Limited ocean knowledge slows project permitting

As Rhode Island and other states accelerate their efforts to permit major offshore renewable energy proposals, scientists are finding it difficult to assess the projects’ impacts because of a lack of hard data.
Despite years of research, “there is still a limitation on how much we know” about specific sites in the ocean, Vin Malkoski, a senior biologist at the Mass. Division of Marine Fisheries, told a crowd at the University of Rhode Island’s Swan Auditorium on Feb. 5.
Malkoski spoke as part of the Mark D. Gould Memorial Lecture Series sponsored by the Rhode Island Natural History Survey, a private, nonprofit group that collects and distributes information about the state’s plants and animals.
The concerns expressed by Malkoski could complicate efforts by Rhode Island policymakers to speed the construction of two electricity-generating offshore wind farms, which are part of an agreement finalized in January between the state and Hoboken, N.J.-based company Deepwater Wind.
In his presentation, Malkoski broadened the focus beyond wind energy to all offshore energy projects, noting that proposals for offshore liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals are as common as those for wind farms.
Malkoski also stressed that it was not the role of researchers such as himself to favor one proposal over another. “We are scientists. We are advisory. We don’t make policy – that’s what the public process is for,” he said. “All I’m trying to advocate is that the best process possible [goes] into making that decision.”
To assist in that effort, the Atlantic Coastal Fish Habitat Partnership, a government-backed group that brings together Eastern Seaboard scientists, fishermen and other stakeholders, is developing a document to guide reviews of the habitat impacts of offshore energy projects. Malkoski and Chris Powell, a retired R.I. Department of Environmental Management biologist, are among those working on it.
But creating a good process is complicated by a lack of comprehensive, site-specific data for the ocean. Even many authoritative federal data sets are incomplete. “There are gaps,” Malkoski said. “It is, however, the best data that is available.”
The usefulness of state data is also limited. Although Massachusetts has done a trawl of the ocean floor twice a year for the past three decades, it only captures data for May and September in those areas that can be trawled, and even in those places it does not pick up some information, Malkoski said.
Furthermore, federal law requires the U.S. Coast Guard to complete its reviews of alternative energy projects within one year of the filing of permits, although the timeline can be paused if necessary. By comparison, similar-sized, traditional energy projects would usually take two to five years to review, Malkoski said.
And any pioneering project will almost certainly draw lawsuits, as has been the case with the long-stalled Cape Wind proposal in Massachusetts, which Malkoski helped review.
One complication for those tasked with permitting renewable-energy projects is that the public often sees them as requiring a less rigorous review than other developments because they are “green” projects.
Although there may be some truth to that in the big picture, Malkoski said, most renewable energy projects still involve major disruption to habitats. “Hopefully those changes will be temporary or avoided, but some will not, and you need to think about that during the process,” he said.
A renewable energy project would still involve dredging, blasting, and drilling, he said. Moorings, towers and platforms must be built, and cables and pipelines must be installed.
In addition, Malkoski emphasized the need for researchers to fully study all possible sites for development, rather than focus resources on one preferred location that may not be the one chosen in the end.
In his work as a marine fisheries expert, Malkoski said his job is to try to conserve habitat or, failing that, to seek other ways of offsetting a project’s impact. “Sometimes people think this is a narrow focus,” he said. “Is it narrow in terms of one aspect of a project? Yes. Is it narrow when you consider [that] the species we manage range from here to the mid-Atlantic? I don’t think so.”
Malkoski also shared some cautiously positive news. Studies of the two largest offshore wind farms in Denmark, at Horns Rev and Nysted, have found that they caused little harm to birds, fish or seals.
However, the Danish researchers have also said they noted significant differences even between the two wind installations in Denmark, and warned that may limit how relevant the results are to other proposed wind sites, Malkoski said.
The Rhode Island Natural History Survey plans to explore these issues further on April 23, when it will host a conference titled “Rhode Island’s Off-Shore Marine Ecosystem and the Potential Impacts of Alternative Energy Development” at the Quonset ‘O’ Club in North Kingstown.
The conference’s keynote speaker is scheduled to be Tony Fox, a research professor at the National Environmental Research Institute in Kalo, Denmark, who has studied the impact of the country’s wind farms on wildlife. &#8226