Dominion Seeks Permit to Harass 100s of Whales

Click for larger view. BOEM map of Right Whale density noting offshore wind lease areas. Dominion’s CVOW and Avangrid’s Kitty Hawk Wind are the southernmost mapped.

By David Wojick

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is taking public comments on a massive proposal to harass large numbers of whales and other marine mammals off Virginia by building a huge offshore wind complex. There is supposed to be an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed harassment, but it is not there with the proposal.

We are told it is elsewhere, but after searching we find that it simply does not exist. Like a shell game where the pea has been palmed, there is nothing to be found.

First, the bureaucratic background. The wind project is Dominion Energy Virginia’s 176-turbine offshore Virginia facility, which if built would be the world’s biggest to date. NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is proposing to issue a five-year harassment authorization for the construction of this monster. This is about an enormous amount of pile driving, not just a sonar site survey, although there is more of that too.

Technically this is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Here is the announcement:

NMFS has received a request from the Virginia Electric and Power Company, doing business as Dominion Energy Virginia (Dominion Energy), for Incidental Take Regulations (ITR) and an associated Letter of Authorization (LOA) pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).

There is a handy comment button at the beginning, with the comment period ending June 5. I urge people to comment, especially along the lines discussed below.

An incredible 762 whale harassments are proposed. NMFS notes that this massive action requires an EIS under NEPA. The similar Empire Wind EIS admitted harassment can kill. Here is a key excerpt: “It is possible that pile driving could displace animals into areas with lower habitat quality or higher risk of vessel collision or fisheries interaction.”

So we looked forward with great interest to see how this LOA EIS handles these potentially extreme effects. The basic question is simple — what are the reasonably likely impacts of all this harassment?

Turns out there is no EIS with this NMFS proposal for Dominion. They punt to BOEM’s EIS for the entire project. Here is the announcement:

NMFS proposes to adopt the BOEM Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), provided our independent evaluation of the document finds that it includes adequate information analyzing the effects of promulgating the proposed regulations and LOA issuance on the human environment.

In NEPA-speak, whales are part of the human environment.

The draft BOEM EIS (DEIS) is here:

However the letter of authorization EIS is not mentioned in the six- page Table of Contents. Nor is it one of the 15 Appendices. This is a massive 562-page document, making finding the LOA EIS therein a bit of a shell game. Our approach was to do key word searches. Here are the telling results.

Word searches and findings on the BOEM/Dominion DEIS:

Search on “LOA.”

There is just one occurrence, a reference in Table 40 of the original NMFS application, which is now obsolete. There is no discussion of the impact of the now proposed LOA.

Search on “Authorization.”

There are two clusters of NMFS-related occurrences, both just explaining that the BOEM EIS is the EIS for the harassment authorization. One in the executive summary and a similar one in the main document. There is no discussion of the impact of the authorization. Plus one other occurrence, a reference in passing to the original NMFS application. There are also several references to other agency authorizations. There is no discussion of the impact of the now-proposed Authorization.

Search on “Harassment”.

There are just three occurrences, all in a table of definitions. There is no discussion of harassment, much less the impact of harassment.

In short there is no EIS for the proposed LOA. NMFS might argue that some of the project EIS discussion amounts to an EIS for the proposed regulations and LOA, but it is impossible to have an EIS for an action that is never discussed.

It is not as if they do not know about the issue of the adverse impact of harassment. I actually discussed the likelihood of increased ship collisions from the Dominion project in an article last September, that I sent to key NMFS people. Here is a central excerpt:

Dominion’s Construction and Operation Plan (COP) provides the necessary navigation data in Appendix S: Navigation Risk Assessment. Ironically this assessment is all about the risk to ships, not to whales. The project creates what amounts to an intense noise wall that the whales will undoubtedly go around, either to the East or to the West. Immediately to the East lies the westernmost lane of the very busy coastal ship traffic. To the West lies the equally busy coastal barge traffic. Both are deadly. It seems like the project was deliberately located where there is the least shipping traffic. This would make sense if it were not for the whales. As it is the project closes the low shipping corridor, which the whales undoubtedly use. Being hit by ships is the leading cause of death to the whales.

An EIS for the Letter of Authorization is required under NEPA and until one is produced the LOA cannot be issued, or the regulations thereto finalized. NMFS (or BOEM) must assess the reasonably likely adverse impact of the proposed harassments, with special attention to their causing deadly behavior. That is the law.

The shell game must end.

David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. He has been on the faculty of Carnegie Mellon University and the staffs of the U.S. Office of Naval Research and the Naval Research Lab.  This article was originally published at cfact.org.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

18 responses to “Dominion Seeks Permit to Harass 100s of Whales”

  1. Don Bowler Avatar
    Don Bowler

    Save the whales. I see nothing good coming of this huge boondoggle except the rape of Dominion rate payers and the murder of hundreds of whales.

  2. WayneS Avatar

    I don’t think I still have my “Nuke the Whales” tee-shirt…

    😉

  3. WayneS Avatar

    I don’t think I still have my “Nuke the Whales” tee-shirt…

    😉

  4. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    “Until today I never realized that ‘harass’ could be one word.”

    William Jefferson Clinton

  5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “The similar Empire Wind EIS admitted harassment can kill.”

    A pretty key sentence in the authorization:

    “No mortality or serious injury is anticipated or proposed for authorization.”

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Promises, promises. Your hypocrite friends wouldn’t accept that on a gas pipeline for two seconds. “Anticipated.” We have to build the Great Wall of Turbines first to see what it does to the whale migrations and how many more end up killed in the (now more crowded) ship lanes. The risk is obvious.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        “Dominion Energy did not request and NMFS is not proposing to authorize mortality or serious injury of any marine mammals species or stock.”

        I don’t think you know the seriousness to Dominion if they kill a whale due to harassment under this LOA. Dominion and NMFS does to be sure.

  6. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “This is a massive 562 page document, making finding the LOA EIS therein a bit of a shell game.”

    There is no specific, stand alone LOA EIS as NMFS clearly states. They said they will review the DRAFT EIS for the entire project to determine if it adequately covers the impacts from the LOA. I would assume they will be a bit more thorough than simply doing some word searches. (btw, 562 pages is really not very massive when it comes to these sort of documents).

  7. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    It would be an absolute outrage to allow offshore oil and gas exploration due to the whales, and more to the point, due to liberal attitudes. But if offshore wind is worse, that is fine. Probably Hampton Rds could have gone be either way on it, for the $$, but if wind is allowable and oil&gas is not so, then full speed ahead on wind.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      “It would be an absolute outrage to allow offshore oil and gas exploration due to the whales…”

      Not quite sure what you are saying here but clearly offshore oil and gas development is allowed regardless of potential impact to whales (and other aquatic mammals).

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Again, ignoring the main point here that the TRULY endangered North Atlantic Right Whale has a KNOWN migration path to its BREEDING GROUNDS right through this exact area. Might not be the case somewhere else. Or else the Endangered Species Act is just virtue signaling?

      2. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Again, ignoring the main point here that the TRULY endangered North Atlantic Right Whale has a KNOWN migration path to its BREEDING GROUNDS right through this exact area. Might not be the case somewhere else. Or else the Endangered Species Act is just virtue signaling?

      3. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Again, ignoring the main point here that the TRULY endangered North Atlantic Right Whale has a KNOWN migration path to its BREEDING GROUNDS right through this exact area. Might not be the case somewhere else. Or else the Endangered Species Act is just virtue signaling?

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          So given the threat is actually from shipping traffic (as stated in the LOA) you are recommending all shipping be stopped in this migration route…? Is that your position?

        2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          So given the threat is actually from shipping traffic (as stated in the LOA) you are recommending all shipping be stopped in this migration route…? Is that your position?

          1. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            Well, those seeking to remove concerns over the OSW do point instead to the ships. Efforts to at least slow them by regulation are also controversial. Whatever the outcome, the ESA and NEPA need to be uniformly applied (or uniformly ignored) and not weaponized. Too late, probably.

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Seems like it actually is being applied uniformly. Interesting that this does not seem to be the first IHA for the project…

            “NMFS has previously issued six Incidental Harassment Authorizations (IHAs) to Dominion Energy. Two of those IHAs, issued in 2018 (83 FR 39062; August 8, 2018) and 2020 (85 FR 30930, May 21, 2020) supported the development of the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project, known as the CVOW Pilot Project (wherein two turbines were constructed). The remaining four IHAs (two of which were modified IHAs) were high resolution site characterization surveys within and around the CVOW–C Lease Area (see 85 FR 55415, September 8, 2020; 85 FR 81879, December 17, 2020 (modified 2020 IHA); 86 FR 21298, April 22, 2021 (modified 2021 IHA); and 87 FR 33730, June 3, 2022).”

      4. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Your opposition RIGHT(LY) opposes whale abortions and contraception. Of course, the NA Right Whales are not very smart like humans and will continue to plow through the migration route “right through this exact area,” “although “Might not be the case somewhere else.” Reasoning very similar to the analyses about DEI at UVA.

Leave a Reply