The resignation of all nine members of the Rhode Island Fisherman’s Advisory Board in protest now threatens to gum up the federal approval process for offshore wind turbine construction off the southern New England coast.
The former board members accused the R.I. Coastal Resources Management Council of violating state regulations, specifically regarding the Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan, which state officials have lauded as a national model.
A letter penned by resigning members to CRMC Executive Director Jeff Willis called the state allegiance to OSAMP a “mockery,” alleged the process “has been reduced to mere political theater … to which we refuse to lend any further credence by our presence.”
Commercial fishermen in the region have been at odds with state regulators because of disagreements about how offshore wind turbines will impact their livelihoods and the long-term ecological impacts on marine life.
Their frustration came to a head on Sept. 1 when the advisory board tasked with protecting the interests of state fisheries resigned in protest of what it claims has become a charade in favor of wind energy interests.
“It was clear the fix was in,” said former board member Chris Brown.
The resignations could be problematic to the federal approval process under the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, says Marisa Desautel, the attorney representing former Fisherman’s Advisory Board members.
How state and federal agencies respond to the resignations is an open question, according to Desautel. She argues the existence of the Fisherman’s Advisory Board is required as spelled out in the state’s code of regulations.
“I don’t know how they are going to get around that,” she said.
Because there have been no discussions of replacing the board members, Desautel believes the CRMC plans to interpret the advisory board as an unnecessary element to final approval.
“They are now saying the board only needs to be ‘involved generally,’” she said. “These are their words.”
The stakes surrounding offshore wind are high.
A recent presentation by the board to CRMC said that while wind energy giant Orsted A/S says there will be no financial losses to the fishing industry, it could lose 30% in revenue over the life of the Revolution Wind project, amounting to $120 million annually in fishing “and related onshore business” over 30 years.
Much of the long-term effects of offshore wind turbine construction on the ecosystem is unknown, says Kevin Stokesbury, dean of the School for Marine Science and Technology at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. He also serves on a committee advising Massachusetts on the Vineyard Wind development.
What for centuries has been mostly sand and mud will become checkered with artificial reefs created by the turbines, he says. There could also be changes to the ocean’s electromagnetic field that fish use to navigate.
“You are introducing a new ecosystem,” he said. “It’s a huge experiment in biogeography.”
Brown says the regulations of offshore wind were designed to ensure proposals were small enough in scale so the environmental impact would be easier to determine.
Instead, “they went for big over smart,” he said.
A statement from the CRMC indicates that the agency intends to press forward without the Fisherman’s Advisory Board.
“While unfortunate, these resignations do not affect the CRMC’s review scope, obligations and timelines,” said CRMC spokesperson Laura Dwyer.
Christopher Allen is a PBN staff writer. You may contact him at Allen@PBN.com
