in some cases lethal, behavioral
reactions to sound levels well below the 160 dB threshold defined by NMFS for Level B take,256 leading
to calls from the scientific community for the Agency to revise its guidelines.257 Acceptance of the
current NMFS’s acoustic threshold for Level B take will result in BOEM’s significant underestimation of
the impacts to marine mammals and potentially the permitting, recommendation, or prescription of
ineffective mitigation measures (e.g., under-protective exclusion zones).
F. Impacts to Sea Turtles
1. Status of Sea Turtles in the Project Area
Of the four sea turtle species known to occur in the Project Area, only the loggerhead, leatherback, and
Kemp’s ridley turtles occur regularly, primarily during summer and fall.258 Recent survey data indicate a
downward trend in sea turtle sightings in the Rhode Island and Massachusetts WEAs and surrounding
areas.259 In addition, Kemp’s ridley turtles have not been sighted during the site-specific NLPSC surveys
since 2012.260 No green turtles have been sighted during the NLPSC surveys, but this species has been
254 Schultze, L. K. P., et al. "Increased mixing and turbulence in the wake of offshore wind farm foundations," supra;
Carpenter JR,,et al., Potential Impacts of Offshore Wind Farms on North Sea Stratification, supra.
255 See, e.g., chultze, L. K. P., et al. "Increased mixing and turbulence in the wake of offshore wind farm
foundations," Id.
256 As defined pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which
has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of
behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering
but which does not have the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.” 50
C.F.R. § 216.3.
257 E.g., Evans, D.L. and England, G.R., “Joint interim report: Bahamas marine mammal stranding event of 15-16
March 2000” (2001); Nowacek, D.P., Johnson, M.P., and Tyack, P.L., “Right whales ignore ships but respond to
alarm stimuli,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, vol. 271, no. 1536 (2004): 227-
231; Parsons, E.C.M., Dolman, S.J., Wright, A.J., Rose, N.A., and Burns, W.C.G., “Navy sonar and cetaceans: Just
how much does the gun need to smoke before we act?” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 56 (2008): 1248-1257;
Tougaard, J., Wright, A.J., and Madsen, P.T., “Cetacean noise criteria revisited in the light of proposed exposure
limits for harbour porpoises,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 90 (2015): 196-208; Wright, A.J., “Sound science:
Maintaining numerical and statistical standards in the pursuit of noise exposure criteria for marine mammals,”
Frontiers in Marine Science, vol. 2, art. 99 (2015).
258 Kraus, S.K., et al., 2017, supra.
259 Quintana, E., et al., 2019, supra; O’Brien, O., et al., 2021, supra.
260 Kraus, S.K., et al., 2017, supra.
48
previously sighted in the region and is known to utilize shallow developmental habitats around eastern
Long Island and Cape Cod.261
The COP refers to the sea turtle densities that are available from the Navy OPAREA [Operating Area]
Density Estimate (NODE) for the Northeast OPAREAs.262 However, the Navy’s density estimates
generated via modeling are outdated (used only NMFS aerial survey data collected prior to 2005), and
no turtle density modeling has been conducted using the site-specific NLPSC data. Sightings per Unit
Effort analyses have been conducted for leatherback and loggerhead turtles in the WEAs for some of the
NLPSC campaigns.263 These analyses provide relative density estimates and maps which provide a visual
depiction of sightings in relation to the trackline area surveyed but cannot be extrapolated to
unsurveyed areas and do not take into account perception and availability biases, which are all critical
variables in analyzing abundance/density of turtles (simply because turtles are typically difficult for
observers to detect unless they are close to the survey trackline, and they can dive for long periods of
time and not be available for detection at the water’s surface). There have not been enough sightings
data to conduct density modeling for all species during all survey years. Due to the limited survey data
for turtles obtained during some of the NLPSC campaigns, all turtle data should be combined in order to
generate site-specific seasonal and/or annual density estimates for species and species groups where
possible (e.g., species-specific estimates for leatherback and loggerhead turtles, group-specific estimates
for hardshell turtles which would include loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley turtles). In addition to the sea
turtle sightings data recorded during the NLPSC campaigns, more recent AMAPPS and other regional
data sources, including stranding264 and tagging data,265 should also be assessed in order to determine
the current occurrence of sea turtles in the Project Area.
Given that the ability to detect sea turtles during aerial surveys is highly variable, increased investment
in tagging and tracking studies266 would complement data collected via aerial surveys and provide a
more complete picture of sea turtle occurrence and habitat use in the region. Increased sea turtle
tagging and tracking studies are needed to better understand movement, dive patterns and surface
time, and habitat use which can, among other uses, help advise monitoring and avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation strategies and generate more accurate estimates of sea turtle takes.
261 Kenney, R.D. and K.J. Vigness-Raposa. 2010. Technical report 10. Marine mammals and sea turtles of
Narragansett Bay, Block Island Sound, Rhode Island Sound, and nearby waters: An analysis of existing data for
the Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan. Rhode Island coastal resources management
program/Ocean Special Area Management Plan (Ocean SAMP). Draft report. Wakefield, Rhode Island: Rhode
Island Coastal Resources Management Council. Appendix A, 634-970.
262 DoN (Department of the Navy). 2007. Navy OPAREA density estimates (NODE) for the Northeast OPAREAs:
Boston, Narragansett Bay, and Atlantic City. Prepared for U.S. Fleet Forces Command by Geo -Marine, Inc.
Contract number N62470-02-D-9997, CTO 0045 Norfolk, Virginia: Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Atlantic. Prepared by Geo-Marine, Inc., Hampton, Virginia.
263 Id.; Quintana, E., et al., 2019, supra.
264 Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/state-coordinators-sea-turtle-
stranding-and-salvage-network
265 Dodge, K.L., B. Galuardi, and M.E. Lutcavage. 2015. Orientation behaviour of leatherback sea turtles within the
North Atlantic subtropical gyre. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 282:20143129.
266 See, e.g., Dodge, K.L., et al. Id.; Dodge, K.L., Galuardi, B. and Lutcavage, M.E., “Orientation behaviour of
leatherback sea turtles within the North Atlantic subtropical gyre,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 282,
art. 20143129 (2015); Winton, M.V., Fay, G., Haas, H.L., Arendt, M., Barco, S., James, M.C., Sasso, C., and
Smolowitz, R., “Estimating the distribution and relative density of satellite-tagged loggerhead sea turtles using
geostatistical mixed effects models,” Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 586, pp. 217-232 (2018).
49
Satellite telemetry data are available from rehabilitated and released Kemp’s ridley and green turtles267
that suggest rehabilitated turtles are a good proxy for wild-caught turtles. Considering the costs and
probably limited success rate of in-water tagging work for these three species, acoustic telemetry of
rehabilitated turtles may also be an effective means of gathering useful data. There is already significant
investment underway for acoustic telemetry arrays in the WEAs for highly migratory fish species,268
presenting an opportunity for cost-effective data collection on sea turtles. Thus, a combination of
satellite tags (to collect data on surface availability to parameterize density models) and acoustic
telemetry will improve understanding of sea turtle habitat use.
2. Acoustic Impact Considerations for Sea Turtles
To date, the injury and behavioral zones for sea turtles have not been calculated correctly for other
offshore wind projects.269 In assessing the level of impact from the Project, BOEM must use NMFS’s
most recent pile driving calculator to obtain an accurate injury and behavioral radii for sea turtles during
impact and vibratory pile driving. BOEM should also avoid making conclusions about impact level in the
absence of information as fundamental gaps remain in our knowledge of the sensory (e.g., hearing and
navigation) ecology of sea turtles.270 It has been determined that sea turtle hearing sensitivity overlaps
with the frequencies and source levels produced by many anthropogenic sources; however, more
research is needed to determine the potential physiological and behavioral impacts of these noise
sources on sea turtles.271 Currently, BOEM’s standard operating conditions for activities such as pile
267 Robinson, N.J., Deguzman, K., Bonacci-Sullivan, L., DiGiovanni Jr., R.A., and Pinou, T., “Rehabilitated sea turtles
tend to resume typical migratory behaviors: satellite tracking juvenile loggerhead, green, and Kemp’s ridley
turtles in the northeastern USA,” Endangered Species Research, vol. 43, pp. 133-143 (2020); New England
Aquarium, unpublished data.
268 See, e.g., https://www.masscec.com/about-masscec/news/massachusetts-rhode-island-boem-award-11-
million-regional-fisheries-studies-guide.
269 See, e.g., SFWF DEIS at H-58 (footnote stating: “Short-term, underwater noise from Project construction,
specifically from pile driving and vessels supporting installation is the most extensive potential Project effect and
is therefore used to define the analysis area based on current behavioral ef fects thresholds for these activities.
This area extends approximately 1,716 feet from each monopile foundation, 175 feet from vibratory pile driving,
and approximately 300 feet from the SFEC corridor and vessel transit lanes.”) See also, e.g., SFWF DEIS at H-66
(stating, “Vibratory pile-driving noise can exceed levels associated with behavioral disturbance in sea turtles but
only within a short distance (i.e., less than 200 feet) from the source. Given this low exposure probability to
vibratory pile-driving noise and the fact that vibratory pile-driving activities would be limited in extent, short
term in duration, and widely separated, vibratory pile-driving noise effects on sea turtles would be negligible at
the individual and population levels.”)
270 See, e.g, SFWF DEIS at H-65, H-70, H-76.
271 Ridgway, S.H., E.G. Wever, J.G. McCormick, J. Palin, and J.H. Anderson. “Hearing in the giant sea turtle, Chelonia
mydas.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 64, no. 3
(1969):884-890.; Bartol, S.M., J.A. Musick, and M.L. Lenhardt. “Auditory evoked potentials of the loggerhead sea
turtle (Caretta caretta).” Copeia, vol. 3 (1999):836-840.; Dow Piniak, W.E., S.A. Eckert, C.A. Harms, and E.M.
Stringer. 2012. Underwater hearing sensitivity of the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea): Assessing
the potential effect of anthropogenic noise. OCS Study BOEM 2012- 01156. Herndon, VA: U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.; Martin, K.J., S.C. Alessi, J.C. Gaspard, A.D. Tucker, G.B. Bauer,
and D.A. Mann. “Underwater hearing in the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta): A comparison of behavioral and
auditory evoked potential audiograms.” The Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 215, no. 17(2012):3001-3009.;
Piniak, W.E.D., D.A. Mann, C.A. Harms, T.T. Jones, and S.A. Eckert. “Hearing in the juvenile green sea turtle
(Chelonia mydas): A comparison of underwater and aerial hearing using auditory evoked potentials.” PLoS ONE,
vol. 11, no. 10 (2016):e0159711.
50
driving are generally based on a 180 dB (RMS) re 1 uPa exclusion zone,272 which is the original generic
acoustic threshold for assessing permanent threshold shift onset for cetaceans.273
As the offshore wind industry advances, studies are needed to determine critical ratios and temporary
and permanent threshold shifts so that accurate acoustic threshold limits for anthropogenic sound
sources can be added to NMFS’s sound exposure guidelines for protected species like sea turtles, and
additional monitoring and avoidance, minimization, and mitigation protocols can be developed to
minimize impacts to sea turtles during offshore wind development and operation and other
anthropogenic activities. Monitoring of sea turtle sensory ecology must be conducted as soon as
possible to advise efforts, and a conservative approach should be adopted in the meantime to guard
against impacts to these threatened and endangered species.
3. Vessel Strike Mitigation
Mitigation measures for sea turtles should include a speed restriction of 10 knots for all vessels
associated with the Project at all times, regardless of whether vessels are transiting or on site. Risk of
collision with sea turtles is greatest when vessels are traveling at speeds greater than 10 knots.274 While
vessels may be directed to slow speeds to 4 knots if a sea turtle is sighted within 100 m of the vessel’s
path,275 this is not a foolproof solution. Sea turtle detection – even when conducted by dedicated
observers – is difficult unless the turtle surfaces close to the vessel, at which point it may not be possible
to course-correct in time to prevent collision. Keeping ship speed to 10 knots improves the ability to
adjust speeds. 276 Slowing to 4 knots from June 1 to November 30 while transiting through areas of
visible jellyfish aggregations or floating vegetation lines or mats will improve protection for sea turtles,
but the speed should be reduced from an upper limit of 10 knots.277 A standard 10-knot vessel speed
limit ensures protections for a wide array of ocean wildlife and should be incorporated into the Draft
EIS.
4. Pile Driving & High Resolution Geophysical and Geotechnical Survey Mitigation
No fewer than four PSOs should be available to monitor all exclusion zones for sea turtles – for both
impact pile-driving and High Resolution Geophysical and Geotechnical Survey Plan survey activities, as
well as for vibratory driving. The vantage points and number of PSOs are critical factors for effective
exclusion zone monitoring for sea turtles. To effectively monitor the full exclusion zone, multiple PSOs
must be stationed at several vantage points at the highest level to allow each to continuously scan a
section of the exclusion zone; a limited number of PSOs – even continuously moving around the vantage
272 BOEM. 2016. Commercial wind lease issuance and site assessment activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental
Shelf offshore New York. Environmental assessment. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2016-042. Herndon, Virginia: United
States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs.
273 NMFS. 2018. 2018 Revision to: Technical guidance for assessing the effects of anthropogenic sound on marine
mammal hearing (Version 2.0). Underwater acoustic thresholds for onset of permanent and temporary
threshold shifts. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-59. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.
274 Hazel, J., I.R. Lawler, H. Marsh, and S. Robson. 2007. “Vessel speed increases collision risk for the green turtle
Chelonia mydas,” Endangered Species Research 3:105–113.
275 Vineyard Wind 1 Record of Decision, p. 51.
276 Kelley, D. E., Vlasic, J. P. and Brilliant, S. W., “Assessing the lethality if ship strikes on whales using simple
biophysical models,” Marine Mammal Science, vol. 37, pp. 251-267 (2020).
277 See, e.g., SFWF DEIS, at G-13.
51
point – would still not be able to scan the entire exclusion zone. A minimum of four PSOs for all
exclusion zone monitoring is recommended.278 Monitoring reports must be made publicly available.
Moreover, PSOs must be NOAA-certified, and solely focused on monitoring for protected species. While
training vessel crew members to additionally watch is beneficial, we caution this cannot be a substitute
for trained PSOs as the vessel crew’s top priority is vessel operations.
G. Impacts to Birds
The Draft EIS must address population-level, cumulative impacts to avian populations from developing
Vineyard Wind South and other areas in the Atlantic outer continental shelf (OCS) expected to be
developed in the reasonably foreseeable future. In doing so, BOEM must consider impacts to a broader
range of avian species which may be impacted by Vineyard Wind South, and not limit its evaluation to
federally-listed species. Recognizing that much remains unknown regarding the impacts of offshore wind
to avian species in the United States, Vineyard Wind South’s Draft EIS must require an explicitly defined
monitoring and adaptive management plan. Monitoring and adaptive management plans must include
sufficient standardized monitoring before, during, and after construction.
Most importantly, the adaptive management plan must explicitly outline a strategy to employ adequate
mitigation measures, based on the impacts observed through monitoring efforts. In this manner, the
Draft EIS can account for the reasonably foreseeable impacts of developing this and future projects and
a commitment to addressing those impacts. Further, BOEM should call for incorporation of best
monitoring and management practices into a regional adaptive management plan to adequately
measure and mitigate cumulative impacts to birds from offshore wind developments expected across
the Atlantic OCS for the reasonably foreseeable future.
1. The Draft EIS Must Consider the Full Scope of Impacts to Federally Protected Bi rds
and Species that Trigger Conservation Obligations
BOEM must ensure that the Draft EIS retains consideration of the full range of potential impacts on all
bird species known to forage or rest in or near Vineyard Wind South, or migrate through the area,
including those species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the ESA as well as
species of birds covered under obligations for conservation of birds under the Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Act as amended in 1988,279 Executive Order (EO) 13186 “Responsibilities of Federal
Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds” (January 17, 2001),280 North American Waterbird Conservation
278 Infrared (IR) cameras and wearable night vision scopes at night and during low -visibility conditions are unlikely
to be effective at detecting sea turtles. IR systems detect the temperature difference between body and
environment when the animal is at the sea surface; however, sea turtles spend relatively little time at the
water’s surface where they could be detected and do not expel a lot of air or exhibit a lot of surface behavior
which would enable IR detection. See, Verfuss, U.K., D. Gillespie, J. Gordon, T. Marques, B. Miller, R. Plunkett, J.
Theriault, D. Tollit, D.P. Zitterbart, P. Hubert, and L. Thomas. 2017. Low visibility real-time monitoring techniques
review. Report SMRUM-OGP2015-002 provided to IOGP.
279 16 U.S.C. 2901-2911 (1988), https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/FWCON.HTML.
280 Exec. Order No.13186, 3 C.F.R. 1 (Jan. 10, 2001),
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/Req-EO13186migratorybirds.pdf.
52
Plan,281 the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan,282 the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
the Department of the Interior U.S. Minerals Management Service and the Department of the Interior
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding implementation of EO 13186,283 the United Nations
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS),284 and BOEM, Department
of Interior (DOI), USFWS, and NOAA membership in the IUCN,285 hereinafter collectively referred to as
the “conservation obligations.”
As we have commented to BOEM before, we are aware that the DOI and the USFWS are now relying on
a new rule (the January 7 rule)286 which codifies an illegal interpretation of the MBTA and limits its scope
to the purposeful take of birds.287 Our organizations strongly oppose this rule as contrary to the plain
language and intent of the law, and we urge BOEM to continue to implement its MBTA responsibilities
as all administrations have done, previous to the 2017 Jorjani Opinion M-37050, with explicit recognition
that incidental take is prohibited. This would also be consistent with the current administration’s
recently proposed rule,288 intended to revoke the January 7 rule, and is additionally consistent with the
memorandum of understanding that BOEM signed with USFWS in 2009 to protect migratory bird
populations.289 Recognizing incidental take as prohibited, and producing a Draft EIS consistent with this
interpretation of the MBTA, is vital to maintain regulatory certainty and to create consistent
expectations for developers and other stakeholders. If DOI’s new interpretation changes BOEM’s
analysis and associated requirements for impacts to migratory birds in any way, a detailed description
and explanation of such changes must be included in the Draft EIS. We note that signatories of these
comments (Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation, and National Audubon
Society), together with many other organizations and states, successfully challenged DOI’s unlawful
reinterpretation of the MBTA in court290 and expect BOEM and USFWS to respect the court’s ruling.
The MBTA states, “[u]nless and except as permitted by regulations . . . it shall be unlawful at any time,
by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill . . .
any migratory bird.”291 For decades, the DOI has interpreted the MBTA to encompass “incidental takes”
of migratory birds, including from wind turbines. It was not until the 2017 Jorjani Opinion M-37050 that
281 North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, Version 1.
https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/northamericawaterbirdconservationplan.pdf.
282 Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill, eds. 2001. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, 2nd ed.
Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA.
283 Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of the Interior U.S. Minerals Management Service
and the Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding Implementation of Executive Order
13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds” (Jun. 4, 2009).
https://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy- Program/MMSFWS_MBTA_MOU_6-4-09-pdf.aspx .
284 Convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals, Bonn, 23 June 1979.
https://www.cms.int/en/convention-text.
285 IUCN Member List, https://www.iucn.org/about/members/iucn-members.
286 50 C.F.R. § 10 (2021).
287 U.S. Department of the Interior, “The Migratory Bird Treaty Act Does Not Prohibit Incidental Take,”
Memorandum M- 37050 (Dec. 22, 2017), https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/m-37050.pdf.
288 86 F.R. 24573 (2021).
289 Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of the Interior U.S. Minerals Management Service
and the Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding Implementation of Executive Order
13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds” (Jun. 4, 2009).
https://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/MMSFWS_MBTA_MOU_6-4-09-pdf.aspx .
290 National Audubon Society v. U.S. Department of Interior, No. 18-cv-08084 (S.D.N.Y 2019).
291 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 16 U.S.C. § 703 (1918).
53
the DOI limited the MBTA’s legal scope to only include actions that purposely take migratory birds.292
However, on August 11, 2020, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
found that “the Jorjani Opinion’s interpretation runs counter to the purpose of the MBTA to protect
migratory bird populations.”293 The court found that the statute’s unambiguous text makes clear that
killing a migratory bird “by any means or in any manner,” regardless of how, is covered by the statute.294
As such, the district court struck down the Jorjani Opinion as unlawful, restoring the MBTA’s protections
for migratory birds from incidental takes.295 The unlawful reinterpretation does not relieve BOEM or
USFWS from their obligations for conservation of birds under the aforementioned federal laws, EO and
MOU, as well as MBTA.
In addition to ESA-listed species (i.e. rufa Red Knot, Piping Plover, and Roseate Tern), at a minimum, the
Draft EIS should include analyses of the following priority species, which are likely to use the Project
array, to fulfill BOEM’s conservation obligations:
• Least Tern, Gull-billed Tern, Black Skimmer, Band-rumped Storm Petrel, Fea’s Petrel, Cory’s
Shearwater, Manx Shearwater, and Audubon’s Shearwater are all marine birds occurring in the
Atlantic OCS listed as USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern under the Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Act, 1988 amendment.296
• American Golden-plover, Bicknell’s Thrush, Bobolink, Buff-breasted Sandpiper, Pectoral
Sandpiper, Chimney Swift, Connecticut Warbler, Semipalmated Sandpiper, Solitary Sandpiper,
Upland Sandpiper, and Whimbrel are all trans-Atlantic migrating birds and USFWS Birds of
Conservation Concern297 with documented migratory paths through the Atlantic OCS,298 and
should therefore be prioritized for studies concerning risks to nocturnal migrants.
• Black-legged Kittiwake, Horned Grebe, Leach’s Storm-petrel, Long-tailed Duck, Atlantic Puffin,
and Chimney Swift are classified by IUCN as Vulnerable.
• Black Scoter, Common Eider, Semipalmated Sandpiper, Blackpoll warbler, Razorbill, and Sooty
Shearwater are classified by IUCN as Near Threatened.
• Red Knot, Semipalmated Sandpiper, and Buff-breasted Sandpiper are classified by the CMS as
Endangered.
Further, the following trans-Atlantic migrating birds have documented routes through the Atlantic OCS
WEAs, and should therefore be prioritized in the Draft EIS for analysis of impacts to nocturnal
migrants:299
• American Golden-Plover
• Bicknell’s Thrush
292 United States Department of Interior, The Migratory Bird Treaty Act Does Not Prohibit Incidental Take, Memo
M-37050 (Dec. 14, 2017), https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/m-37050.pdf.
293 Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States DOI, 2020 WL 4605235, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2020).
294 Id. at 28.
295 Id. at 42-44.
296 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. Birds of Conservation Concern 2021. United States Department of the
Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds, Falls Church, Virginia.
http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/birds-of-conservation-concern.php
297 Id.
298 Sorte FAL, Fink D. 2017. Projected changes in prevailing winds for transatlantic migratory birds under global
warming. Journal of Animal Ecology 86:273–284.
299 Id.
54
• Blackpoll Warbler
• Bobolink
• Buff-breasted Sandpiper
• Chimney Swift
• Connecticut Warbler
• Pectoral Sandpiper
• Semipalmated Sandpiper
• Solitary Sandpiper
• Upland Sandpiper
• Whimbrel
• White-rumped Sandpiper
• Ipswich Sparrow300
Many of the species which may migrate through the Vineyard Wind South area are also protected under
various state regulations, in addition to the federal ESA and the MBTA. Therefore, the Draft EIS should
consider impacts to species protected under Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts endangered
species laws, as well as the species of greatest conservation need designated under the states’ Wildlife
Action Plans. However, the states’ endangered species lists do not consider all vulnerable species which
occur in federal waters off Rhode Island’s coast. Many species that occur in the Vineyard Wind South
area are not considered vulnerable by the state, because they do not occur frequently in state
jurisdiction, but are protected under other state laws. Razorbill and Atlantic Puffin, for example, are
both considered threatened in the state of Maine, and occur regularly within and around the planned
Project Area and are predicted to be highly vulnerable to habitat loss from offshore wind.301
Additionally, recent research suggests that similar species are sensitive to underwater noise302 and may
experience physiological impacts from construction. Black-legged Kittiwake are additionally highly
sensitive to displacement from offshore wind303 and are documented within and around the Vineyard
Wind South footprint, and yet are not adequately assessed within the COP.
BOEM should additionally consider species prioritized for conservation by avian expert partners,
including the Atlantic Flyway Shorebird Initiative, Partners in Flight, Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, and the
North American Waterbird Plan. Along with ESA-listing and IUCN Redlist status, the species included on
these initiative priority lists are of high national and international conservation concern. Their priority
status by these entities highlights their vulnerability and is further indicative of the need for enhanced
mitigation and conservation measures to ensure their survival.
300 Crysler ZJ, Ronconi RA, Taylor PD. 2016. Differential fall migratory routes of adult and juvenile Ipswich Sparrows
(Passerculus sandwichensis princeps). Movement Ecology 4:3.
301 Robinson Willmot J, Forcey G, Kent A. 2013. The Relative Vulnerability of Migratory Bird Species to Offshore
Wind Energy Projects on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf: An Assessment Method and Database. Final
Report to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable
Energy Programs OCS Study BOEM 2013-207.
302 Anderson Hansen K, Hernandez A, Mooney TA, Rasmussen MH, Sørensen K, Wahlberg M. 2020. The common
murre (Uria aalge), an auk seabird, reacts to underwater sound. The Jou rnal of the Acoustical Society of America
147:4069–4074.
303 Peschko V, Mendel B, Müller S, Markones N, Mercker M, Garthe S. 2020. Effects of offshore windfarms on
seabird abundance: Strong effects in spring and in the breeding season. Marine Environmental R esearch:105157.
55
The COP does not provide adequate species-specific impact assessments, even for ESA-listed species,
Piping Plover, rufa Red Knot, and Roseate Tern. The Draft EIS must not rely on the COP for its evaluation
of impacts and must evaluate the cumulative species-specific impacts in a manner that is appropriate for
each species’ ecology.
2. The Draft EIS Should Consider Local Population-level Impacts Based on the Best
Available Science
In evaluating impacts to vulnerable species, BOEM must consider local population-level impacts in
addition to flyway-wide impacts.
The COP uses the Marine-life Data and Analysis Team (MDAT) results to evaluate the total proportion of
avian populations impacted by Vineyard Wind South. This is inappropriate for several reasons. For one,
the MDAT projections are rough estimates of relative density in the Atlantic OCS—they are not
intended to assess avian habitat use at the project scale and they cannot be interpreted as population
proportions. Vineyard Wind’s vessel surveys provide a higher resolution picture of relative density, but
these are also inappropriate to interpret as population proportions. Limitations of these analyses are
provided in the sections below.
BOEM should instead consider the population-level impacts of the project to potentially affected local
populations, based on the best available science.
3. BOEM Should Base Its Impact Analyses on Methods Appropriate for Each Species that
Triggers Conservation Obligations
Radio and satellite telemetry and radar monitoring methods should be employed to evaluate risks to
species which are likely to use the Project Area for migration. Many species use Monomoy National
Wildlife Refuge, Nantucket, and Muskegat, among other islands along the southern New England coast,
during migration. Many nocturnally migrating passerines from across North America convene along New
England’s southern coast and Cape Cod prior to beginning their southward trans-Atlantic migration in
the fall. Beach nesting birds, like Piping Plover, American Oystercatcher, and Roseate Tern, may cut
across the Project Area to reach breeding grounds along New England in the spring and on their return
flights south. These interactions are fleeting, however, and would not be adequately captured using
transect survey methods. Adults and sub-adults may occur in the Project Area in the spring and summer
to forage. Therefore, any transect surveys are likely to underestimate the impacts to these populations.
Satellite telemetry technology, supplemented with pressure sensors, should be prioritized for large-
bodied birds, as this is the best method for gathering fine scale movement data and flight altitude. The
COP has included some satellite telemetry raw data for raptors. However, this information is available
for other taxa. Radio telemetry is appropriate for smaller bodied birds, including songbirds, but it should
be reserved for these species, and the network of receiving stations in the offshore will need to be
expanded significantly in order to evaluate the level of interaction between birds and Vineyard Wind
South. We expect that the Draft EIS will include an evaluation of all relevant telemetry and radar data
available for birds which may enter the Project Area (on and offshore), work with Vineyard Wind
developers to expand these monitoring methods to evaluate impacts from the Project, and outline these
requirements within the Draft EIS.
56
Furthermore, radio telemetry data used in the COP do not adequately cover the Project Area or full life
cycle of sensitive species that may be impacted. The current array of telemetry receiving stations are not
far enough offshore to track avian use of the Project Area.304 Additionally, tagged Roseate Terns were
limited to breeding individuals. These individuals forage closer to shore, as they are tied to nesting
locations. However, in April and May, breeding age terns have returned to New England, but have not
yet begun egg laying, and therefore spend a great proportion of time over water and potentially further
offshore. Non-breeding subadult individuals will also return to the region and are similarly
unencumbered by nests or chicks. BOEM should help fund further telemetry studies that incorporate
these other life stages, time periods, and appropriate geographic scope, and incorporate these results in
the Draft EIS for this and future project impact evaluations.
We also recommend BOEM require marine radar methods to document trends in avian movements
within and around Vineyard Wind South. Despite the high value of telemetry technology to document
changes in migratory routes and species distributions, the application of telemetry technology is
generally limited in the number of species and sample sizes included. Marine radar can complement
telemetry data to better document the quantity and timing of birds flying through the Project Area. This
is particularly valuable for understanding impacts to nocturnal migrants.
4. The Draft EIS Should Account for the Limitations in the Survey Methods Used to
Assess Vineyard Wind South for Avian Species Present
Given that there are no studies within the United States that document the responses of local avian
populations to offshore wind development in United States’ waters, BOEM should adopt a conservative
approach in the Draft EIS’s avian impact analysis. In doing so, BOEM must address the limitations of the
survey methods used within the COP to assess avian impacts.
a. Limitations of Avian Surveys to Make Species-specific Assessments for Vulnerable Species
The authors of the Vineyard Wind South COP base their exposure assessment primarily on raw data
from Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC) aerial surveys (conducted 2011-2015),305 MDAT
projections (data collected 1978-2016 ),306 and vessel surveys contracted by Vineyard Wind (October
2018-September 2019).307 Neither MassCEC or MDAT data collection methods provide sufficiently high
resolution results to assess changes in distributions of birds as a result of the proposed project, nor is
the data from these products recent enough to provide accurate assessments of species present. The
Vineyard Wind vessel transects provide a good starting point to assess impacts for some avian species:
they cover a significant proportion of the proposed Project Area and have good temporal coverage
within the scope of a year. While the Vineyard Wind vessel transects serve as a starting point from
which to properly assess impacts, they should be continued with the same effort annually until well
after construction and should be expanded to include a 20 km radius around the project footprint in
order to adequately assess the full suite of avian species that may be impacted by the project.
Furthermore, these vessel surveys alone cannot provide a full picture of the suite of species that will be
impacted by the project, due to inherent biases in vessel survey methods. Personned aerial surveys
304 VWS COP, Appendix III-A, Figure 3-5, p. C-37.
305 Veit, Richard, R., White, Timothy, P., S.A. Perkins, S. Curley. 2016. Abundance and Distribution of Seabirds off
Southeastern Massachusetts, 2011-2015. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Sterling, Virginia. OCS Study BOEM 2016-067. 82 pp.
306 VWS COP, Appendix III-A C-11.
307 VWS COP, Appendix III-A C-3.
57
paired with vessel surveys can inform offshore wind siting that minimizes avian impacts, while also
measuring the realized level of impacts when comparing survey results before and after construction.
However, both aerial and vessel surveys have limitations and associated biases. They are most
appropriate for larger bodied species that spend a great deal of time during the day within the survey
area. Transect surveys are less appropriate for assessing risk to migrants, as the surveys are generally
not repeated frequently enough to catch migration events. Migration behavior is a dynamic response to
endogenous and exogenous factors that requires oversampling to ensure that infrequent events are not
missed by chance alone.
Many species are not adequately detected using transects survey methods. Aerial surveys cannot
appropriately address impacts to species that are potentially vulnerable to offshore wind but rarely
occur in and around the WEA. This is true for species for which populations are low enough that even
small levels of take can have population-level effects (e.g., endangered Black-capped Petrel) or species
for which interactions with the WEA may be relatively rare but theoretically could result in large take
levels under particular circumstances (e.g., nocturnal trans-Atlantic migrants encountering the WEA
during inclement weather or Northern Gannets that migrate through the Sound in large numbers during
just 1-2 weeks each spring). Additionally, smaller avian taxa are difficult to distinguish at the species
level during transect surveys. Alcids are rarely attributed to species using personned or digital aerial
surveys. Sterna terns and small gulls are rarely attributable to species using any survey method (i.e.
aerial or vessel), and vessel surveys frighten away many marine birds. Additionally, Roseate Terns are
known to use the offshore environment at night during staging periods308 and migration309 but transect
surveys do not evaluate nocturnal activity for obvious safety reasons. Therefore, a comprehensive
monitoring plan must include transect surveys in concert with additional methods to assess potential
changes in distribution or migratory patterns before and after Project construction. Telemetry (e.g.,
radio and/or satellite telemetry as appropriate) and marine radar monitoring methods must also be
employed as they serve different (though complementary) objectives for different suites of species.
Much of the purpose of these surveys is to collect background information regarding spatial trends
which can be compared against data collected post-construction. Personned aerial surveys cannot be
completed safely at wind development areas post-construction. We recommend that BOEM work with
Vineyard Wind to institute survey protocols pre- and post-construction that can address these
limitations and include these requirements in the Draft EIS. As marketed, digital aerial surveys allow for
surveys that fly at higher altitudes than personned surveys, reducing safety risks, while also allowing for
surveys to be continued after wind farms have been constructed. While this is true given the current 12-
15 MW turbines under consideration by the offshore wind farms with publicly available construction
and operation plans, the 200 m turbine blades in development in Virginia310 will challenge the potential
for even digital aerial surveys post-construction. Additionally, digital aerial survey technology is
relatively new and its reliability for attributing observations to species and characterizing flight altitude
has not yet been tested or published. As of now, it appears that federally endangered Roseate Terns can
308 Loring, P., Ronconi, R., Welch, L., Taylor, P. and Mallory, M., 2017. Postbreeding dispersal and staging of
Common and Arctic Terns throughout the western North Atlantic. Avian Conservation and Ecology 12:20.
309 Loring, P., Paton, P., McLaren, J., Bai, H., Janaswamy, R., Goyert, H., and Sievert, P. 2019. Tracking offshore
occurrence of Common Terns, endangered Roseate Terns, and threatened Piping Plovers with VHF arrays,
Sterling (VA): US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. OCS Study BOEM.
310 Institute of Energy for Southeast Europe, Blades, Longer Than Two Football Fields, Could Help Bring Offshore 50
MW Wind Turbines to the World https://www.iene.eu/blades-longer-than-two-football-fields-could-help-bring-
offshore-50-mw-wind-turbines-to-the-world-p2488.html (visited Apr. 29, 2021).
58
be distinguished from other sterna tern species for at least some proportion of occurrence events.
However, the reliability of these photo identifications have not been verified. Additionally, Common
Terns are considered a species of concern in Connecticut. Records from Normandeau suggest that digital
aerial photos of this species are less distinguishable from other sterna terns (namely Arctic and Forster’s
Tern). This is similarly true for storm petrel and alcid species, making it difficult to understand how these
species distributions may be influenced by the development of the WEAs under consideration.
Therefore, the rate of mis-identification for Roseate Tern and other species should be tested and
published, and these rates should be incorporated into density estimates.
The MDAT predictive models, while excellent for estimating broad-scale, relative patterns of avian
abundance along the Atlantic, are not of suitable resolution for reliably estimating distribution at a local
scale. The MDAT models are wholly inappropriate for use in impact assessments and should only be
used for broad scale planning purposes (such as determining Call Areas). Furthermore, even as it relates
to broad scale evaluations, BOEM’s own report indicates that the MDAT models are not suitable for
predicting distribution and abundance for a rare and narrowly distributed species.311 As a result, when
these and other data deficiencies312 are factored into the biological assessment, the density of ESA
species within the Vineyard Wind South area is likely to be underestimated.
The core of the Roseate Tern’s breeding range, which overlaps with Vineyard Wind South, is small313 and
therefore a conservative approach for this species and others that may be impacted by these surveys is
required by the Draft EIS. Adults and sub-adults may occur in the Project Area in the spring and summer
to forage, while individuals of all ages likely cross the Project Area in the late summer and fall to reach
their staging grounds on Cape Cod. Roseate Tern use of this area, and other wind development projects
in the Atlantic OCS, should be a priority in pre- and post-construction monitoring so that true impacts to
the population from collision and displacement can be properly measured and compensated.
b) Sampling Biases in Survey Methods
As stated above and in previous comments to BOEM, raw data from transect surveys is not appropriate
for addressing potential environmental impacts. The Draft EIS must address the biases of each
monitoring method used in the COP and Draft EIS and present published results from the associated
studies that account for imperfect detection. Distance sampling is the most obvious method to address
imperfect detection in transect surveys and we recommend that BOEM and developers incorporate this
accepted method into their survey protocols.314 Personned and digital aerial surveys, as well as vessel
surveys, are unable to reliably distinguish between similar-looking species in all cases. Digital area
surveys may be able to attribute observations to species more frequently, but so far there are no peer-
reviewed publications which document the reliability of this method. Vessel surveys, while occasionally
311 Curtice C., Cleary J., Shumchenia E., Halpin P.N. 2018. Marine-life Data and Analysis Team (MDAT) technical
report on the methods and development of marine-life data to support regional ocean planning and
management. Prepared on behalf of the Marine-life Data and Analysis Team (MDAT). Accessed at:
http://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/MDAT/MDATTechnicalReport.pdf.
312 The BRI spring tern surveys failed to identify any Roseate Terns. However of the total of 23 terns found, 22%
were unidentified, and a high proportion of unidentified terns (86%) were noted in transit surveys to and from
the lease area. The unpublished nanotag study did not include Motus receivers within the area, potentially
skewing data results.
313 Nisbet. I.C.T., M. Gochfeld, and J. Burger. “Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii).” In The Birds of North America,
version 2.0. A. F. Poole, Ed. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2014.
314 Bradbury G, Trinder M, Furness B, Banks AN, Caldow RWG, Hume D. 2014. Mapping Seabird Sensitivity to
Offshore Wind Farms. PLOS ONE 9:e106366. Public Library of Science.
59
better for attributing observations to species, are biased against species which sit on the water (sea
ducks, waterbirds, alcids) and are more likely to flee from approaching vessels.315 Because of these
biases, it would be inappropriate to assess Vineyard Wind South using raw data alone. It is also
inappropriate to base an impact analysis on lumping the data together into species groups if species-
specific extrapolations are available and statistically sound. The Draft EIS must not rely on the
presentation of raw lumped data and instead rely on models produced from these standardized
collection methods and by species when appropriate.
Currently the COP does not provide any adequate risk assessments for passerines and shorebirds, other
than potentially those assessed by Loring et al. through radio telemetry.316 Except for phalarope,
shorebirds and passerines do not spend a significant time in the offshore environment, but could
potentially experience significant interactions with turbines during migration. Therefore, survey
methods are not appropriate for evaluating risk to these species groups. While risk evaluations to loons,
seaducks, and gannets incorporated distribution results from satellite transmitter studies, this type of
evaluation was not extended to terns, gulls, cormorants, or other seabirds.
The COP also relied on flight heights discerned from the Northeast Atlantic Seabird Catalog to assess
collision risk. Flight height estimates from vessel surveys are generally biased low and should not be
relied on to estimate average flight height.317 Radar, LiDAR, and pressure sensor technologies should be
relied upon in the Draft EIS and the limitations of each data collection method should be explicit within
the Draft EIS.
It is also critical to note the extreme amount of sampling bias across much of the data used in the MDAT
avian density models referenced in the COP. Not only do the data used in this model include vessel and
aerial surveys which come with the sampling bias described above, but there is no standardization
across data sources. Much of the data do not come from standardized protocols and are instead
opportunistic observations from pelagic birding trips. Additionally, many of these opportunistic
observations occur during chumming activities. This does not necessarily over inflate the number of
birds overall, but it does confound model results by artificially creating higher densities of seabirds in
vessel paths.
c) Effect of Survey Effort on Assessment Reliability
We applaud Vineyard Wind’s recent effort to survey avian activity through vessel transects within the
project footprint. However, these surveys are too temporally and spatially limited to detect changes in
avian distribution from Vineyard Wind South’s development. Both the MassCEC surveys and MDAT data
will be nearly 10 years old by the time of construction. Some species may experience displacement for
up to 20 km from an offshore wind turbine array.318 Therefore, any EIS must include information of avian
315 Henkel LA, Ford RG, Tyler WB, Davis JN. 2007. Comparison of aerial and boat-based survey methods for Marbled
Murrelets Brachyramphus marmoratus and other marine birds: 8.
316 Loring PH, McLaren JD, Goyert HF, Paton PWC. 2020. Supportive wind conditions influence offshore movements
of Atlantic Coast Piping Plovers during fall migration. The Condor 122. Available from
https://doi.org/10.1093/condor/duaa028 (accessed February 9, 2021).
317 Harwood AJP, Perrow MR, Berridge RJ. 2018. Use of an optical rangefinder to assess the reliability of seabird
flight heights from boat-based surveyors: implications for collision risk at offshore wind farms. Journal of Field
Ornithology 89:372–383.
318 Peschko V, Mendel B, Müller S, Markones N, Mercker M, Garthe S. 2020. Effects of offshore windfarms on
seabird abundance: Strong effects in spring and in the breeding season. Marine Environmental Research:105157.
60
distribution and occurrence for a minimum of 20 km surrounding the Project Area in order to
completely understand which species may be impacted by developing Vineyard Wind South. Annual and
seasonal variations in avian movement are also not well captured during the limited survey period, and
therefore BOEM should work with developers to continue surveys over the southern New England
planning areas, including a 20 km buffer, to capture this variation, beginning as soon as possible. Surveys
should be repeated frequently enough to cover within and between seasonal and annual variation in
avian distribution, so that changes in distribution caused by offshore wind development can be
discerned from other sources.
5. The Draft EIS Should Address Collision Risk for Species Most at Risk of Collision and be
Transparent in Its Use of Collision Risk Models
The Draft EIS should include a collision risk analysis, including risk to birds as they migrate through the
Project, on species that occur within a 20 km radius of the WEA and that trigger conservation
obligations: ESA-listed endangered and threatened species, state-listed threatened, endangered, and
species of concern, and IUCN-listed endangered, threatened, and near threatened. These species
include, but are not limited to Roseate Tern, Piping Plover, Red Knot, Common Tern, Least Tern,
American Oystercatcher, and Upland Sandpiper. The Draft EIS should include the most recently available
scientific information.
Based on MDAT models, the Vineyard Wind South may not likely have consistent impacts to avian
populations during operation. However, these MDAT distribution models have limited reliability across
species, and better methods for predicting impacts have not yet been applied in the offshore
environment in the United States. Additionally, while collision events during migration are likely to occur
less frequently, these events have the potential to have large, population-level consequences during a
short time period. All the current lease areas and call areas occur within migratory pathways for trans-
Atlantic migratory songbirds and shorebirds. BOEM’s EIS needs to evaluate this cumulative risk, as the
likelihood of large migratory collision events will increase as the total offshore wind footprint increases.
a) Collision Risk for Passerines and Other Nocturnal Migrants
Collision risks to nocturnal migrants have not been properly accounted for in the COP. BOEM must
sufficiently assess collision risks to nocturnal migrants in the Draft EIS. As addressed above, migration
events are relatively infrequent, and, therefore, survey transects of the Project Area are not appropriate
for characterizing collision risk to nocturnal migrants. Likewise, radar studies conducted on Block
Island,319 while helpful in characterizing migration timing, do not reach the Project Area and are based
on a limited number of years. The Draft EIS must consider migration timing, variations in flight height,
and the distance from shore at which nocturnal migrants reach maximum migration height. The Draft
EIS should contain a full analysis of these study results and not rely on a simple summary of the raw data
to inform its collision risk analysis for nocturnal migrants. In general, efforts to understand these impacts
should rely on a combination of radar, telemetry, survey, and acoustic monitoring, and should not be
based on a single technology alone.
When incorporating radio-telemetry methods, receiving stations need to be installed in the offshore
environment in such a way that avian movement in and around the WEAs can be adequately assessed.
319 Mizrahi D, Fogg T, Magarian V, Elia P, Hodgetts D, La Puma D. 2010. Radar Monitoring of bird and bat
movement patterns on Block Island and its coastal waters. Report prepared for State of Rhode Island Ocea n
Strategic Area Management Plan.
61
BOEM should ensure the monitoring protocols for automated radio telemetry currently in development
by NYSERDA and USFWS320 are followed. We applaud this interagency effort to develop robust,
scientifically sound monitoring protocols and to test the feasibility of floating receiving stations. BOEM
needs to help financially support the efforts to further this technology, adopt these methods into
regional monitoring protocols for offshore wind development, and ensure the success of this technology
moving forward. Data from these efforts should be incorporates into this Draft EIS and other impacts
analyses into the future.
Acoustic monitoring is especially inappropriate on its own to characterize the community of nocturnal
migrants within the Project Area. We recognize that BOEM is considering acoustic monitoring as a
standardized monitoring method. However, evidence indicates that Empidonax flycatchers and vireos,
two of the most abundant nocturnal migrant groups, do not emit nocturnal flight calls, and therefore,
would not be accounted for using acoustic monitoring.321 Additionally, acoustic monitoring does not
adequately assess flux–a necessary value for assessing collision risk and estimating population-level
impacts.
La Sorte and Fink (2017)322 document the flights of species of migratory birds that migrate over the
Atlantic Ocean: American Golden-Plover, Bicknell’s Thrush, Blackpoll Warbler, Bobolink, Buff-breasted
Sandpiper, Connecticut Warbler, Pectoral Sandpiper, Semipalmated Sandpiper, Solitary Sandpiper, and
White-rumped Sandpiper. Two species classified by USFWS as Birds of Conservation Concern, Upland
Sandpiper and Whimbrel, also cross the Atlantic Ocean during migration. We do not currently know
what Vineyard Wind South’s turbine specifications will be. While there is evidence to suggest that
nocturnal migrants typically fly above the rotor swept zone for current wind turbines in operation, we
also know that nocturnal migrants fly lower, potentially within the rotor swept zone, during inclement
weather and cross winds.323
Many species of conservation obligation, including ESA-listed Red Knot and Piping Plover, migrate over
the Atlantic Ocean. Relying on the current system of automated radio telemetry receivers to monitor
risk is inappropriate, as the network of receivers has not been established in the offshore to the degree
necessary. Additionally, automated radio telemetry does not adequately estimate flight height, though
there are efforts underway to fill this information gap. Remote tracking studies that rely on the Motus
passive very high frequency (VHF) radio tracking system do, however, provide that Piping Plovers
migrate nocturnally over open water, “directly across the mid-Atlantic Bight, from breeding areas in
southern New England to stopover sites spanning from New York to North Carolina...at altitudes of 288
m (range of model uncertainty: 36-1,031 m),” putting this ESA-listed species at high risk of collision with
turbines, especially considering that individuals breeding in Massachusetts have known migratory routes
through the Project Area.324 The current configuration of VHF receiving towers does not allow for
320 Williams K, Adams E, Gilbert A. (n.d.). USFWS Migratory Birds: Pam Loring, Scott Johnston Univ. of Rhode Island:
Peter Paton:21. Accessed at
https://www.briloon.org/uploads/BRI_Documents/Wildlife_and_Renewable_Energy/AutomatedVHF/NYSERDA
%20PAC%20Webinar%20Radio%20Telemetry%2020200826_Final.pdf
321 Evans WR, Rosenberg KV. 2000. Strategies for bird conservation: The Partners in Flight planning process;
Proceedings of the 3rd Partners in Flight Workshop; 1995 October 1 -5; Cape May, NJ:9.
322 Sorte FAL, Fink D. 2017. Projected changes in prevailing winds for transatlantic migratory birds under global
warming. Journal of Animal Ecology 86:273–284.
323 Van Doren BM, Horton KG, Stepanian PM, Mizrahi DS, Farnsworth A. 2016. Wind drift explains the reoriented
morning flights of songbirds. Behavioral Ecology 27:1122–1131. 262 COP Volume II, p. 19.
324 Id.
62
detailed characterization of flight paths for this species or any protected avian species using this tracking
technology, and therefore, BOEM should take a conservative approach in the Draft EIS when evaluating
potential impacts (cumulative or otherwise) to Piping Plover, Red Knot, and other species which may fly
through the Project Area and other wind development areas expected in the foreseeable future.
It is imperative that BOEM supports further tracking efforts and we recommend the construction and
maintenance of a full network of telemetry receiving towers throughout the offshore environment to
inform risk analyses. It is important to note that the VHF transmitters widely deployed along the coast
have a limited lifespan. New solar-powered ultra-high frequency transmitters, which include on-board
battery support for transmitting at night, should be the future focus for incorporating this technology.
The Draft EIS must produce a full picture of migratory pathways for songbirds and shorebirds. This could
be realized with the addition of satellite tracking information from Movebank and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Icarus project for larger bodied shorebirds, additional research
and tagging of priority bird species using radio and satellite telemetry technology as appropriate, and an
expansion of the radio telemetry receiver network in the offshore environment. While we recognize the
unlikelihood of implementing and completing new tracking studies prior to the publication of the Draft
EIS, these knowledge gaps should be filled expeditiously to inform future offshore wind operation and
siting processes. In addition, there should be a commitment to, and process outlined for, addressing
unforeseen impacts through compensatory mitigation (see Section III(G)11 on compensatory mitigation
for birds). The Draft EIS should use the data currently available to calculate the risk to these migratory
birds, especially in regard to turbine height, and provide for tracking these migratory birds during the life
of the project and cumulatively over all projects in the Atlantic OCS.
Additionally, the Draft EIS should explicitly outline the implementation of collision detection and
minimization measures during the operation of Vineyard Wind South and other planning areas. Under
the ESA and MBTA, developers are responsible for any take of migratory birds and ESA-listed species.
However, without appropriate monitoring for collision detection, large collision events could have
serious population-level impacts to migratory songbirds and shorebirds without any recourse. This is not
an acceptable outcome, and BOEM must require Vineyard Wind to create a plan to address this concern.
b) Collision Risk for Seabirds
The Draft EIS must adequately assess collision risk to seabirds. This must include an analysis, using the
most current available science, of flight heights (averages and ranges), avoidance rates, and other
relevant avian flight behavior at the very least. The Draft EIS must also consider the range of turbine
specifications that could influence collision risk, including air gap, total rotor swept zone, and turbine
height.
The Draft EIS must also provide results from BOEM’s own analysis of the vulnerability of 177 species of
birds that could come into contact with the WTGs in the cumulative OCS Wind Development Areas
(WDAs) in the foreseeable future and incorporate this analysis into the cumulative impacts conclusions
within the Draft EIS.325 In doing so, the Draft EIS must be transparent in presenting the high level of
uncertainty in the results, including high and low estimates for population-level cumulative impacts.
325 Robinson Willmot J, Forcey G, Kent A. 2013. The Relative Vulnerability of Migratory Bird Species to Offshore
Wind Energy Projects on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf: An Assessment Method and Database. Page 294.
Final Report to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable
Energy Programs OCS Study BOEM 2013-207.
63
Much of the high uncertainty in these models is a result of highly variable concentrations of seabirds
throughout the year. The draft EIS needs to be explicit about these seasonally higher risks and not rely
on annual averages. Many tubenoses, for example, congregate outside the breeding season near
upwellings and other locations of high productivity. Such concentrated flocks, if occurring within the
turbine array, could produce significantly large collision events, even if such events are relatively rare.
The Draft EIS should consider this variability of large concentrations of birds even in short periods of
time in its analysis of seasonal abundance when calculating risk to birds.
c) Collision Risk Models
We expect that BOEM will apply collision risk models (CRMs) to evaluate avian impacts from Vineyard
Wind South. While limited, CRMs are one of the only tools available to hypothesize potential impacts to
birds from collision in the offshore environment. As such, CRMs provide a mechanism for testing
outcomes (e.g., observed collision rates) against the model predictions (e.g., expected collision rates),
and BOEM must address the need to collect the data necessary to test these hypotheses. We appreciate
how BOEM addressed our concerns in the Final EIS for Vineyard Wind 1 and reiterate our expectation
that BOEM’s collision risk analysis in the Draft EIS be complete and transparent.
The Draft EIS should include a CRM-driven analysis for all species of conservation obligation which may
occur within 20 km of the Vineyard Wind South footprint and for which a current CRM would be
appropriate, even if the species has not been documented within the footprint of Vineyard Wind South.
This should include a recent stochastic derivation of the Band model, such as the McGregor (2018)326
version.
BOEM must be transparent in its CRM application. These models are extremely sensitive to the input
parameters. A study by Cook et al. (2014) found that estimations of avoidance and collision risk from
Band models were highly sensitive to the flux rate (total number of birds passing through the wind
farm), corpse detection rate, rotor speed, and bird speed. Factors such as weather (i.e. wind speed and
visibility) and habitat use would also affect the accuracy of these estimates, as such factors would
greatly influence avian flight patterns and behavior.327 Therefore, the Draft EIS must provide the inputs
used in its analysis for public comment and transparency. Providing CRM results without transparency to
the inputs and analytical process would never be acceptable from a scientific perspective and, therefore,
should not be acceptable from BOEM. Providing inputs would show whether BOEM followed the
guidance provided by Band in assessing collision risk. These details regarding inputs should include, but
not be limited to, avoidance behavior, flight height, flight activity, flux rate, corpse detection rate, rotor
speed, bird speed, and collision risk.
Additionally, CRMs should consider differences in daytime and nighttime flight patterns. As Band himself
stipulates:
For some species typical flight heights are dependent on the season, and in such a case it will be
best to use seasonally dependent typical flight heights in assessing collision risk for each month,
rather than average flight heights across the year...Flight activity estimates should allow both for
daytime and night-time activity. Daytime activity should be based on field surveys. Night-time
326 McGregor RM, King S, Donovan CR, Caneco B, Webb A. 2018. A Stochastic Collision Risk Model for Sea birds in
Flight:61. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/McGregor -2018-Stochastic.pdf.
327 Cook ASCP, Humphreys EM, Masden EA, Burton NHK. 2014. The Avoidance Rates of Collision Between Birds and
Offshore Turbines. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science 5:263.
64
flight activity should be based if possible on nighttime survey; if not on expert assessment of
likely levels of nocturnal activity...collision model[s] should take both day and night flights into
account. Where there is no night-time survey data available, or other records of nocturnal
activity, for the species in question, (or for other sites if not at this site), it should be assumed
that the Garthe and Hüppop/ King et al. 1-5 rankings apply. These rankings should then be
translated to levels of activity at night which are respectively 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of
daytime activity. These percentages are a simple way of quantifying the rankings for use in
collision modelling, and they may to some extent be precautionary.328
There are new derivations of the Band model under development, namely the 3-D CRM for seabirds by
the Shatz Energy Research Center329 and stochastic CRM specific to ESA-listed species in southern New
England from the University of Rhode Island.330 These models should be applied, once available, in
BOEM’s assessments of avian impacts for future offshore wind developments, as they will be better able
to incorporate variation in input parameters.
Moreover, collision risk models provide a starting point, not an end point, from which to predict
cumulative, population-level impacts across wind farms in the Atlantic OCS. Despite claims within the
COP that CRMs “do estimate site-specific mortality”,331 CRMs are not found to be reliable in predicting
mortality:
Siting and permitting decisions for many European offshore wind facilities are informed by
collision risk models, which have been created to predict the number of avian collisions for
offshore wind energy facilities. However, these models are highly sensitive to uncertainties in
input data. The few empirical studies at land-based wind facilities that have compared model-
estimated collision risk to actual mortality rates found only a weak relationship between the
two, and due to logistical difficulties, the accuracy of these models has not been evaluated in
the offshore environment.332
BOEM should pursue studies to not only verify CRM utility in the offshore environment, but should also
move toward viable collision detection requirements for Vineyard Wind South and future offshore wind
developments.
328 Band, B. 2012. Using a collision risk model to assess bird collision risks for offshore windfarms. SOSS report for
The Crown Estate, Norway.
https://www.bto.org/sites/default/files/u28/downloads/Projects/Final_Report_SOSS02_Band1ModelGuidance.
pdf.
329 Seabird Distribution in 3D: Assessing Risk from Offshore Wind Energy Generation, Shatz Energy Research Center
(2020), https://schatzcenter.org/2020/04/seabird3dstudy/.
330 Transparent Modeling of Collision Risk for Three Federally-Listed Bird Species to Offshore Wind Development,
US Fish and Wildlife Service with University of Rhode Island (Oct. 29, 2020)
https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/environment/environmental -studies/Transparent-
modeling-of-collisionrisk-for-three-federally-listed-bird-species-to-offshore-wind-development_1.pdf.
331 VWS COP, Appendix III-A, C-22.
332 Allison, T. D., Diffendorfer, J. E., Baerwald, E. F., Beston, J. A., Drake, D., Hale, A. M., Hein, C. D., Huso, M. M.,
Loss, S. R., Lovich, J. E., Strickland, M. D., Williams, K. A., & Winder, V. L. (2019). Impacts to wildlife of wind
energy siting and operation in the United States. Issues in Ecology, vol. 21, Ecological Society of America.
65
6. BOEM Cannot Assume that Larger Turbines, Further Apart, Reduces Risks to Birds
There is no substantial evidence to suggest that larger turbines, spaced farther apart, reduce risks to
birds, and it should be a goal of BOEM to understand the effects of displacement and mortality relative
to turbine size and spacing.
The size of turbines has grown substantially over the past decade, and this trend is expected to
continue. Vineyard Wind expects to use turbines of up to 16 MW nameplate capacity in its Park City
Wind (Phase One) Project, with a potential rotor swept diameter of 255 m and maximum potential
height of 319 m.333 In Phase Two of the Vineyard Wind South project, Vineyard Wind proposes to use
turbines up to 19 MW in nameplate capacity, which could reach a maximum height of 357 m above sea
level, with a rotor swept diameter of 285 m.334 University of Virginia is currently developing 200 m long
blades to power a 50 MW turbine, with a potential rotor swept zone of approximately 400 m.
Given that the tower height would need to be more than 200 m in height to accommodate rotor blades
of this size, turbines could soon reach heights greater than 400 m above sea level. Studies, like those
from Krijgsveld et al. (2009),335 Smallwood and Karas (2009),336 and Johnston et al. (2014),337 which
suggest that fewer, larger turbines reduce avian collision risk, are based on turbines less than 5 MW. As
turbines increase in size, they are more likely to encroach on airspace occupied by nocturnal migrants338
while not necessarily avoiding airspace occupied by relatively lower flying foraging marine bird species.
Conversely, studies by Loss et al. (2013),339 Choi et al. (2020),340 and Huso et al. (2020)341 find that bird
deaths not only increase with turbine size, but also suggest that the number of bird deaths from collision
with wind turbines is proportional to the number of MW produced in a wind farm. Turbulence above
and below the rotor swept zone can affect flight performance. If this should make birds more
susceptible to physical interactions with turbines, then larger turbines would only increase that risk.
Additionally, limiting risk evaluations to the rotor swept zone neglects the risk of collision from the
tower itself and turbulence around the rotor swept zone.
Suggestions that increased spacing (1 nm) between turbines would reduce risks to birds from both
collision and displacement is unfounded, as offshore wind farms in Europe do not provide this level of
spacing, and therefore, there is no operational comparison to be made. Instead, increased spacing
means fewer turbines and less energy production within the footprint of the project, so more projects
333 VWS COP, Volume I, Table S-1, p. S-4
334 VWS COP, Volume I, Table S-2, p. S-9
335 Krijgsveld KL, Akershoek K, Schenk F, Dijk F, Dirksen S. 2009. Collision Risk of Birds with Modern Large Wind
Turbines. Ardea 97:357–366. Netherlands Ornithologists’ Union.
336 Smallwood KS, Karas B. 2009. Avian and Bat Fatality Rates at Old-Generation and Repowered Wind Turbines in
California.
The Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1062–1071.
337 Johnston, A., A.S.C.P. Cook, L.J. Wright, E.M. Humphreys, and N.H.K. Burton. 2014. Modeling Flight Heights of
Marine Birds to More Accurately Assess Collision Risk with Offshore Wind Turbines. Journal of Applied Ecology
51, 31-41.
338 Id.
339 Loss SR, Will T, Marra PP. 2013. Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind facilities in the contiguous United
States. Biological Conservation 168:201–209.
340 Choi DY, Wittig TW, Kluever BM. 2020. An evaluation of bird and bat mortality at wind turbines in the
Northeastern United States. PLOS ONE 15:1–22. Public Library of Science.
341 Huso MMP, Conkling TJ, Dalthrop DH, Davis M, Smith H, Fesnock A, Katzner T. 2020. Bigger not necessarily
better for wind turbines: Wildlife mortality scales with energy production. In review.
66
(and more space) will be necessary to meet state and national energy goals. Furthermore, greater space
between turbines may increase collision risk if species vulnerable to collision end up using the wind farm
more frequently. Unfortunately, these are all unknowns until these configurations are developed and
operational. BOEM will need to fund studies to answer these questions either through tax revenue or
through the preferred method of financial support from offshore wind project developers.
The Draft EIS should include a risk assessment, considering the full range of the potential rotor swept
zone provided in the COP, to assess 1) impacts from collision and barrier effects to migrating birds, and
2) potential increased habitat loss that may need to occur in order to reach offshore wind energy goals.
7. The Draft EIS Cannot Ignore the Habitat Loss that Birds May Experience Beyond the
Footprint of Vineyard Wind South’s Construction and Operation
As we have mentioned above and in previous comments, BOEM should not limit the impact assessment
to the project footprint.
Terns use upwellings and ocean turbulence as ecological cues to locate important foraging areas
offshore. In addition to project construction’s disruption of foraging fish breeding communities on the
ocean floor, the turbine monopiles can mimic these cues, even when foraging fish are not present.
According to recent research, “[t]he structures themselves may provide artificial foraging cues (or
ecological trap) by which terns will ignore important upwellings in favor of investigating turbulence
created by the turbine structure.”342
Birds are not only disturbed from foraging, staging, roosting, and nesting habitat in the immediate
footprint of construction. We know that kittiwakes—a species which occurs within the Project Area—
can be displaced up to 20 km from operating wind farms.343 We also know that, while birds may
congregate more frequently in areas outside of the Project Area, they may continue to pass through the
WEA, putting them at greater risk of collision. We simply do not know the full extent of habitat loss that
marine birds will experience as a result of the Project, nor do we know the rate at which birds that
continue to forage in the area will be lost to collision. Though flight-initiation distances are highly
variable, nesting and foraging shorebirds can be disturbed from coastal anthropogenic activities more
than 200 m away.344 Diving marine birds may also be heavily impacted from the noises associated with
pile driving.345 Underwater noise impacts to diving birds must be considered in the Draft EIS, and cannot
be limited to an assessment of the Project footprint. Additionally, vessel traffic can disrupt wintering
342 Lieber L, Langrock R, Nimmo-Smith WAM. 2021. A bird’s-eye view on turbulence: seabird foraging associations
with evolving surface flow features. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 288:rspb.2021.0592,
20210592.
343 Peschko V, Mendel B, Müller S, Markones N, Mercker M, Garthe S. 2020. Effects of offshore windfarms on
seabird abundance: Strong effects in spring and in the breeding season. Marine Environmental Research:105157.
344 Glover HK, Weston MA, Maguire GS, Miller KK, Christie BA. 2011. Towards ecologically meaningful and socially
acceptable buffers: Response distances of shorebirds in Victoria, Australia, to human disturbance. Landscape
and Urban Planning 103:326– 334.
345 Anderson Hansen K, Hernandez A, Mooney TA, Rasmussen MH, Sørensen K, Wahlberg M. 2020. The common
murre ( Uria aalge ), an auk seabird, reacts to underwater sound. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 147:4069–4074.
67
marine birds,346 and construction activities can have impacts to birds and their prey which will not end
immediately after construction—these are modifications to the habitat which will not return to a
healthy state until long after construction activities.347 Given the avian distribution off the coast of
southern New England, it is likely that marine bird communities will be heavily disturbed during
construction activities.
Construction activities from the cable laying and pile driving will likely impact birds, regardless of timing.
Beach nesting birds, like Piping Plover, American Oystercatcher, Least Tern, Herring Gull, Double-crested
Cormorant, and Common Tern, may be present in and around the Project Area from March through
September; Northern Gannet, Red Knots, Semipalmated Sandpiper, and Black-bellied Plover may be
affected by construction activities in spring and fall. Marine birds, such as shearwater and petrel, will be
present around the Project during the winter. If the construction of cable routes is timed to avoid beach
nesting birds, then it will likely impact wintering seaducks. While it may not be possible to avoid impacts
entirely, the Draft EIS needs to be transparent in addressing these impacts and provide a path to
mitigate these impacts.
While Roseate Tern, Piping Plover, and Red Knot may fly through the WEA, the Draft EIS must also
consider the potential impacts of developing the Project to these ESA-listed species onshore. Piping
Plover or tern chicks within 100 m of onshore construction activities will require the developer to hire a
spotter to prevent the chicks from encountering harm during activities. Additionally, no construction
activities may be allowed on the beach or intertidal zone within 100 m of Piping Plover chicks or nests,
as this would starve breeding plovers of necessary foraging habitat. Migrating Red Knots and other
shorebirds rely on the mudflats along Rhode Island’s coast to rest and refuel during their fall migration.
Common and Roseate Terns rely on these same mudflats to stage August-October. The Draft EIS must
consider the impacts of building out the Project to these species, even when the activities associated
with development fall outside the offshore Project Area.
8. The Draft EIS Should Outline BOEM’s Expectation for Monitoring and Adaptive
Management Meant to Address Realized Impacts to Birds Resulting from Project
Construction and Operation
In addition to accounting for potential avian impacts in the Draft EIS, as we have reiterated repeatedly
herein, the developer must provide its plan to monitor bird activity in Vineyard Wind South and the
surrounding area before, during, and after construction. We suggest that BOEM clearly outline
monitoring requirements and coordinate with other stakeholders, including the Vineyard Wind, Rhode
Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts state agencies, and the Regional Wildlife Science Entity, to
support the development of a regional monitoring plan for birds and other wildlife.
Monitoring for adverse effects requires multiple modes of evaluation in a coordinated framework pre-
and post-construction. Radar, vessel and aerial surveys, acoustic monitoring, and telemetry are all
346 Mendel B, Schwemmer P, Peschko V, Müller S, Schwemmer H, Mercker M, Garthe S. 2019. Operational offshore
wind farms and associated ship traffic cause profound changes in distribution patterns of Loons (Gavia spp.).
Journal of Environmental Management 231:429–438.
347 Perrow MR, Gilroy JJ, Skeate ER, Tomlinson ML. 2011. Effects of the construction of Scroby Sands offshore wind
farm on the prey base of Little tern Sternula albifrons at its most important UK colony. Marine Pollution Bulletin
62:1661–1670.
68
complementary tools that provide data necessary for evaluating impacts, though none of these tools
provides the full picture when used alone.
a) Collision Monitoring
Post-construction fatality monitoring onshore is a key component of Tier 4 of the USFWS Land-Based
Wind Energy Guidelines.348 Many wind projects onshore conduct post-construction monitoring,
especially on public lands managed by the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management.
Developers survey for carcasses around a radius from the turbines, under an a priori protocol, to
determine avian mortality rates. The data are adjusted for searcher efficiency, carcass persistence, and
other sources of bias.
This practice is entirely impractical at sea for obvious reasons, however, that does not relieve BOEM
from requiring post-construction fatality monitoring—an obligation that the onshore wind industry has
committed to and is required to fulfill. There is ongoing, rapid development of imaging and bird strike
technologies used in the European Union and the United Kingdom, and such technologies are also being
developed in the United States. Grant funding from the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, state energy agencies, and others supports technical and economic
advancement of offshore and onshore wind. The DOE Wind Energy Technologies Office invests in energy
science research and development activities that enable the innovations needed to advance wind
systems, reduce the cost of electricity, and accelerate the deployment of wind power.
DOE has recently funded development of collision detection technology from the Albertani Lab349 at
Oregon State University and WT Bird from WEST, Inc.350 Similar technologies are being tested at Block
Island Wind Project and other offshore locations in the European Union and United Kingdom and are
making rapid gains in being effective, officially verified, commercially available, and affordable at scale in
the near future, possibly at the same time as the Project would be ready for construction and
operation.351 However, these technologies must be fully integrated into turbine design before they can
be deployed. DOE is currently evaluating the development status of these integrated systems based on
their readiness for offshore wind deployment.352 BOEM must support the development of these
technologies and must drive turbine developers to integrate these systems into their turbine designs.
We cannot wait on offshore wind project developers to drive the market, BOEM must require this type
of collision monitoring and work with the industry to support the development of these technologies to
make deploying them a reality.
348 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines. OMB
Control No, 10180148. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA. Available from
https://www.fws.gov/ecologicalservices/es-library/pdfs/WEG_final.pdf.
349 Clocker K, Hu C, Roadman J, Albertani R, Johnston ML. 2021. Autonomous Sensor System for Wind Turbine
Blade Collision Detection. IEEE Sensors Journal:1–1.
350 Verhoef JP, Eecen PJ, Nijdam RJ, Korterink H, Scholtens HH. 2003. WT -Bird A Low Cost Solution for Detecting
Bird Collisions:46.
351 Dirksen S. 2017. Review of methods and techniques for field validation of collision rates and avoidance amongst
birds and bats at offshore wind turbines. Sjoerd Dirksen Ecology.
352 Brown-Saracino J. 2018. State of the Science: Technologies and Approaches for Monitoring Bird and Bat
Collisions Offshore. RENEWABLE ENERGY:23. Available at
https://www.briloon.org/uploads/BRI_Documents/Wildlife_and_Renewable_Energy/NYSERDA_workshop_Jocel
ynBrown-Saracino.pdf.
69
The incorporation of these new monitoring technologies, and hopefully a standardized technology,
should be a required element in the post-construction monitoring plan for the Project. BOEM should
require standardized methodology for using these new technologies across all projects in the Atlantic
OCS to incorporate mortality data, and possibly displacement data, into ongoing cumulative effects
analyses and adaptive management strategies, to validate collision risk models, and to measure impacts
on ESA-listed species and other species of conservation obligation by augmenting tracking data with
data from on-site detection technology.
Many of the offshore wind projects to date (including Vineyard Wind 1) have suggested in their COPs
that mortality monitoring can rely on carcass monitoring around the base of the offshore wind turbines.
This is contrary to the standard protocol for post-construction monitoring at onshore wind projects,
where a radius from the turbine is prescribed as the search area and includes where birds may be
propelled or thrown from the actual turbine structure and blades after collision. The offshore structures
anticipated to be installed have very little available structure on which a dead or injured bird could land.
Defining the structure as a search area, if it means the turbine base or nacelle (since no injured or dead
birds could be found on the blades), is woefully inadequate. Only updated technology will detect bird
strikes or mortalities in the appropriate range established by onshore post-construction mortality
studies. The Draft EIS must address this inadequacy in the COP and mandate a protocol for adequately
monitoring mortality events.
The Draft EIS should specifically require the adoption of collision detection technologies when they are
verified and commercially available and BOEM should support their development and testing. The
shared cost of development and implementation of these technologies across all lessees and with
BOEM, if standardized, would avoid an undue economic burden on individual projects.
Additionally, BOEM must require that lease applicants report mortality events promptly and publicly.
b) Monitoring for Displacement and Barrier Effects
Within the FEIS for Vineyard Wind 1, BOEM proposed that the industry develop a monitoring framework
in coordination with the federal and state jurisdictions, to include, at a minimum:
• Acoustic monitoring for birds and bats
• Installation of Motus receivers on WTGs in the WEA and support with upgrades or maintenance
of two onshore Motus receivers
• Deployment of up to 150 Motus tags per year for up to 3 years to track roseate terns, common
terns, and/or nocturnal passerine migrants
• Pre- and post-construction boat surveys
• Avian behavior point count surveys at individual WTGs
• Annual monitoring353
We support these admirable expectations and expect that BOEM will expand on this framework in the
Draft EIS to specify how this monitoring should be carried out to collect the best available data.
Monitoring pre- and post-construction should be designed in such a way as to be able to discern any
changes to avian spatial distribution that might be a result of construction and operation of Vineyard
353 SFWF DEIS, Table G-2.
70
Wind South. A monitoring plan should incorporate the suggestions previously provided to BOEM on
October 23, 2020 via the Avian Considerations recommendations.354
More specifically, we recommend that efforts to track avian movement include both satellite and
automated radio telemetry, as appropriate, and these efforts should not be limited to Roseate Terns,
Common Terns, and nocturnal passerine migrants. Technically speaking, while the passive radio
telemetry receivers for these efforts are considered part of the Motus network, the tags themselves are
VHF and ultra high frequency radio transmitters. Recommendations by USFWS Northeast Migratory Bird
Office should be followed when deploying receivers and tags, using the specifications best able to
capture migratory routes in the offshore environment.
As we have specified to BOEM previously, we further suggest that transect surveys be accompanied by
telemetry and radar studies. Radar surveys can provide a broad overview for comparison of flight paths,
especially for nocturnal migrants which could not be captured during daytime survey efforts,355 while
telemetry, especially satellite telemetry with pressure sensors, can gather high resolution distribution
and flight path data for priority species.
9. The Draft EIS Should Evaluate Cumulative Impacts to Avian Populations from Vineyard
Wind South and All Other Foreseeable Development Offshore
In the past, BOEM has failed to provide any reasonable scientific evidence to support its cumulative
impact assessment for birds resulting from wind farm construction and operation in the Atlantic OCS.
In regard to South Fork, BOEM assessed only localized impacts to forests from construction, namely,
“the removal of 2.4 acres of deciduous forest for the interconnection facility and a small area (0.1 acre)
of upland wildlife habitat at the selected O&M facility.”356 BOEM further asserted that the resulting
impacts would be “localized and temporary, including avoidance and displacement, although no
individual fitness or population-level effects would be expected.”357 The assumption that removal of
deciduous forest only creates short-term impacts and that displacement and habitat loss do not impact
survival and fecundity is simply false. BOEM must take a full annual and life cycle approach in the Draft
EIS, addressing the various population vital rates which may be affected for species potential impacted
from build out of Vineyard Wind South.
Loss et al. (2013) estimates that the average annual mortality rate for birds from turbines onshore is
3.58 birds/MW (95% C.I.=3.05-4.68).358 The Draft EIS must use this range to estimate potential
cumulative impacts from Vineyard Wind South over, at minimum, the predicted 30-year lifespan of
Vineyard Wind South. While the exact turbine models to be deployed are not yet known, BOEM should
provide, at minimum, estimates based on the specifications provided in the COP.359 Furthermore, BOEM
354 “Re:BOEM’s obligations under Migratory Bird Treaty Act in Vineyard I Construction and Operation Plan
Environmental Impact Statement.” Submitted to BOEM Oct. 23, 2020; Available here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SNv6_3296W_S-c-OgMsfiKDAGFu7fOr4/view?usp=sharing
355 Desholm M, Kahlert J. 2005. Avian collision risk at an offshore wind farm. Biology Letters 1:296–298. Royal
Society.
356 SFWF DEIS, at H-48.
357 Id.
358 Loss SR, Will T, Marra PP. 2013. Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind facilities in the contiguous United
States. Biological Conservation 168:201–209.
359 VWS COP, Volume I, Tables S-1 and S-2, pp. S-4, S-9.
71
should model how the Loss et al. estimates could change in response to increased height and rotor
swept area for larger turbines, enlisting existing flight altitude data from nearshore studies.
These calculations only address direct mortality from collisions and do not include the rates of mortality
driven by barrier effects and habitat loss. Barrier effects and displacement can have significant energetic
costs for birds and can additionally result in increased foraging rates. Both can have consequences for
individual survival and can decrease rates of egg laying and fledging.
The Draft EIS must provide a quantitative assessment of the cumulative effects from wind farm build out
in the OCS, including population viability analyses which consider changes in vital rates that result from
both direct and indirect impacts. BOEM’s cumulative impact level should reflect these estimates. In the
past, BOEM has prescribed impact levels to birds based on immediate impacts or impacts to species
detected during surveys within the proposed development footprint. These limited evaluations are not
acceptable. We expect BOEM to be fully transparent in its impact level assignments in the Draft EIS,
clearly outlining the best available science and analyses that lead to each impact level assignment.
10. Adaptive Management and Mitigation for Birds
The Draft EIS should provide more certainty that the developer will use adaptive management for birds
and collect “sufficiently robust” data to inform mitigation strategies to avoid, minimize, and mitigate
impacts to birds.
According to USFWS Wind Energy Guidelines (2012),360 DOI has adopted the National Research Council’s
2004 definition of adaptive management, which states:
Adaptive management promotes flexible decision making that can be adjusted in the face of
uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events become better
understood. Careful monitoring of these outcomes both advances scientific understanding and
helps adjust policies or operations as part of an iterative learning process. Adaptive
management also recognizes the importance of natural variability in contributing to ecological
resilience and productivity. It is not a ‘trial and error’ process, but rather emphasizes learning
while doing. Adaptive management does not represent an end in itself, but rather a means to
more effective decisions and enhanced benefits. Its true measure is in how well it helps meet
environmental, social, and economic goals, increases scientific knowledge, and reduces tensions
among stakeholders.
Further, the Supplement to the Draft EIS for the Vineyard Wind 1 project acknowledged that:
Adaptive management could be used for many resources, particularly regulated fisheries and
wildlife resources (including birds, benthic resources, finfish, invertebrates, essential fish
habitat, marine mammals, and sea turtles), which would be closely monitored for potential
impacts. If data collected are sufficiently robust, BOEM or other resource agencies could use the
information obtained to support potential regulation changes, or new mitigation measures for
future projects.361
360 USFWS (2012).
361 Vineyard Wind 1 Offshore Wind Energy Project Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Table A-10, 85 Fed. Reg. 35952 (Posted June 6, 2020) (emphasis added).
72
The Draft EIS for the South Fork stated:
BOEM worked with USFWS to develop standard operating conditions for commercial leases and
as terms and conditions of plan approval and are intended to ensure that the potential for
adverse impacts on birds is minimized. The standard operating conditions have been analyzed in
recent EAs [Environmental Assessments] and consultations for lease issuance and site
assessment activities, and BOEM’s recent approval of the Virginia Offshore Wind Technology
Advancement Project (BOEM 2016a). Some of the standard operating conditions originated
from best management practices in the ROD [Record of Decision] for the 2007 Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative Energy Development and Production and
Alternate Use of Facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf (MMS 2007:Section 2.7). BOEM and
USFWS work with the lessees to develop post-construction plans aimed at monitoring the
effectiveness of measures considered necessary to minimize impacts to migratory birds with the
flexibility to consider the need for modifications or additions to the measures.362
To provide regulatory certainty to lease applicants, the draft EIS should explicitly outline protocols for
monitoring, adaptive management, and mitigation.
The South Fork Draft EIS suggested the following minimization measures:
Install bird deterrent devices (including painting a turbine blade black [May et al. 2020]) to
minimize bird attraction to operating turbines and on the offshore substations (OSSs), where
appropriate and where DWSF determines such devices can be employed safely...The SFWF wind
turbine generators (WTGs) would be widely spaced apart allowing bird species to avoid
individual WTGs and minimize risk of potential collision.363
While painting turbines black is an admirable action, the proposed action was hardly a commitment.
Additionally, the referenced study by May et al. (2020) suggests that the efficacy of this deterrent
requires further study.364 Should BOEM make this a requirement, this could provide an excellent
opportunity to institute adaptive management—studying the efficacy of black turbine blades in reducing
collisions in order to inform best management at future wind farms. As we have addressed previously,
widely spacing turbines is not a minimization strategy, as there is little evidence to suggest that turbine
spacing reduces risks to birds. However, this too could provide an opportunity to learn from this
management practice and adapt management for future wind developments from this knowledge.
Instituting adaptive management, using the two strategies above as examples, will require robust
collision monitoring. As we have noted in this document and in other letters to BOEM, collecting bird
carcasses is an inadequate method for estimating collisions in the offshore environment. Instead,
collision monitoring will need to use technology from which we can rapidly learn the variables
contributing to collision risk and adjust management accordingly—including informed curtailment
strategies as necessary. Collisions with turbines over water are unlikely to result in a confirmation of the
362 SFWF DEIS, Table H-40.
363Id., Table G-1.
364 May R, Nygård T, Falkdalen U, Åström J, Hamre Ø, Stokke BG. 2020. Paint it black: Efficacy of increased wind
turbine rotor blade visibility to reduce avian fatalities. Ecology and Evolution n/a. Available from
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ece3.6592 (accessed August 24, 2020).
73
strike without detection technology. This will continue to be a data deficiency in the monitoring plans.
We are concerned that a continued lack of collision data will be misconstrued as a lack of need for
collision mitigation. Therefore, BOEM must correct this knowledge gap by requiring a true commitment
to collision detection technology deployment at offshore wind developments, Vineyard Wind South
included.
The framework for adaptive management should include operational adjustments that are reasonable
and cost effective and include advances in detection and avoidance technology. For example, the
adaptive management framework should include smart curtailment to constrain loss of energy
production, seasonal adjustments based on mortality data as needed to compare with defined
thresholds, and other operations that are proven to be effective in case of a rare event of mortality of a
significant species or number of birds. These are practices used in adaptive management at some
onshore wind facilities and in European Union offshore wind facilities. Their incorporation into the
leasing process early will permit BOEM to require their adoption as new technologies become available.
An adaptive management framework requires a level of coordination and commitment that goes well
beyond Vineyard Wind South. BOEM and USFWS must commit to providing a structure that ensures this
across the offshore wind landscape.
11. Compensatory Mitigation for Birds
Compensatory mitigation is another tool that should be used to offset adverse impacts from Vineyard
Wind South.
Given the current technology, there are no viable options for effectively minimizing the potential
impacts of developing Vineyard Wind South to the extent needed to protect birds from harmful and
long-term impacts. Furthermore, migratory birds pose significant conservation challenges, as many
originate from other regions and actions to increase their populations require significant investment of
time and resources to restore equivalent habitat. The breadth of species potentially affected and the
migratory nature of these species will require environmental compensatory mitigation.
The number of birds affected is uncertain due to the lack of available technology to accurately measure
impacts (e.g., collisions) on a species level or the fate of those birds after a collision event (e.g., injury,
morbidity, or mortality). We further note that, as discussed above, the agencies still have conservation
obligations under frameworks, including ESA and MBTA. Based on studies of ESA-listed species alone
(discussed above), it seems likely that birds protected by federal laws will be killed in collisions with
turbines under the currently anticipated industry build-out scenario. As such, compensatory mitigation
should be provided for bird mortality resulting from development of the WEAs, and particularly for
species of conservation concern.
Directed mitigation can result in meaningful beneficial outcomes. For example, the Montrose
restoration, a $63 million mitigation package compensated for migratory seabirds in Mexico,
contributed to efforts which led to the recovery and delisting of Pacific Brown Pelican.365
365 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) From
the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 74 Fed. Reg. 59444 (November 17, 2009).
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/11/17/E9-27402/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and-
plantsremovalof-the-brown-pelican-pelecanus-occidentalis.
74
Mitigation more effectively compensates for impacts when conducted on a project and population-
specific basis. This model is encouraged for offshore wind energy development impacts. However, if a
project-by-project approach proves difficult to operationalize, a compensatory mitigation fund could be
developed and administered by trustees of federal agencies. Following the model of other forms of
development, this would most appropriately be funded by the developers whose actions are resulting in
the impacts, with funding amounts based on likely or actual impacts (see below).
Quantifying compensatory mitigation for birds should initially be based on a generous estimate of the
number of birds that could be killed in collisions with turbines, including ESA-listed species and
nocturnal migrants. Evaluating mitigation necessary to effectively compensate for these losses should
utilize resource equivalency analysis, which accounts for the fact that birds at different life stages do not
functionally equate in conservation importance (e.g., one additional hatchling does not functionally
replace a breeding adult bird). This approach has been used extensively for addressing bird losses
resulting from oil spills and contaminants in California. For example, under NEPA, the Damage
Assessment and Restoration Plan / Environmental Assessment for the Luckenbach Spill called for a
number of mitigation projects to compensate for the losses of migratory birds in distant countries where
those species originate, such as Mexico, Canada, and New Zealand, in the amount of $21 million.366
Quantities and supporting analyses should be re-evaluated as collision monitoring data become
available and additional mitigation provided as necessary.
Compensatory mitigation requirements under the ESA were essentially ignored by the previous
administration. We urge the current administration to observe compensatory mitigation requirements
for species currently listed and under listing consideration for the ESA which may be impacted by
offshore wind development: Piping Plover, Red Knot, Roseate Tern, and Black-capped Petrel.
Seabirds are long lived and have delayed maturity and low fecundity. This life history means that adult
survival is the main driver of population change. Mortality from offshore wind energy development is
likely additive and, if skewed to breeding adults, will likely have a greater potential to drive declines in
population trajectories. These unique life-history traits require a substantial and long-term commitment
to reach the offset needed. Given that compensatory mitigation is time-consuming from concept to
success, we urge the developers and agencies to commit to this and initiate action as soon as possible.
H. Impacts to Bats
Little data exist on bats and offshore wind energy, although research has shown that bat fatalities are
common at land-based wind facilities367 with the potential for cumulative impacts to cause population-
level declines.368 How bats use the offshore environment is not well understood, although a report
366 Luckenbach Trustee Council. 2006. S.S. Jacob Luckenbach and Associated Mystery Oil Spills Final Damage
Assessment and Restoration Plan/`Environmental Assessment. Prepared by California Department of Fish and
Game, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park
Service.
367 Arnett, Edward B., and Erin F. Baerwald. 2013. “Impacts of Wind Energy Development on Bats: Implications for
Conservation.” In Bat Evolution, Ecology, and Conservation, 435–56. New York, NY: Springer New York.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7397-8_21.
368 Frick, W. F., E. F. Baerwald, J. F. Pollock, R. M. R. Barclay, J. A. Szymanski, T. J. Weller, A. L. Russell, S. C. Loeb, R.
A. Medellin, and L. P. Mcguire. 2017. “Fatalities at Wind Turbines May Threaten Population Viability of a
Migratory Bat.” Biological Conservation 209: 172–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.023; Population-
75
prepared by Peterson et al. (2016)369 for DOE found that bats were present at all surveyed locations in
the Mid-Atlantic, Gulf of Maine, and Great Lakes, with bats detected up to 130 km (70.2 nm) from the
mainland in the Mid-Atlantic.370 BOEM should be conservative in its impact analysis, as bats are likely
present in the Vineyard Wind South Project Area and a lack of available information on impacts to bats
from offshore wind does not indicate impacts are unlikely. Further, BOEM should not base its risk
assessment for bats on low acoustic activity offshore because, at land-based wind facilities, pre-
construction bat activity surveys are a poor predictor of post-construction fatalities371 and low levels of
bat calls do not always indicate that bats are not present.372
As discussed in detail below, the COP does not adequately address the potential impacts to bats from
the operations of Vineyard Wind South. The Draft EIS must address both the project-specific impacts
and population-level, cumulative from Vineyard Wind South, other offshore wind developments
expected in the Atlantic OCS, and terrestrial development in the reasonably foreseeable future.
1. BOEM Must Require a Rigorous Monitoring Plan to Better Understand Bat Risk
Offshore
Recognizing that much remains unknown regarding the impacts to bats from offshore wind in the United
States, BOEM must require an explicitly defined monitoring and adaptive management plan. This plan
must include a commitment to standardized monitoring both before construction and during operations
and to using improved technology as it is developed to adequately evaluate and, if necessary, mitigate
impacts. Further, BOEM should incorporate best monitoring and management practices into a regional
adaptive management plan to adequately measure and mitigate cumulative impacts to bats from
offshore wind developments expected across the Atlantic OCS for the reasonably foreseeable future.
Determining risk and adaptively managing to minimize impacts relies on monitoring, but traditional
fatality monitoring is not feasible offshore. Given the challenges of conducting fatalities assessments at
offshore sites,373 many dead or injured bats would most likely go unrecorded, either falling into the
Level Risk to Hoary Bats Amid Continued Wind Energy Development: Assessing Fatality Reduction Targets Under
Broad Uncertainty. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2020. 3002017671.
369 Peterson, Trevor S, Steven K Pelletier, and Matt Giovanni. 2016. “Long-Term Bat Monitoring on Islands,
Offshore Structures, and Coastal Sites in the Gulf of Maine, Mid -Atlantic, and Great Lakes—Final Report.”
Topsham, ME, USA. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy.
370 Note that the COP indicates that bats have not been detected further from shore than 21.9 km in the Mid -
Atlantic (VWS COP Vol III, 6-74). This does not reflect the best available data and should be revised to include
detections documented by Peterson et al. 2016.
371 Solick, D., Pham, D., Nasman, K., Bay, K. (2020). Bat Activity Rates do not Predict Bat Fatality Rates at Wind
Energy Facilities. Acta Chiroptera, 22(1); Hein, C. D., Gruver, J., & Arnett, E. B. (2013). Relating pre-construction
bat activity and post-construction bat fatality to predict risk at wind energy facilities: a synthesis. A report
submitted to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Pre- Post-construction Synthesis_FINAL REPORT.pdf.
372 Corcoran, A.J., Weller, T.J. (2018) Inconspicuous echolocation in hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus). Proceedings of
the Royal Society B, 285: 20180441.
373 Kunz, T.H., Arnett, E.B., Cooper, B.M., Erickson, W.P., Larkin, R.P., Mabee, T., Morrison, M.L., Strickland, M.D.,
and Szewczak, J.D., “Assessing impacts of wind energy development on nocturnally active birds and bats: a
guidance document,” Journal of Wildlife Management, vol. 71, pp. 2449-2486 (2007); Rydell, J., Bach, L.,
Dubourg-Savage, M., Green, M., Rodrigues, L., and Hedenstrom, A., “Bat mortality at wind turbines in
northwestern Europe.” Acta Chiropterologica, vol. 12, pp. 261–274 (2009).
76
water or becoming prey to marine scavengers or predators.374 BOEM's assessment of the impacts to
bats should, therefore, be conservative, and employ the best available scientific methods, such as
autodetection, acoustic monitoring at nacelle height, targeted tagging of bats, and thermal imaging
technology. BOEM should also support research into monitoring methods for bats that are better suited
to the offshore environment.
2. BOEM Should Incorporate Available Motus Wildlife Tracking System Data Into Their
Analysis
Although more tracking and acoustic monitoring studies are needed, there is increasing evidence that
bats regularly use the offshore environment. BOEM should leverage new information on bat presence
offshore, including data submitted to the Motus Wildlife Tracking System,375 an international network of
researchers using coordinated automated radio-telemetry arrays to study small flying organisms’
movements, including bats (this system is also discussed above in Section G, Impacts to Birds). Motus
contains data on bat movements, including along the Atlantic coast, which could inform which species
need to be considered in BOEM’s analyses. Even though there are currently relatively few tagged bats
included in Motus, the existing data indicate potential bat use offshore in and around the Vineyard Wind
South Project Area (Figure 1).
Figure 1: The colored lines indicate paths of tagged bats in Motus, with each color representing a
different species. Flight paths are created from at least 3 consecutive tag bursts at a single location.
Image is a screen capture from Motus (accessed July 21, 2021).
374 Assessing bat fatalities based on carcasses found on vessels and structures is unlikely to provide a meaningful
estimate of bat fatalities, as carcasses can fall far from the wind turbine, based on carcass size, wind speed,
turbine height, and other factors. We recommend BOEM consult with Manuela Huso, Research Statistician at
United States Geological Survey Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center prior to making any inferences
about total fatalities based on carcasses recovered from structures.
375 Bird Studies Canada. 2018. “Motus Wildlife Tracking System.” 2018. https://motus.org/.
77
3. BOEM Should Consult with USFWS About Including the Indiana Bat in Analyses of
Affected Biological Resources
The COP does not include the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) in its analysis, stating
that Indiana bats have not been recorded in Massachusetts since 1939.376 However, in 2015, a tagged
Indiana bat was detected on Cape Cod and Nantucket377 (Figure 2). Given the proximity of this detection
to Vineyard Wind South and the cross-water movements made by the tagged bat (between Cape Cod
and Nantucket and potentially over water on its path between Indiana and Cape Cod), the COP should
be revised to cover impacts to Indiana bats and BOEM should consult with USFWS about potential
impacts to Indiana bats and these impacts should be analyzed in the Draft EIS.378
Figure 2: The yellow line indicates the path of a tagged Indiana bat in Motus. The tagged animal is
labeled as "Indiana Bat 2403" and was detected on September 20, 2015. Flight paths are created from at
least 3 consecutive tag bursts at a single location. Image is a screen capture from Motus (accessed July
21, 2021).
376 VWS COP Vol III, 6-70.
377 The tagged Indiana bat tracked across Long Island Sound is labeled as "Indiana Bat 2403" in Motus and w as
detected on September 20, 2015; Bird Studies Canada 2018.
378 There are not many bats included in Motus, so although only a single Indiana bat was detected in eastern
Massachusetts, this does not necessarily indicate that Indiana bats are rarely present i n the area.
78
Additionally, Indiana bat calls can be difficult to distinguish from those of certain other Myotis species,379
and Myotis calls may be classified as “high frequency, unknown species” during acoustic surveys.380
Should Vineyard Wind South conduct acoustic surveys for bats, it would inappropriate to dismiss the
possibility of Indiana bat presence based on acoustic data alone, if Myotis or high frequency, unknown
species calls are detected.
4. Potential Impacts to Cave-hibernating Bats, Including the Federally-listed Northern
Long-eared Bat, from Offshore Components of the Project Must Be Assessed
The Vineyard Wind South COP indicates that cave-hibernating Myotis bats are not expected to be
present in the Project Area and therefore risk to these bats from project operations is low. The COP
makes this determination based on two inaccurate claims, that (1) in the Mid-Atlantic, Myotis bat
species have never been detected further than 11.5 km offshore,381 and (2) cave-hibernating bats are
rare in the offshore environment.382
Peterson et al. (2016) detected Myotis calls at several Mid-Atlantic sites further offshore than 11.5 km,
including at the Chesapeake Light Tower in Virginia, 24.8 km from the mainland.383 Furthermore, bat
calls classified as high frequency, unknown species were detected as far as 130 km offshore.384 While it
is not possible to attribute these unknown calls to species, high frequency, unknown species calls can
include Myotis species.
Furthermore, cave-hibernating bats may be found offshore more frequently than the COP’s assessment
implies. Acoustic survey efforts in the Mid-Atlantic identified Myotis calls at 63% of sites surveyed and
Myotis species were present at 89% of sites surveyed across the Gulf of Maine, Mid-Atlantic, and Great
Lakes.385 Motus data also indicate that Indiana bats, little brown bats (M. lucifugus), and eastern small-
footed bats (M. leibii)—all cave-hibernating bat species—have made cross-water flights near Cape Cod
(see Figure 1).386
The presence of the federally threatened northern long-eared bats (M. septentrionalis) on both
Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket indicates that this species can cross open water and the species has
been tracked making long distance flights over water in the Gulf of Maine.387 Furthermore, a northern
long-eared bat was acoustically detected 34 km offshore around South Fork Wind Farm.388 Although
Vineyard Wind South’s COP claims that “[n]orthern long-eared bats are not expected to be exposed to
379 Fraser, E. E., Silvis, Alexander., Brigham, M. R., & Czenze, Z. J. (2020). Bat Echolocation Research: A handbook
for planning and conducting acoustic studies. Second Edition; Britzke, E. R., Murray, K. L., Heywood, J. S., &
Robbins, L. W. (2002). Acoustic identification. The Indiana Bat: Biology and Management of an Endangered
Species, 221–225; See also Peterson et al. 2016, where the authors used a single identification (“MYSP” for
Myotis species) to cover bat calls offshore that could potent ially belong to little brown bats, northern long-eared
bats, eastern small-footed bats, and Indiana bats
380 Empire Wind COP, Appendix R, p. R-15; Peterson et al. 2016, Table 2-1.
381 VWS COP Vol III, 6-74.
382 VWS COP Vol III, 4-15, 6-70, 6-79.
383 Peterson et al. 2016, Appendix A.
384 Id. at Figure 3-4.
385 Peterson et al. 2016.
386 Bird Studies Canada 2018.
387 Bird Studies Canada 2018.
388 RWF COP at 4.3.7.1, p. 516.
79
the SWDA”389 and that “the exposure of northern long-eared bats is expected to be insignificant,”390
these claims are not justified given the presence of northern long-eared bats detected nearby in the
offshore environment. BOEM should consult with USFWS about potential impacts to northern long-
eared bats from the offshore components of Vineyard Wind South and the Draft EIS should assess
potential impacts from the offshore components of the Project on northern long-eared bats and other
cave-hibernating bats.
5. Seasonal Use of the WEA by Migratory Tree Bats Does Not Imply Low Impact
The COP relies on the seasonal use of the offshore environment by migratory tree bats to determine
that their exposure to collisions with operating wind turbines would be low.391 The extrapolation that
exposure to WTGs being limited to spring and fall migration period means that fatalities would not be
significant ignores the best available science on bats and wind energy interactions from both land-based
wind energy in North America and from offshore wind energy in Europe.
The majority of migratory tree bats fatalities from land-based wind energy occur during the spring and
fall migration period.392 Despite this predominantly seasonal exposure, demographic modeling for hoary
bats (Lasiurus cinereus), the bat species most frequently killed by land-based wind turbines in North
America, shows that the 2014 land-based wind energy build out is sufficient to cause a 90% decline in
hoary bat populations over the next 50 years—population-level declines that could occur during the
lifetime of Vineyard Wind South—and these declines are associated with a 22% risk of extinction if
widespread mitigation measures are not adopted.393 Although this research focused on hoary bats, the
study authors caution that other migratory tree bats, such as eastern red bats and silver-haired bats
(Lasionycteris noctivagans) which also experience high levels of fatalities at land-based wind facilities,
might also experience population-level declines. This is of particular note as shipboard acoustic surveys
in 2017 in the nearby proposed South Fork Wind Farm detected over 900 bat passes, of which 69% of
the calls were from eastern red bats and 13% were from silver-haired bats.394 With limited research
available on bats offshore, BOEM cannot dismiss the evidence from land-based wind that seasonal
interactions with turbines can cause significant impacts on migratory tree bats.
Limited research does support that migratory tree bats are less prevalent over the OCS than land and
their presence seems to decrease with distance from shore,395 there is not enough research to support
the claims in the COP that only small numbers are anticipated to occur in Vineyard Wind South’s
airspace.396 Beyond the survey efforts discussed above in the South Fork Wind Farm lease area, in
offshore bat surveys of the Great Lakes, Gulf of Maine, and Mid-Atlantic, migratory tree bats were
389 VWS COP Vol III, 6-76.
390 Id.
391 VWS COP Vol III, 6-75.
392 Arnett, E. B., Brown, W. K., Erickson, W. P., Fiedler, J. K., Hamilton, B. L., Henry, T. H., Jain, A., Johnson, G. D.,
Kerns, J., Koford, R. R., Nicholson, C. P., O’Connell, T. J., Piorkowski, M. D., & Tankersley, R. D. (2008). Patterns of
Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72(1), 61–78.
https://doi.org/10.2193/2007-221; Arnett, Edward, Manuela Huso, Michael Schirmacher, and John Hayes. 2011.
“Altering Turbine Speed Reduces Bat Mortality at Wind- Energy Facilities.” Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 9 (4): 209–14. https://doi.org/10.1890/100103.
393 Frick et al. 2017.
394 RWF COP, 4.3.7.1, p. 516.
395 Peterson et al. 2016.
396 VWS COP Vol III, 6-79.
80
widespread, with eastern red bats detected at 97% of all surveyed sites (and 100% of sites in the Mid-
Atlantic), including the most remote fixed site (41.6 km from mainland) and potentially on shipboard
surveys over 100 km offshore.397 Eastern red bats alone accounted for 40% of all detected bat activity
offshore. Hoary bats and silver-haired bats had less total activity offshore but were still widespread,
found at 95% and 89% of all sites, respectively.398 Data in Motus also indicate eastern red bats and hoary
bats have made cross-water flights near Cape Cod (see Figure 1).399
Furthermore, seasonal exposure of Nathusius's pipistrelle (Pipistrellus nathusii) to expected build out of
turbines in the North Sea during their late summer/autumn migration was considered sufficient
exposure as to affect Nathusius's pipistrelle populations, triggering operational curtailment measures
between August 15 and October 1.400 This further belies claims that seasonal exposure of bats precludes
significant impacts.
6. BOEM’s Risk Analysis Must Account for Likely Attraction by Bats to Offshore Wind
Turbines
Bats, especially migratory tree bat species like the eastern red, hoary, and silver-haired bats, are
believed to be attracted to land-based wind turbines401 and have been recorded altering flight paths to
approach turbines.402 Although no scientific consensus exists on why bats are attracted to onshore wind
facilities, theories include that bats may perceive turbines as trees to roost in and bats may seek insect
prey that congregate near turbines.403 This attraction behavior puts bats at increased risk for collision
with turbine blades and whether such behavior could occur at offshore wind turbines merits careful
consideration.
The COP acknowledges that bats are likely to be attracted to wind farm construction vehicles but omits
any discussion of bats’ potential attraction to turbines.404 Although more research is needed to
characterize how bats are using areas in the SWDA and the OCS, it would be reasonable to assume that
bats—particularly migratory tree bat species that seem to be attracted to land-based wind turbines—
may experience a similar attraction to turbines offshore and that these turbines might be particularly
397 Calls were identified to the eastern red bat/tri-colored bat/evening bat frequencies on shipboard surveys 129
km offshore in the Mid-Atlantic. Peterson et al. 2016.
398 Id.
399 Bird Studies Canada 2018.
400 Boonman, M. (2018). Mitigation measures for bats in offshore wind farms: Evaluation and improvement of
curtailment strategies.
401 Cryan, Paul M., P. Marcos Gorresen, Cris D. Hein, Michael R. Schirmacher, Robert H. Diehl, Manuela M. Huso,
David T. S. Hayman, et al. 2014. “Behavior of Bats at Wind Turbines.” Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America. National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.2307/43189889;
Cryan, P. M., & Barclay, R. M. R. (2009). Causes of Bat Fatalities at Wind Turbines: Hypotheses and Predictions.
Journal of Mammalogy, 90(6), 1330–1340. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27755139; Arnett et al. 2008; Horn, J.
W., Arnett, E. B., & Kunz, T. H. (2008). Behavioral Responses of Bats to Operating Wind Turbines. Source: The
Journal of Wildlife Management, 72(1), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.2193/2006-465; Kunz, T. H., Arnett, E. B.,
Erickson, W. P., Hoar, A. R., Johnson, G. D., Larkin, R. P., Strickland,
M. D., Thresher, R. W., & Tuttle, M. D. (2007). Ecological Impacts of Wind Energy Development on Bats : Questions,
Research Needs, and Hypotheses. In Ecology and the Environment (Vol. 5, Issue 6).; Ahlén, I. (2003). Wind
turbines and bats-a pilot study.
402 Cryan et al. 2014.
403 Id.
404 VWS COP Vol III, 6-79.
81
attractive due to representing sparse resources, which could put bats at increased risk for collision. If
offshore wind turbines are attractive to bats, their potential impact to bats may be dramatically
underestimated in the COP, which relies on bat surveys in the absence of turbine structures. When
preparing the Draft EIS, BOEM should account for bats’ potential attraction to, and increased risk of
collision with, offshore wind turbines and should not rely on bat avoidance to minimize impacts.
7. BOEM Should Not Assume that Fewer, Larger Turbines Reduce Risks to Bats
When analyzing impacts to bats, BOEM should not assume that fewer, larger turbines reduce risk to
bats. Although no research has been done on tower height and bat fatalities in the offshore
environment, research onshore has shown that bat mortality increases with tower height,405 meaning
that development approaches that favor fewer, larger turbines could be detrimental to bats.406 A study
on northwestern European wind facilities found that bat fatalities increased with tower height and rotor
diameter407 and a meta-analysis of North American wind facilities found that bat fatalities increased
exponentially with tower height (although this study did not find that rotor diameter affected
fatalities).408 Insufficient data exist to determine where (if any) a tradeoff exists between decreasing the
number of towers vs. increasing their height, but current research does not support the claim that
fewer, larger turbines would have decreased impacts on bats. Therefore the draft EIS should note the
scientific uncertainty surrounding the degree to which bat mortality may increase with tower height and
should adjust the language accordingly regarding bat impacts.
8. Bat Risk Offshore is Likely Greater than Characterized in the COP
For the reasons discussed above, the COP does not accurately reflect the risk to bats offshore and the
best available science does not support the COP’s conclusion that the “location of the Vineyard Wind
South WTGs far offshore avoids exposure of bats”409 and that overall exposure of bats is “expected to be
insignificant to unlikely.”410 Cave-hibernating bats are found more often and further offshore than
described, seasonal exposure to WTGs does not preclude serious impacts, and bats may be attracted to
offshore wind facilities, thereby increasing the likelihood of collisions. Vineyard Wind South must
commit to robust measures to determine actual risk and, if necessary, mitigate impacts to bats.
405 Barclay, Robert M.R., E.F. Baerwald, and J.C. Gruver. 2007. “Variation in Bat and Bird Fatalities at Wind Energy
Facilities: Assessing the Effects of Rotor Size and Tower Height.” Canadian Journal of Zoology 85 (3): 381–87.
https://doi.org/10.1139/Z07-011; Rydell, Jens, Lothar Bach, Marie-Jo Dubourg-Savage, Martin Green, Luisa
Rodrigues, and Anders Hedenström. 2010. “Bat Mortality at Wind Turbines in Northwestern Europe.” Acta
Chiropterologica 12 (2). Museum and Institute of Zoology at the Polish Academy of Science : 261 –74.
https://doi.org/10.3161/150811010X537846.
406 A meta-analysis by Thompson et al. 2017 found no relationship between turbine height and bat fatalities, but
cautioned that research was needed to understand how turbines in excess of 140 m in height might affect bat
fatalities. Given this, it is inappropriate to rely on this research to support statements that fewer, larger turbines
would reduce bat fatalities. Thompson, M., J.A. Beston, M.Etterson, J.E. Diffendorfer, S.R. Loss. 2017. “Factors
associated with bat mortality at wind energy facilities in the United States.” Biological Conservation 215: 241-
245.
407 Rydell et al. 2010.
408 Barclay et al. 2007.
409 VWS COP Vol III, 4-15, see also at 6-80 (“The location of the Vineyard Wind South WTGs far offshore avoids
exposure of bats”).
410 VWS COP Vol III, 6-75.
82
9. Cumulative Impact Analysis for Bats
Because there is so little research on bats offshore, impacts to bats are often only given cursory
consideration. However, bat species on the east coast are facing stressors on land that may make their
populations more vulnerable to additional take offshore. The northern long-eared bat and the Indiana
bat are listed as threatened and endangered under the ESA due, in part, to high rates of mortality from
white-nose syndrome, a highly pathogenic fungus. USFWS was recently ordered by a federal court,
following a remand of the agency’s threatened listing in 2020,411 to complete a rulemaking to determine
whether the northern long-eared bat warrants listing as an endangered species under the ESA no later
than 18 months after the completion of a new species status assessment (SSA).412 Because USFWS
completed the SSA at the end of May 2021, the final rule is due at the end of November 2022.
Similarly, numerous other east coast bat species, such as the Indiana bat, little brown bat, eastern small-
footed bat, big brown bat, and tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) are affected by white-nose
syndrome. Due to white-nose syndrome mortality, the USFWS recently issued a positive 90-day finding
for the petition to list the tri-colored bat413 and USFWS staff have communicated their intent to assess
the little brown bat for potential ESA-listing.414
The three migratory bat species on the east coast, the silver-haired, eastern red, and hoary bat, are the
bat species most highly impacted by land-based wind energy development, representing almost 80% of
all bats killed at wind facilities in North America.415 Recent research416 has implicated wind energy as
causing potential population-level declines for hoary bats, and hoary bats and eastern red bats are
expected to be recommended for listing in Canada in the near future. Other east coast bat species, such
as little brown bats, tri-colored bats, big brown bats, northern long-eared bats, Seminole bats (Lasiurus
seminolus), and Indiana bats have also been documented killed by wind turbines.417
Because of these existing stresses on bat species, accurately accounting for how offshore wind could
affect their populations is critical. When conducting the cumulative impacts analysis for the Draft EIS,
BOEM must include (i) the best available science (such as Motus data), (ii) that cave-hibernating bats are
likely more common offshore than the COP represents, (iii) that seasonal use of the offshore
environment by migratory bats does not imply low exposure and low impact, (iv) bats are likely
attracted to wind turbines, and that (v) larger turbines may kill more bats than smaller turbines.
411 Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020).
412 Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Everson, Civil Action No. 15-477 (EGS), ECF No. 96 (D.D.C. Mar. 2, 2021).
413 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings for Five Species, 82 Fed. Reg. 60362,
December 20, 2017. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/12/20/2017-27389/endangered-and-
threatened-wildlife-and-plants-90- day-findings-for-five-species
414 See National Domestic Listing Workplan Fiscal Years 2021-2025 (https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-
library/pdf/National-Listing-Workplan-FY21-FY25.pdf) and Robyn Niver, USFWS, personal communication (2018).
415 Hoary bats, eastern red bats, and silver-haired bats represent 38%, 22%, and 18% of all bat fatalities at wind
turbines in the United States and Canada, respectively. Arnett, Edward B., and Erin F. Baerwald. 2013. “Impacts
of Wind Energy Development on Bats: Implications for Conservation.” In Bat Evolution, Ecology, and
Conservation, 435–56. New York, NY: Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7397-8_21.
416 Frick et al. (2017); EPRI (2020).
417 Arnett and Baerwald (2013).
83
a) The Geographic Scope for Cumulative Bat Impacts used by BOEM in Previous Analyses Is
Inappropriate and Relies on an Unsupported Claim about Bat Movements
In previous NEPA analyses, the Geographic Analysis Area for cumulative impacts to bats was defined as
100 mi offshore and 5 mi inland.418 The migratory movements of bats, especially migratory tree bats, are
poorly understood, and many species of bats—both long-distance migrants like migratory tree bats but
also cave-hibernating bats—are capable of flights in excess of 100 km, indicating that bats found
offshore in wind development areas could also be found significant distances inland. Hoary bats, which
are capable of long-distance flights over water,419 have been recorded traveling distances over 1,000
km420 and are thought capable of migrations in excess of 2,000 km.421 Research from Canada found that
20% of little brown bat movements exceeded 500 km,422 which is further supported by data from
tracked little brown bats, which shows individuals using both coastal areas and making long-distance
flights to locations significantly further inland than 5 mi.423 In addition to little brown bats, data in Motus
tracks movements of individual silver-haired bats, eastern red bats, hoary bats, eastern small-footed
bats, and Indiana bats from coastal areas on the east coast to areas in excess of 100 mi inland.424 These
movements seem to refute BOEM's assertion in previous NEPA analyses that bats that could be exposed
to offshore wind energy projects would not be found far inland (and therefore exposed to land-based
wind energy facilities) and instead support that a geographic scope of 100 mi inland was more
appropriate.
BOEM should conduct a thorough review of the literature on bat migration and radio- and GPS-tagged
bats and select a boundary that better reflects the potential habitat use of exposed bats for use in the
Vineyard Wind South Draft EIS (and other NEPA analyses). This revised boundary will likely require the
cumulative impacts analysis to reflect that bats exposed to offshore wind projects are potentially
exposed to multiple offshore wind facilities and land-based wind energy projects.
b) There Is Inadequate Data to Assess Cumulative Impacts to Bats from 22 GW of Offshore
Wind Buildout
While these comments provide some additional resources on bat movement offshore and bat
interactions with wind turbines for BOEM to include in their analysis, there remains insufficient research
on bats and offshore wind to accurately assess cumulative risk and impact from the 22 GW buildout
scenario used in the Vineyard Wind 1 and South Fork NEPA analyses, let alone the broader scope
outlined in Section II(E)1.
418 Vineyard Wind 1 SEIS, at A-6, Tbl A-1., (June 2020); South Fork DEIS, Table E-1, 86.
419 Hoary bats have colonized the Hawaiian Islands from the mainland multiple times. Russell, A. L., Pinzari, C. A.,
Vonhof, M. J., Olival, K. J., & Bonaccorso, F. J. (2015). Two Tickets to Paradise: Multiple Dispersal Events in the
Founding of Hoary Bat Populations in Hawai’i. PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0127912.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127912.
420 Weller, T. J., Castle, K. T., Liechti, F., Hein, C. D., Schirmacher, M. R., & Cryan, P. M. (2016). First Direct Evidence
of Long- distance Seasonal Movements and Hibernation in a Migratory Bat. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34585.
421 Weller, T. J., Castle, K. T., Liechti, F., Hein, C. D., Schirmacher, M. R., & Cryan, P. M. (2016). First Direct Evidence
of Long-distance Seasonal Movements and Hibernation in a Migratory Bat. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34585
422 Norquay, K. J. O., Martinez-Nuñez, F., Dubois, J. E., Monson, K. M., & Willis, C. K. R. (2013). Long-distance
movements of little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus). Source: Journal of Mammalogy, 94(2), 506–515.
https://doi.org/10.1644/12-MAMM-A-065.1
423 Bird Studies Canada 2018.
424 Bird Studies Canada 2018.
84
Because of this knowledge gap, it is imperative that BOEM require offshore wind facilities to commit to
pre- and post-construction monitoring and to integrate novel technology for monitoring as it becomes
available. Monitoring data must be made readily and promptly available to the public.
Although we now know that population-level impacts to bats are possible from land-based wind, these
impacts to bats from onshore wind energy were not anticipated and were only discovered because of
monitoring for avian impacts.425 While post-construction monitoring should occur at the project-level,
BOEM and their partner agencies should support coordinated and regional surveys of bat use of the OCS
and WEAs. Should further monitoring and research efforts reveal that impacts to bats are non-
negligible, BOEM and other agencies should support the development and deployment of minimization
strategies and deterrent technologies.
The following is a list of recommendations for BOEM and its partner agencies to support successful
understanding of offshore wind's impact on bats, modified and expanded upon from Peterson et al.
(2016).426 BOEM and its partner agencies should:
● Support supplemental field surveys for bats on the OCS, using similar methodology as described
in Peterson et al. (2016).427
● Require acoustic detectors to be placed at nacelle height on a subset of turbines constructed
along the Atlantic OCS and require that the data collected be made publicly available.
● Support research to determine whether it is possible to improve acoustic monitoring to enable
better species identifications, such as being able to differentiate calls between the ESA-listed
northern long-eared bat and other Myotis species.
● Support continued advances in radio telemetry equipment, nanotag transmitters, and GPS tags
so that more bats can be tracked offshore (e.g., support the development of smaller GPS tags
with longer battery lives).
● Support deploying Motus towers and/or other nanotag receiving towers in the coastal and
offshore environment, including on structures in WEAs.
● Support efforts to tag additional individual bats with nanotag transmitters and GPS tags.
● Support the development of bat monitoring technology for offshore WTGs, such as strike
detection technology and thermal video.
● Support research on and testing of bat deterrent devices for offshore WTGs, such as ultraviolet
lighting or ultrasonic noise emitters.
● Require offshore wind projects to support testing and deployment of best available monitoring
and deterrent technologies, once developed.
● Require offshore wind projects to promptly report and make publicly available all monitoring
and testing data.
The Draft EIS for Vineyard Wind South should specifically require the adoption of monitoring
technologies when they are verified and commercially available as part of the Project’s monitoring
framework and protocol. BOEM should further support and encourage their development and testing at
Vineyard Wind South. The shared cost of development, testing, and implementation of these
425 Arnett et al. 2008.
426 See Peterson et al. 2016, §5.
427 Peterson et al. 2016.
85
technologies across all lessees and with BOEM, if standardized, would avoid an undue economic burden
on individual projects.
Many of the above listed recommendations are aimed at filling in knowledge gaps about bats’ use of the
offshore environment. These survey efforts will likely provide critical information about bats’ use of the
Project Area which will be necessary for effective mitigation. However, bat activity in the Project Area
prior to turbine installation may not accurately predict bat fatalities during turbine operation. At land-
based wind facilities, pre-construction bat activity surveys are poorly correlated with post-construction
fatalities.428 Because of this, the commitment to post-construction monitoring is critical to yielding a
better understanding about how bats interact with offshore wind turbines. An important component to
this will be programmatically supporting the tagging of individual bats, such as through Motus, requiring
receiving towers in the WEA, and requiring installation of acoustic detectors, preferably at nacelle
height.
Data on bat activity and calls within the rotor-swept zone of offshore WTGs would allow better
understanding of which bat species are at risk and during what environmental conditions, which could
inform mitigation measures. Because bat activity offshore seems to be predominantly restricted to
warm, slow wind speed nights and is highly seasonal,429 if bat minimization measures are needed and
targeted curtailment is shown to be effective in the offshore environment, periods of operational
curtailment could be restricted to these highest risk times to decrease loss in energy generation.
In addition to operational curtailment, it is possible that deterrent technologies to prevent bats from
approaching wind turbines could be useful in minimizing bat fatalities offshore. Deterrent technologies
are being developed for land-based turbines, including turbine coatings (to counteract any attraction to
smooth surfaces which might be perceived as water),430 ultraviolet lighting (which many bat species can
see),431 and ultrasonic noise emitters (to possibly ‘jam’ bats’ radars and make wind facilities unappealing
to bats).432 One of the ultrasonic deterrent technologies, NRG Systems, has been commercially deployed
at land-based wind facilities.433 None of these technologies have been assessed yet in the offshore
428 Solick, D., Pham, D., Nasman, K., Bay, K. (2020). Bat Activity Rates do not Predict Bat Fatality Rates at Wind
Energy Facilities. Acta Chiroptera, 22(1); Hein, C. D., Gruver, J., & Arnett, E. B. (2013). Relating pre-construction
bat activity and post-construction bat fatality to predict risk at wind energy facilities: a synthesis. A report
submitted to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Pre- Post-construction Synthesis_FINAL REPORT.pdf.
429 RWF COP Appendix AA, 2.3.1, p. 27; Peterson et al. (2016). In their study, the majority of bat activity in the Gulf
of Maine and the Mid-Atlantic occurred below 10 m/s average nightly wind speed and above ~7oC.
430 Texturizing Wind Turbine Towers to Reduce Bat Mortality DE-EE0007033,
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/05/f63/TCU%20-%20M17%20-%20Hale-Bennett.pdf (last visited
Feb. 20, 2021).
431 NREL Wind Research, Technology Development and Innovation Research Projects
https://www.nrel.gov/wind/technology-development-innovation-projects.html (last visited Feb. 20, 2021)
432 https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1484770; Weaver, S. P., Hein, C. D., Simpson, T. R., Evans, J. W., & Castro-Arellano,
I. (2020). Ultrasonic acoustic deterrents significantly reduce bat fatalities at wind turbines. Global Ecology and
Conservation, e01099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01099; Arnett, E. B., Hein, C. D., Schirmacher, M.
R., Huso, M. M. P., & Szewczak, J. M. (2013). Evaluating the Effectiveness of an Ultrasonic Acoustic Deterrent for
Reducing Bat Fatalities at Wind Turbines. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e65794.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065794.
433 https://news.duke-energy.com/releases/duke-energy-renewables-to-use-new-technology-to-help-protect-bats-
at-its-wind-sites
86
environment nor on turbines with such large swept areas, which may present a challenge for effective
deterrent use offshore.
IV. The Economic Impacts Associated with the Project and Future Growth in the
Offshore Wind Industry Must Be Adequately Considered
BOEM must accurately estimate the economic impacts associated with the Project. A March 2020 study
by the American Wind Energy Association, which analyzed the economic impacts from offshore wind,
found that the industry is expected to invest $57 billion in offshore wind energy development, which is
expected to contribute $25.4 billion in annual economic output and approximately 82,500 jobs by 2030
based on a high estimate of a 30 GW offshore wind build out.434 We urge BOEM to closely examine the
cumulative impact on demographics, employment, and economics to ensure that it properly reflects the
vast potential of offshore wind to create jobs and economic opportunity while generating clean,
renewable energy.
V. Conclusion
We support BOEM moving forward and prepare the Draft EIS for Phase One of Vineyard Wind South,
incorporating our recommendations in these comments. We urge BOEM to consider whether they can
meaningfully assess the impacts from Phase Two at this time or whether the NEPA analyses should be
segmented in order to ensure that the assessment is based on the best available science and current,
further resolved details about the project (including size and schedule) and its potential impacts. While
conducting their review of Vineyard Wind South, BOEM should undertake the broader suite of actions
outlined in these comments to ensure that the United States’ offshore wind industry as a whole
advances in a responsible and sustainable manner.
Sincerely,
James Murphy*
Director, Legal Advocacy
National Wildlife Federation
jmurphy@nwf.org
802-552-4325
Francine Kershaw, Ph.D.
Staff Scientist, Marine Mammal Protection &
Oceans
Natural Resources Defense Council
fkershaw@nrdc.org
917-450-0994
434 American Wind Energy Ass’n, U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact Assessment (March 2020) at 1,
https://supportoffshorewind.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/03/AWEA_Offshore-Wind-Economic-
ImpactsV3.pdf.
* Vermont Law School Environmental Advocacy Clinic students Julia Guerrein and Rebecca Kimmel contributed to
the research and writing of these comments.
Shilo K. Felton, Ph.D.
Field Manager, Clean Energy Initiative
National Audubon Society
shilo.felton@audubon.org
401-537-7366
Priscilla M. Brooks, Ph.D.
Vice President and Director of Ocean Conservation
Conservation Law Foundation
pbrooks@clf.org
978-239-1362
2
George Povall
Executive Director
All Our Energy
george@allourenergy.org
516-316-2013
Corrie Folsom-O’Keefe
Director of Bird Conservation
Audubon Connecticut
cfolsom.okeefe@audubon.org
203-405-9116
Patrick Comins
Executive Director
Connecticut Audubon
pcomins@ctaudubon.org
203-259-0416 x107
Marie Kennedy
President
Litchfield Hills Audubon Society
mariekennedy226@gmail.com
914-393-6270
E. Heidi Ricci
Director of Policy and Advocacy
Mass Audubon
hricci@massaudubon.org
781-259-2172
Dennis Riordan
President
Menunkatuck Audubon Society
president@menunkatuck.org
203-215-4391
William Rossiter
Vice President
NY4WHALES
williamrossiter@optimum.net
203-770-8615
Michael Stocker
Director
Ocean Conservation Research
mstocker@ocr.org
415-464-7220
Loretta Victor, Karen Schnitzer
President
Quinnipiac Valley Audubon Society
lorettavictor@sbcglobal.net, kschnitzer1@aol.com
203-634-1911
Melissa Gates
Northeast Regional Manager
Surfrider Foundation
mgates@surfrider.org
207-706-6378
Colleen Weiler
Jessica Rekos Fellow
Whale and Dolphin Conservation
colleen.weiler@whales.org
810-813-1643
1
Comments in Response to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s
Notice of Additional Public Scoping and Name Change for the
Vineyard Wind South Project Offshore Massachusetts Environmental
Impact Statement, 86 Fed. Reg. 66334 (November 22, 2021)
Submitted by National Wildlife Federation, Conservation Law
Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Audubon
Society, Mass Audubon, All Our Energy, Audubon Society of Rhode
Island, Connecticut Audubon, Maine Audubon, NY4WHALES, Ocean
Conservation Research, Surfrider Foundation, and Whale and Dolphin
Conservation
December 22, 2021
Submitted Electronically at regulations.gov
Docket No. BOEM-2021-0047
2
I. Introduction
On behalf of National Wildlife Federation, Conservation Law Foundation, Natural Resources Defense
Council, National Audubon Society, Mass Audubon, All Our Energy, Audubon Society of Rhode Island,
Connecticut Audubon, Maine Audubon, NY4WHALES, Ocean Conservation Research, Surfrider
Foundation, Whale and Dolphin Conservation, and our millions of members and supporters, thank you
for the additional opportunity to provide scoping comments to inform the preparation of a draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS or Draft EIS) by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)
for the updated Construction and Operations Plan (COP) for New England Wind (the Project, formerly
Vineyard Wind South).1 New England Wind will occur in two phases, with Phase One, the 804 megawatt
(MW) Park City Wind project, contributing to the State of Connecticut’s mandate of 2,000 MW of
offshore wind energy by 2030. Phase Two, now named Commonwealth Wind, may consist of one or
more projects depending on the long-term contracts or PPAs awarded,2 and was recently selected to
provide 1,200 MW of renewable energy to Massachusetts ratepayers.3
These comments supplement the attached comments previously submitted on July 30, 20214 and seek
to provide BOEM with additional recommendations for what legal and environmental factors must be
considered to ensure a responsibly developed project as the agency drafts an EIS. Responsible
development of offshore wind energy: (i) avoids, minimizes, mitigates, and monitors adverse impacts on
marine and coastal habitats and the wildlife that rely on them, (ii) minimizes negative impacts on other
ocean uses, (iii) includes robust consultation with Native American tribes and communities, (iv)
meaningfully engages state and local governments and stakeholders from the outset, (v) includes
comprehensive efforts to avoid impacts to environmental justice communities, and (vi) uses the best
available scientific and technological data to ensure science-based and stakeholder-informed decision
making.
BOEM has opened this additional scoping period in response to potential changes in New England
Wind’s cable routing as well as other changes to the project design envelope, including the elimination
of gravity pad bottom-frame foundations for wind turbine generators (WTGs) for Commonwealth Wind.5
In addition to the recommendations in our previously submitted comments in response to the initial
scoping period, we provide the following recommendations in response to New England Wind’s updated
COP.
II. BOEM should conduct a cumulative impacts analysis
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)6 process should inform BOEM, stakeholders, and the
public about how to responsibly proceed with developing New England Wind. NEPA is the fundamental
tool for ensuring a proper vetting of the impacts of major federal actions on wildlife, natural resources,
and communities; for ensuring reasonable alternatives are considered and identifying the most
environmentally preferable alternative; and for giving the public a say in federal actions that can have a
1 86 Fed. Reg. 66,334 (Nov. 22, 2021); New England Wind Draft Construction and Operations Plan (NEW COP), available at
https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/new-england-wind-formerly-vineyard-wind-south
2 NEW COP at 4-1.
3 See https://www.mass.gov/news/baker-polito-administration-announces-historic-selection-of-offshore-wind-projects-to-
bring-clean-affordable-power-to-the-commonwealth
4 See Attachment, also available online at https://www.regulations.gov/comment/BOEM-2021-0047-0041
5 https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/new-england-wind-virtual-meeting-room
6 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.
3
profound impact on their lives and livelihoods. NEPA requires “efforts which will prevent or eliminate
damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man”7 and
mandates that “to the fullest extent possible” the “policies, regulations, and public laws of the United
States shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with [NEPA].”8
To comply with NEPA, an EIS must, inter alia, include a “full and fair discussion” of environmental
impacts,9 including positive as well as negative impacts, and assess possible conflicts with other federal,
regional, state, tribal, and local authorities.10 It is also critical that the EIS consider the cumulative
impacts of the Project. In July 2020, the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) published a final rule
revising long-standing NEPA regulations, including 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7, which required the consideration
of cumulative impacts. These regulations went into effect on September 14, 2020.11 Currently, the
Administration is embarking upon a two-phase rulemaking process to repeal all or part of these changes.
The first phase has already been proposed and, if promulgated, will restore the explicit regulatory
requirement to examine direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and reasonable alternatives.12
Consistent with the Department of the Interior Secretary Haaland’s Secretarial Order 3399 asking that
agencies not weaken long-standing NEPA protections and in light of the likely reinstatement of the
historic regulatory requirement, in analyzing the Project under NEPA, BOEM should include an analysis
of cumulative impacts as defined under the former 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7:
Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the
incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or
non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can
result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place
over a period of time.
A robust cumulative impacts analysis is also required by longstanding case law interpreting NEPA, is not
prohibited by the current regulations, and will likely be explicitly required once proposed regulations by
the Biden Administration are promulgated.13
III. Changes to WTG Foundations
New England Wind’s revised COP has removed gravity pad bottom-frame foundations for wind turbines
from Phase Two of the Project (Commonwealth Wind). Quiet foundations, like gravity pads, represent
the best practice in the context of the mitigation hierarchy and should be included as reasonable
alternatives for any offshore wind project where they are technically feasible. BOEM should require New
England Wind and all offshore wind developers to be transparent in their decision making process for
7 Id. § 4321.
8 Id. § 4332
9 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1.
10 Id. § 1502.16(a)(5).
11 Final Rule, Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 85
Fed. Reg. 43304 (July 16, 2020), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/16/2020-15179/update-to-the-
regulations-implementing-the-procedural-provisions-of-the-national-environmental.
12 86 Fed. Reg. 55757 (Oct. 7, 2021).
13 See, e.g., Hanly v. Kleindienst, 471 F.2d 823, 830-31 (2d Cir. 1972) (finding that agencies should consider, inter alia, “the
absolute quantitative adverse environmental effects of the action itself, including the cumulative harm that results from its
contribution to existing adverse conditions or uses in the affected area.”).
4
foundations and other technology selections, including analyzing the feasibility of quiet foundations and
sharing with stakeholders their rationales for which turbine foundations are included and excluded from
their project design envelope.
IV. Changes to Cable Routing
A. Benthic impacts from Western Muskeget Variant and South Coast Variant cable
routes
In the modified COP for New England Wind, the developer has included two new variants of the offshore
export cable corridor (OECC) for Phase Two of the project. While the developer’s preferred route
through Muskeget Channel remains the “eastern option” route, the updated COP identifies the
“western option” route through Muskeget Channel, i.e., the “OECC Western Muskeget Variant” as a
“fallback option” to install one or two Phase Two cables.14 New England Wind has also identified a new
“OECC South Coast Variant,” which would connect the offshore wind farm to the grid somewhere along
the southwest coast of Buzzards Bay in Massachusetts.15 New England Wind states that it would employ
the OECC South Coast Variant if “technical, logistical, grid interconnection, or other unforeseen issues
arise during the COP review and engineering processes that preclude one or more Phase Two export
cables from interconnecting at the West Barnstable Substation.”16 Our organizations incorporate by
reference our prior comments on the New England Wind project, including their discussion on the
impacts to complex habitats from the OECC, and add the following supplemental comments regarding
the new cable route variants.
1. OECC Western Muskeget Variant
The updated COP notes that the OECC Western Muskeget Variant will traverse a number of areas in
Muskeget Channel that the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan (MA Ocean Plan) has designated as
hard/complex seafloor and which the MA Ocean Plan considers “special, sensitive or unique (SSU)
marine habitats.17
As discussed in the prior comments, under the regulations governing the MA Ocean Plan, “activities
proposed in the Ocean Management Planning Area are presumptively excluded from the [SSU] Resource
areas delineated on maps contained in the Ocean Management Plan and maintained in the Ocean
Management Plan.”18 This presumption may be overcome by demonstrating that the maps delineating
the SSU are inaccurate or by demonstrating as follows:
[1.] No less environmentally damaging practicable alternative exists. For the purposes of this
standard, an alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being done after taking into
consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics with respect to the purpose of the Activity;
and
[2.] The Proponent has taken all practicable measures to avoid damage to [SSU] Resources, and
the Activity will cause no significant alteration to [SSU] Resources. Demonstrating compliance
14 Updated New England Wind COP at 2-10, 4-13.
15 Id. at 4-15, Figure 4.1-7.
16 Id. at 4-15.
17 Updated New England Wind COP, App. I-G at Figures 4-3, 4-4.
18 301 CMR 28.04(2)(a).
5
with this standard may include the incorporation of measures to avoid resources and impacts
through time of year controls such that the construction, operation, or removal of the Activity
will not occur when the [SSU] Resource is present or may be adversely effected [sic]; and
[3.] The public benefits associated with the proposed Activity outweigh the public detriments to
the Special, Sensitive or Unique Resource.19
While the MA Ocean plan designates areas for offshore wind transmission cables that are in
presumptive compliance with the management standards for SSU resources,20 at least part of the OECC
Western Muskeget Variant route does not appear to be in a designated offshore wind transmission
cable area.21 Therefore, only to the extent that New England Wind demonstrates that there is no
“practicable alternative” to siting the OECC in complex, hard bottom areas; that it will take “all
practicable measures to avoid damage” to these resources; and that the public benefits associated with
the proposed activity outweigh the public detriments to the SSU resources,22 may New England Wind
route the OECC Western Muskeget Variant in areas designated as hard/complex areas in the MA Ocean
Plan. In instances where New England Wind demonstrates that there is no alternative to routing the
OECC across hard bottom areas, New England Wind should minimize the length of hard bottom habitat
traversed to reduce impacts.
As part of the Draft EIS, BOEM should assess impacts to complex habitats from the OECC Western
Muskeget Variant placement and whether alternate routes or seasonal restrictions on cable installation
would avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to complex habitats. Further, BOEM may only authorize the
New England Wind project if Massachusetts makes a determination that the placement of the OECC is
consistent with the MA Ocean Plan, including its provisions relating to SSU resources and “complex/hard
seafloor.”23
2. OECC South Coast Variant
The updated COP also proposes a new OECC South Coast Variant route for Phase Two of the project that
would potentially connect to the grid somewhere on the southwest coast of Buzzards Bay in
Massachusetts, between Westport and Fairhaven. The New England Wind COP does not identify any
potential landfall sites for the OECC South Coast Variant route.24 The COP also does not currently contain
benthic survey data for the OECC South Coast Variant route, such as site-specific benthic grabs and
seafloor imagery captured by Sediment Profile and Plan View Imaging (SPI/PV) surveys.
Under BOEM’s regulations, the COP must include “[t]he results of the biological survey with supporting
data” including a “description of the results of biological surveys used to determine the presence of live
bottoms, hard bottoms, and topographic features, and surveys of other marine resources.”25 The
regulations also require the COP to describe sensitive biological resources or habitats that could be
19 301 CMR 28.04(2)(b).
20 301 CMR 28.04(6)(a
21 See Updated New England Wind COP, App. I-G at Figures 4-3, 4-4; 2015 Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan, MA
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs--Office of Coastal Zone Management, at Figure 28 (January 2015).
22 301 CMR 28.04(2)(b).
23 See 15 C.F.R. §§930.50-930.66; see also 16 U.S.C.§1456 (Each Federal agency activity within or outside the coastal zone that
affects any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone shall be carried out in a manner which is consistent to
the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of approved State management programs).
24 See Updated New England Wind COP at Figure 4.1-8c.
25 30 C.F.R. §585.626 (emphasis added).
6
affected by the proposed offshore wind development, including “hard bottom habitat.”26 Further, the
COP “must include the following project-specific information”: a “location plat,” and the location of “[a]ll
cables.”27
Project design envelopes cannot be so open ended that a meaningful evaluation of the impacts of the
design and an analysis of reasonable alternatives becomes difficult, if not impossible. Here, the lack of
benthic survey data and information on potential cable landing sites for the OECC South Coast Variant
route makes it impossible to evaluate the impacts of this route. Further, the COP presently does not
comply with BOEM’s regulations governing COPs because it does not include such information.28 The
lack of benthic survey data for the OECC South Variant and lack of information on the cable landing sites
are serious deficiencies in New England Wind’s COP and BOEM should not proceed to analyze the
impacts from the OECC South Variant in the Draft EIS–or permit construction of the OECC South
Variant–until complete information is provided.
B. Avian Concerns
Both of the landing areas for cables include important habitat for coastal waterbirds. Massachusetts
supports breeding, feeding, and staging habitat for many migratory birds, including breeding habitat for
57% of the North Atlantic population of roseate tern and 50% of the Atlantic population of the piping
plover.29 Nearly the entire roseate tern population convenes on Massachusetts beaches to stage prior to
fall migration.30 Ram Island, off of Mattapoisett, close to the broadly defined Phase Two Offshore
Routing Envelope, supports one of the three most significant breeding colonies for the roseate tern.31
The others are on Bird Island, also in Buzzards Bay, in Marion, and Great Gull Island off the tip of Long
Island in New York. These and other islands and beaches in the area also support other beach nesting
birds, including common and least terns, piping plover, and American oystercatcher. Roseate terns are
listed as endangered under both the federal and Massachusetts state Endangered Species Acts; the
piping plover is listed as threatened under both laws.
There are many other coastal waterbird breeding sites in the general project area, including Ward's Rock
in Fairhaven, West Island, Angelica Rock (one of the most significant sites for gull nesting in the state),
Dead Neck Sampsons Island, Muskeget Island, Rushy Marsh Pond, Popponesset Spit, New Seabury,
Dowses, Craigville and Long beaches, and Squaw Island. Mass Audubon’s Coastal Waterbird Program
monitors these and many other sites and compiles data that is shared with the Massachusetts Natural
Heritage and Endangered Species Program.
26 30 C.F.R. §585.627.
27 30 C.F.R. §585.626.
28 See 30 C.F.R. §§585.626-627.
29 MassWildlife/Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, 2021 unpublished data. (earlier data here
https://www.mass.gov/service-details/coastal-waterbird-conservation, https://www.mass.gov/doc/summary-of-the-2020-
massachusetts-piping-plover-census/download, and https://www.mass.gov/doc/inventory-of-terns-laughing-gulls-and-black-
skimmers-nesting-in-ma-in-2019/download)
30 Davis KL, Karpanty SM, Spendelow JA, Cohen JB, Althouse MA, Parsons KC, Luttazi CF, Catlin DH, Gibson D. 2019. Residency,
recruitment, and stopover duration of hatch-year Roseate Terns (Sterna dougallii) during the premigratory staging period.
Avian Conservation and Ecology 14:art11; Trull P, Hecker S, Watson MJ, Nisbet ICT. 1999. Staging of Roseate Terns Sterna
dougallii in the post-breeding period around Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA. Atlantic Seabirds 1:145–158.
31 García-Quismondo M, Nisbet ICT, Mostello C, Reed JM. 2018. Modeling population dynamics of roseate terns (Sterna
dougallii) in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Ecological Modelling 368:298–311.
7
In addition to avoiding direct disturbance to nesting sites, the construction work needs to be planned
and conditioned to avoid disturbances to the birds’ normal and essential behaviors. To this end,
nearshore cable laying and cable landing construction work should avoid the time period from April 1
through September 1 and follow guidance provide by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service32 and the MA Piping
Plover Habitat Conservation Plan33 to avoid take of Endangered Species Act-listed species. Construction
activities associated with cable laying, including heavy machinery, noise, and lighting, can disrupt normal
activity budgets for beach nesting birds.34 Flushing from nests can lead to abandonment of nests and
nesting colonies as well as exposure of eggs and chicks to predators and weather-related stresses.35
Disturbances of roosting, staging, or foraging can impact birds’ energy budgets, potentially limiting
migratory success and decreasing survival rates.36 Birds responding to disturbance are also at risk of
secondary injuries or accidental death.37
The draft 2021 update of the MA Ocean Plan includes an SSU mapped area for roseate tern core
habitat,38 encompassing all of Buzzards Bay and state waters along the south coast of Cape Cod, north
coast of Martha’s Vineyard, and throughout the proposed transmission line routes. As noted above and
in previous comments, the EIS needs to address impacts to benthic and fishery resources, including
impacts to the species of forage fish necessary to support terns.
V. Operational Noise
Underwater noise generated by turbines during the operations phase is positively correlated to the size
of the turbine.39 A recent scientific study summarized data on operational noise levels from offshore
wind energy projects based on published measurements and simulations from the gray literature. Based
on these data, the authors extrapolated the sound levels that could be generated from larger offshore
wind turbines and assessed the impact ranges for behavioral response of marine mammals based on the
National Marine Fisheries Service’s acoustic thresholds (i.e., behavioral disruption for continuous noise
may occur above a threshold of 120 dB rms).40 The results of the analysis indicated that a 10 MW geared
turbine required 6.3 km to fall below that threshold, and a direct drive turbine—a newer technology—
32 https://www.fws.gov/northeast/pipingplover/pdf/recguide.pdf
33 https://www.mass.gov/service-details/ma-piping-plover-habitat-conservation-plan-hcp
34 Hockin D, Ounsted M, Gormant M, Hillt D, Kellert V, Barker MA. 1992. Examination of the effects of disturbance on birds with
reference to its importance in ecological assessments. J. Environ. Manage.:253–286.
35 Kanapaux W, Kiker GA. 2013. Development and testing of an object-oriented model for adaptively managing human
disturbance of least tern (Sternula antillarum) nesting habitat. Ecological Modelling 268:64–77; Kotliar NB, Burger J. 1986.
Colony site selection and abandonment by least terns Sterna antillarum in New Jersey, USA. Biological Conservation 37:1–21;
Stantial ML, Cohen JB, Darrah AJ, Farrell S, Maslo B. 2021. Habitat-specific behavior, growth rate, and survival of piping plover
chicks in New Jersey, USA. Ecosphere 12:e03782.
36 Althouse MA, Cohen JB, Karpanty SM, Spendelow JA, Davis KL, Parsons KC, Luttazi CF. 2019. Evaluating response distances to
develop buffer zones for staging terns. The Journal of Wildlife Management 83:260–271; Burger J. 1991. Foraging Behavior
and the Effect of Human Disturbance on the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). Journal of Coastal Research 7:14; Davis KL,
Karpanty SM, Spendelow JA, Cohen JB, Althouse MA, Parsons KC, Luttazi CF, Catlin DH, Gibson D. 2019. Residency,
recruitment, and stopover duration of hatch-year Roseate Terns (Sterna dougallii) during the premigratory staging period.
Avian Conservation and Ecology 14:art11.
37 For example, in 2021 a piping plover flying low and fast on a territorial flight in Massachusetts was struck by a car
(MassAudubon Coastal Waterbird Program, pers. Comm.).
38 Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan, Figure 7.
39 Stöber, U., and Thomsen, F., How could operational underwater sound from future offshore wind turbines impact marine
life?” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 149(2021): 1791-1795.
40 Id.
8
would be expected to cause behavioral disruption at distances up to 1.4 km from the turbine.41 With
turbine spacing at 1 nm apart, even the lower impact direct drive 10 MW turbine could potentially
elevate underwater noise to levels capable of disrupting marine mammal behavior across the entire
Project Area. Moreover, 10 MW is on the lower end of the WTG size that is now being procured by the
offshore wind industry, with New England Wind planning on using 13-16 MW WTGs for Phase One42 13-
19 MW WTGs for Phase Two.43 Equinor recently announced their procurement of 138 Vestas V236-15
MW WTGs for the Empire Wind I and II projects located in the New York Bight.44 The Vestas 236-15 MW
model is a gearbox turbine,45 and thus expected to emit higher levels of underwater noise relative to a
direct drive turbine.
BOEM should conduct a detailed analysis of the operational noise levels expected to be generated by
New England Wind, both in terms of its potential impacts on marine mammals and their habitat,46 but
also on fish47 and invertebrates48 that comprise the foundation of the trophic pyramid. We also
recommend BOEM take immediate steps to reduce these potential impacts. Pending further study and
the development of technology to permit acoustic decoupling of the turbine from the mast, we
recommend BOEM require the use of direct drive WTGs as opposed to WTGs that rely on a gear box.
III. Conclusion
We thank BOEM for their consideration of these comments and urge the agency to incorporate the
recommendations in these comments when preparing New England Wind’s Draft EIS.
Sincerely,
James Murphy
Director, Legal Advocacy
National Wildlife Federation
jmurphy@nwf.org
802-552-4325
Priscilla M. Brooks, Ph.D.
Vice President and Director of Ocean
Conservation
Conservation Law Foundation
pbrooks@clf.org
978-239-1362
41 Stöber, U., and Thomsen, F., How could operational underwater sound from future offshore wind turbines impact marine
life? supra.
42 NEW COP at 3-14, Table 3.2-1
43 Id. at 4-4, Table 4.1-1.
44 https://www.equinor.com/en/news/20211018-empire-wind-turbine-supplier.html
45 https://nozebra.ipapercms.dk/Vestas/Communication/Productbrochure/OffshoreProductBrochure/v236-150-mw-
brochure/?page=6. Gearbox turbine referenced.
46 Jakob Tougaard, Oluf Damsgaard Henriksen, and Lee Miller. (2009) Underwater noise from three types of offshore wind
turbines: Estimation of impact zones for harbor porpoises and harbor seal. J. Acoustical Soc. 125:6
47 Hawkins, A. D., and Popper, A. N. (2016). “Quo Vadimus—A sound approach to assessing the impact of underwater noise on
marine fishes and invertebrates,” ICES J. Mar. Sci. 74, 635–651
48 Solan, M., Hauton, C., Godbold, J. et al. Anthropogenic sources of underwater sound can modify how sediment-dwelling
invertebrates mediate ecosystem properties. Sci Rep 6, 20540 (2016).
Francine Kershaw, Ph.D.
Staff Scientist, Marine Mammal Protection &
Oceans
Natural Resources Defense Council
fkershaw@nrdc.org
917-450-0994
Shilo K. Felton, Ph.D.
Field Manager, Clean Energy Initiative
National Audubon Society
shilo.felton@audubon.org
401-537-7366
9
E. Heidi Ricci
Director of Policy and Advocacy
Mass Audubon
hricci@massaudubon.org
781-259-2172
George Povall
Executive Director
All Our Energy
george@allourenergy.org
516-316-2013
Charles Clarkson, Ph.D.
Director of Avian Research
Audubon Society of Rhode Island
cclarkson@asri.org
401-949-5454 x3119
Patrick Comins
Executive Director
Connecticut Audubon
pcomins@ctaudubon.org
203-259-0416 x107
Eliza Donoghue
Director of Advocacy
Maine Audubon
edonoghue@maineaudubon.org
207-712-4359
William Rossiter
Vice President
NY4WHALES
williamrossiter@optimum.net
203-770-8615
Michael Stocker
Director
Ocean Conservation Research
mstocker@ocr.org
415-464-7220
Melissa Gates
Northeast Regional Manager
Surfrider Foundation
mgates@surfrider.org
207-706-6378
Colleen Weiler
Jessica Rekos Fellow
Whale and Dolphin Conservation
colleen.weiler@whales.org
810-813-1643
Charles D. Baker
Governor
Karyn E. Polito
Lieutenant Governor
Kathleen A. Theoharides
Secretary
Martin Suuberg
Commissioner
This information is available in alternate format. Contact Michelle Waters-Ekanem, Director of Diversity/Civil Rights at 617-292-5751.
TTY# MassRelay Service 1-800-439-2370
MassDEP Website: www.mass.gov/dep
Printed on Recycled Paper
January 21, 2022
Kathleen A. Theoharides
Secretary of Environment and Energy
Executive Office of Energy and
Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
ATTN: MEPA Office
Boston, MA 02114
RE: FEIR Review. EOEEA 16231
BARNSTABLE. New England Wind 1
Connector (formerly Vineyard Wind 2).
Originating from offshore export cables
from Federal/Massachusetts offshore
boundary, northerly to Craigville Public
Beach in Barnstable (Preferred Route), and
onshore underground cables to a new
substation in Barnstable and ultimately to an
interconnection at Eversource’s existing 35-
kV West Barnstable Substation
Dear Secretary Theoharides,
The Southeast Regional Office of the Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has
reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for New England Wind 1 Connector
(formerly Vineyard Wind 2), originating from offshore export cables from Federal/Massachusetts
offshore boundary, northerly to Craigville Public Beach in Barnstable (Preferred Route), and
onshore underground cables to a new substation in Barnstable and ultimately to an interconnection
at Eversource’s existing 35-kV West Barnstable Substation, Barnstable, Massachusetts (EOEEA
#16231). The Project Proponent provides the following information for New England Wind 1
Connector (formerly Vineyard Wind 2):
The Vineyard Wind Connector 2 includes two three-core offshore export cables connecting the offshore
electrical service platform (ESP) located in the SWDA to the landfall site onshore. The two offshore export
cables will transition to six single-core onshore export cables in transition vaults/joint bays at the landfall site,
then continue underground within a buried concrete duct bank. The route for this duct bank will
predominantly follow existing public roadway layouts to a proposed onshore substation. The substation will
step up voltage to enable the interconnection with the electrical grid at the existing Eversource 345-kilovolt
(kV) West Barnstable Substation.
Offshore elements of Vineyard Wind Connector 2 will largely utilize the OECC developed for the Vineyard
Wind Connector 1, which will transit through state and federal waters. Within Massachusetts waters, the
OECC will pass offshore through the towns of Edgartown, Nantucket, Barnstable, and possibly a corner of
Mashpee before making landfall in Barnstable (see Figure 1-4 in Attachment B). The total length of the OECC
EEA No. 16231 January 21, 2022
2
from Park City Wind in the SWDA to the landfall site is approximately 63 miles (101 kilometers [km]), with
approximately 23 miles (37 km) of the OECC located within state waters. Onshore Project elements will be
located entirely within the Town of Barnstable.
Bureau of Water Resources Comments
Wetlands. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) had addressed the regional programs'
concerns and so the FEIR likewise addressees the regional programs' concerns.
Waterways. The Proponents response has addressed the Department’s comments. In response to
Proponent’s statement that “the crossing will be further described in the Proponent’s joint
application to MassDEP for a Chapter 91 License and Water Quality Certification”, the Proponent
is advised when the joint application is submitted to the Department that the Proponent provide a
clear and detailed description whether such microtunnel crossing construction will have permanent
impacts to neighboring Wetlands and/or other natural resources.
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup (BWSC)
The Proponent has adequately responded to BWSC comments.
Bureau of Air and Waste (BAW) Comments
Air Quality. The Air Permit Section has reviewed the FEIR and offers the following comments:
MassDEP’s noise policy establishes a 10 dB(A) increase in sound as the maximum sound impact
which cannot be exceeded at the property line or the nearest receptor. Sound increases are evaluated
in accordance with the MassDEP Noise Pollution Policy Interpretation. The Proponent is reminded
that the 10 dB(A) is not a design standard but a performance standard. Sound impacts should be
mitigated to extent practicable.
Solid Waste Management. Based on its review of the DEIR Solid Waste Management Program has
determined that the Proponent has adequately addressed its comments previously provided in the
ENF.
Spills Prevention. As documented in section 10.9.4 of the DEIR, the Proponent has adequately
addressed spills prevention through its detailed Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure
(SPCC) Plan.
Other Comments/Guidance
The MassDEP Southeast Regional Office appreciates the opportunity to comment on this DEIR. If
you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact George Zoto at (508) 946-2820.
Very truly yours,
Jonathan E. Hobill,
Regional Engineer,
Bureau of Water Resources
JH/GZ
Cc: DEP/SERO
EEA No. 16231 January 21, 2022
3
ATTN: Millie Garcia-Serrano, Regional Director
Gerard Martin, Deputy Regional Director, BWR
John Handrahan, Acting Deputy Regional Director, BWSC
Seth Pickering, Deputy Regional Director, BAW
Jennifer Viveiros, Deputy Regional Director, BAS
Daniel Gilmore, Chief, Wetlands and Waterways, BWR
David Hill, Wetlands and Waterways, BWR
David Padien, Chief, Waterways, BWR/Boston
David Wong, Wetlands and Waterways, BWR/Boston
Mark Dakers, Chief, Solid Waste Management, BAW
Elza Bystrom, Solid Waste Management, BAW
Daniel DiSalvio, Chief, Compliance and Enforcement, BAW
Thomas Cushing, Chief, Air Quality Permitting, BAW
Allen Hemberger, Site Management, BWSC
January 21, 2022
Kathleen A. Theoharides, Secretary
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attention: MEPA Office
Alex Strysky, EEA No. 16231
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
Project Name: New England Wind 1 Connector (formerly Vineyard Wind Connector 2)
Proponent: Park City Wind LLC (formerly Vineyard Wind LLC)
Location: Offshore export cables (to facilitate Park City Wind (800MW), wind generation
facility within Federal waters) through Massachusetts waters northerly through
Nantucket Sound to Craigville Beach, Barnstable (Preferred Route). Alternate
onshore routes from Craigville Beach and alternate landfall site at Covell’s
Beach, Barnstable.
Project Description: Utility- Transmission Cables
Document Reviewed: Final Environmental Impact Report
EEA File Number: 16231
NHESP Tracking No.: 17-37398
Dear Secretary Theoharides,
The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries &
Wildlife (the Division) reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and the December 17,
2021 Additional Background Material submitted to Tori Kim, MEPA Director from William White,
Avangrid Renewables President and CEO-Offshore, for the proposed New England Wind 1 (NEW1)
Connector and would like to offer the following comments.
As identified during the Division’s review of the prior MEPA submittal documents for the former
Vineyard Wind Connector 2 project, the proposed offshore cable components and the onshore landing
at Craigville Beach, Barnstable are located within Priority Habitat and Estimated Habitat as indicated in
the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas (15th Edition). The project will occur within habitat of the
following state-listed species:
Scientific Name Common Name Taxonomic Group State Status
Sterna dougallii Roseate Tern Bird Endangered*
Sterna hirundo Common Tern Bird Special Concern
Sternula antillarum Least Tern Bird Special Concern
Charadrius melodus Piping Plover Bird Threatened*
*Species also protected pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA, 50 CFR 17.11).
These species and their habitats are protected pursuant to the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act
(M.G.L c. 131A) and its implementing regulations (MESA, 321 CMR 10 .00) as well as the Massachusetts
Wetlands Protection Act and its implementing regulations (WPA, 310 CMR 10.37, 10.58(4)(b) and 10.59).
Therefore, this project requires a direct filing with the Division for compliance with the MESA and the
rare species provisions of the WPA. Attachment N of the FEIR includes a draft MESA Checklist
application as well as a Draft Piping Plover Protection Plan. The Division will review the protection plan
and all relevant information during the MESA review process. A joint MESA/WPA review process is
available, the Proponent can submit a streamlined Notice of Intent (NOI) application to the Division at
the same time as the local conservation commission. This streamlined filing will allow the Proponent to
file concurrently under the MESA and WPA on the same NOI form and qualify for a 30-day streamlined
joint review process.
A large proportion of the North American Roseate Tern (ESA- & MESA-Endangered) population, Atlantic
Coast Piping Plover population (ESA- & MESA-Threatened), and Atlantic Coast Common Tern population
(MESA-Special Concern) are reliant upon Massachusetts for reproduction and Massachusetts is a
globally significant nesting, feeding, staging and overwintering area for numerous migratory birds, from
common waterfowl to ESA-and MESA-listed bird species. These species are of upmost concern relative
to both offshore wind impacts and the timely implementation of a ppropriate conservation measures .
Therefore, the Division’s and Commonwealth’s responsibility for state and federally listed coastal
waterbirds is disproportionately high.
The Division recognizes that wind turbine generators (WTGs) associated this Park City Wind project will
occur within federal waters. The WTGs and other offshore components are reviewed through the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management‘s (BOEM) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) proc ess.
Importantly, the federal National Environmental Policy (NEPA) review of the Vineyard Wind 1 (800MW)
Offshore Wind Project identified that the operation of WTGs is expected to result in direct mortality (i.e.
Take) of Common Tern, a MESA-listed avian species (see BOEM’s SDEIS & FEIS). Thus, cumulative
impacts to MESA-listed species associated with this Park City Wind project can be reasonably expected.
Given the Division’s responsibility to protect and manage imperiled avian resources, every effort sh ould
be made to avoid and minimize risks, as well as monitor and mitigate unavoidable Project impacts to the
Commonwealth’s wildlife resources. The Proponent’s December 17, 2021 Additional Background
Material identifies a “substantial commitment to an avian conservation program” as a component of a
third Massachusetts offshore wind installment identified as Commonwealth Wind. This commitment
from the Proponent is an important step towards the necessary balance between offshore wind
generation and inevitable impacts to avian species. Critical avian conservation measures include habitat
conservation and restoration, research, and targeted colony management. While the Division recognizes
this vital step and commitment, we remain concerned that the proposed conservation measures are
associated with a future WTG project. The implementation timeline for such efforts would potentially be
years after the avian impacts from WTGs associated with the first two wind installments (Vineyard Wind
1 and Park City Wind) are realized. The Division is concerned that additional impacts and mortality to
these imperiled avian species could further jeopardize their sensitive populations and therefore
conservation measures must be appropriately timed and implemented.
The Division strongly urges the Proponent to address the significant gap in their timeline for “substantial
commitment” to avian conservation measures in order to address the impacts associated with their
wind installments (Vineyard Wind 1 and Park City Wind). Through such coordinated efforts, we can
ensure that the offshore wind projects not only contribute to meeting critical renewable energy needs,
but also help to ensure healthy populations of coastal waterbirds, including vulnerable MESA and ESA -
listed species.
The Division will not render a final decision until the MEPA review process and associated public and
agency comment period is completed, and until all required MESA filing materials are submitted by the
Proponent to the Division. As our MESA review is not complete, no alteration to the soil, surface, or
vegetation and no work associated with the proposed project shall occur until the Division has made a
final determination.
If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Amy Hoenig, Endangered Sp ecies Review
Biologist, at Amy.Hoenig@mass.gov. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project.
Sincerely,
Everose Schlüter, Ph.D.
Assistant Director
cc: Park City Wind LLC
Holly Carlson Johnston, Epsilon Associates, Inc.
DEP Southeast Regional Office, MEPA
Lisa Engler, CZM
Bob Boeri, CZM