OCS EIS/EA 

BOEM 2012-003 

Commercial Wind Lease Issuance 

and Site Assessment Activities on 

the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf 

Offshore New Jersey, Delaware, 

Maryland, and Virginia 

Final Environmental Assessment 

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

Office of Renewable Energy Programs

OCS EIS/EA 

BOEM 2012-003 

Commercial Wind Lease Issuance 

and Site Assessment Activities on 

the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf 

Offshore New Jersey, Delaware, 

Maryland, and Virginia 

Final Environmental Assessment 

Author 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

Office of Renewable Energy Programs 

Published by 

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

Office of Renewable Energy Programs January 2012

FINDING OF NO SIGNIIFCANT IMPACT 

Commercial Wind Lease Issuance and Site Assessment Activities on the Atlantic Outer 

Continental Shelf Offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia 

Background 

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370f, and 

the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR 1501.3, the U.S. 

Department of Interior (USDOI), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has prepared 

an environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether issuance of leases and approval of site 

assessment plans within the Wind Energy Areas (WEAs) offshore New Jersey, Delaware, 

Maryland and Virginia would have a significant effect on the environment and whether an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared. 

The Renewable Energy Leasing and Development Process 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, added subsection 8(p)(1)(C) to the OCS 

Lands Act (OCSLA), which grants the Secretary of the Interior the authority to issue leases, 

easements, or rights-of-way on the OCS for the purpose of renewable energy development, 

including wind energy development. See 43 U.S.C. § 1337(p)(1)(C). The Secretary delegated 

this authority to the former Minerals Management Service (MMS), now BOEM. On April 22, 

2009, BOEM promulgated final regulations implementing this authority at 30 CFR Part 585. 

Under the renewable energy regulations, the issuance of leases and subsequent approval of 

wind energy development on the OCS is a staged decision-making process. BOEM’s wind 

energy program occurs in four distinct phases: (1) planning; (2) lease issuance; (3) approval of a 

site assessment plan (SAP); and, (4) approval of a construction and operation plan (COP). 

The first phase is to identify suitable areas for wind energy leasing consideration through 

collaborative, consultative, and analytical processes. 

The second phase is the issuance of a commercial wind energy lease. The competitive lease 

issuance process is set forth at 30 CFR 585.210 – 585.225, and the noncompetitive process is set 

forth at 30 CFR 585.230 – 585.232. A commercial lease gives the lessee the exclusive right to 

subsequently seek BOEM approval for the development of the leasehold. The lease does not 

grant the lessee the right to construct any facilities; rather, the lease grants the right to use the 

leased area to develop its plans, which must be approved by BOEM before the lessee can move 

on to the next stage of the process. See 30 CFR 585.600 and 585.601. On September 6, 2011, 

BOEM published in the Federal Register the proposed commercial renewable energy lease form 

(76 FR 55090). 

The third stage of the process is the submission of a SAP, which contains the lessee’s 

detailed proposal for the construction of a meteorological tower and/or the installation of 

meteorological buoys on the leasehold. See 30 CFR 585.605 - 585.618. The lessee’s SAP must 

be approved by BOEM before it conducts these “site assessment” activities on the leasehold. 

BOEM may approve, approve with modification, or disapprove a lessee’s SAP. See 30 CFR 

585.613. 

The fourth stage of the process is the submission of a COP, a detailed plan for the 

construction and operation of a wind energy project on the lease. See 30 CFR 585.620-585.638. 

iii 
BOEM approval of a COP is a precondition to the construction of any wind energy facility on 

the OCS. See 30 CFR 585.628. As with a SAP, BOEM may approve, approve with 

modification, or disapprove a lessee’s COP. See 30 CFR 585.628. 

The regulations also require that a lessee provide the results of surveys with its COP, 

including a shallow hazards survey (30 CFR 585.626 (a)(1)), geological survey (30 CFR 

585.616(a)(2)), geotechnical survey (30 CFR 585.626(a)(4)), and an archaeological resource 

survey (30 CFR 585.626(a)(5)). BOEM refers to these surveys as “site characterization” 

activities. See also http://www.boem.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/PDFs/GGARCH4-11-

2011.pdf. 

In addition to commercial leases, BOEM has the authority to issue leases to other Federal 

agencies and to States for the purpose of conducting renewable energy research activities that 

support the future production, transportation, or transmission of renewable energy. See 30 CFR 

585.238. The terms of these types of research leases would be negotiated by the Director of 

BOEM and the head of the Federal agency or the Governor of the relevant State, or their 

authorized representatives, on a case-by-case basis, subject to the provisions of 30 CFR Part 585, 

including those pertaining to public involvement. 

The “Smart From the Start” Atlantic Wind Energy Initiative 

On November 23, 2010, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced the “Smart from the 

Start” Atlantic wind energy initiative to facilitate the responsible development of wind energy on 

the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). This initiative calls for the identification of areas of 

the Atlantic OCS that appear most suitable for commercial wind energy activities, while 

presenting the fewest apparent environmental and user conflicts. These areas are known as Wind 

Energy Areas (WEAs). In consultation with other Federal agencies and BOEM’s 

Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Forces, BOEM identified WEAs offshore New 

Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. As a result of comments received on the Notice of 

Intent to Prepare this EA, Requests for Interest, and Calls for Information and Nominations 

published for these areas in the Federal Register, the WEAs have been further refined to arrive at 

the following areas that were considered for leasing in the EA (see Section 1.5 and Figure 1.2 of 

the EA): 

New Jersey WEA: The area offshore New Jersey considered for leasing is approximately 43 

whole OCS blocks and 26 partial blocks. The area begins 7 nm from the shore and extends 

roughly 23 nm seaward (or the approximate 100 ft depth contour) and extends 53 nm along the 

Federal/state boundary from Seaside Park south to Hereford Inlet. The entire area is 

approximately 418 square nm (354,408 acres; 143,424 hectares). 

Delaware WEA: The area offshore Delaware considered for leasing rests between the incoming 

and outgoing shipping routes for Delaware Bay, and is made up of 11 whole OCS blocks and 16 

partial blocks. The closest point to shore is approximately 11 miles due east from Rehoboth 

Beach, Delaware. The entire area is approximately 122 square nm (103,323 acres; 41,813 

hectares). 

Maryland WEA: The area offshore Maryland considered for leasing is defined as 9 whole OCS 

blocks and 11 partial blocks. The western edge of the WEA is located approximately 10 nm 

iv 
from the Ocean City, Maryland coast and the eastern edge is approximately 27 nm from the 

Ocean City, Maryland coast. The entire area is approximately 94 square nm (79,706 acres; 

32,256 hectares). 

Virginia WEA: The area offshore Virginia considered for leasing consists of 22 whole OCS 

blocks and 4 partial blocks. The western edge of the area is approximately 18 nm from Virginia 

Beach, and the eastern edge is approximately 37 nm from Virginia Beach. The entire area is 

approximately 164 square nm (138,788 acres; 56,165 hectares). 

Nature of the Analysis in the EA 

 

BOEM prepared the EA to inform decisions to issue leases in these refined WEAs, and to 

subsequently approve SAPs on those leases. As discussed above, BOEM does not issue permits 

for shallow hazards, geological, geotechnical, or archaeological resource surveys. However, 

since BOEM regulations require that a lessee include the results of these surveys in its 

application for COP approval, the EA treated the environmental consequences of these surveys 

as reasonably foreseeable consequences of issuing a lease. 

Thus, the EA analyzes the reasonably foreseeable consequences associated with two distinct 

BOEM actions in the WEAs: 

(1) Lease issuance (including reasonably foreseeable consequences associated with 

shallow hazards, geological, geotechnical, and archaeological resource surveys); and 

(2) SAP approval (including reasonably foreseeable consequences associated with the 

installation and operation of a meteorological tower and/or meteorological buoys). 

 

Additional analysis under NEPA will be required before any future decision is made 

regarding construction or operation of any wind energy facility on leases that may be issued 

within the WEAs. BOEM is not currently reviewing any COP, nor has any COP been submitted 

for the agency’s consideration in the aforementioned WEAs. The purpose of conducting surveys 

and installing meteorological measurement devices is to assess the wind resources in the lease 

area and to characterize the environmental and socioeconomic resources and conditions so that a 

lessee can determine whether the site is suitable for commercial development and, if so, submit a 

COP for BOEM review. 

The issuance of a lease does not mean, should a lessee submit a COP in the future, that COP 

would be approved, or that lease will ultimately be developed at all. Rather, the lease only grants 

the lessee the exclusive right to use the leasehold to gather resource and site characterization 

information and develop its plans, and to subsequently seek BOEM approval of its plans for the 

development of the leasehold (see the proposed renewable energy commercial lease form at 76 

FR 55090). Should a lessee submit a COP, BOEM would consider its merits, perform the 

necessary consultations with the appropriate state, federal, local, and tribal entities, solicit input 

from the public and the appropriate State Task Force(s), and perform an independent site- and 

project- specific NEPA analysis, before determining whether to approve, approve with 

modifications, or disapprove a lessee’s COP under 30 CFR 585.628. 

Therefore, the EA considers whether (1) issuing leases and (2) approving site assessment 

activities in certain areas of the OCS offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia 

would lead to reasonably foreseeable significant environmental impacts on the environment, and 

v 
thus, whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared before leases are 

issued (see 40 CFR 1508.9). As discussed below, BOEM finds that issuing leases and approving 

site assessment activities within the WEAs would have no significant impact on the environment. 

As a result, the preparation of an EIS is not necessary for BOEM to proceed with the lease 

issuance process in some or all of the WEAs. 

Should a particular area be leased, and should the lessee subsequently submit a SAP, BOEM 

would then determine whether this EA adequately considers the environmental consequences of 

the activities proposed in the lessee’s SAP. If BOEM determines that the analysis in this EA 

adequately considers these consequences, then no further NEPA analysis would be required 

before the SAP is approved. If, on the other hand, BOEM determines that the analysis in the EA 

is inadequate for that purpose, BOEM would prepare an additional NEPA analysis before 

approving the SAP. 

If and when a lessee is prepared to propose wind energy generation on its lease, it will submit 

a COP. If a COP is submitted, BOEM would prepare a separate site- and project-specific NEPA 

analysis. This may take the form of an EIS and would provide additional opportunities for 

public involvement pursuant to NEPA and the CEQ regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. 

This NEPA process would provide the public and Federal officials with comprehensive site- and 

project-specific information regarding the potential environmental impacts of the specific project 

that the lessee is proposing. BOEM will use a site- and project-specific NEPA document to 

evaluate the potential environmental and socioeconomic consequences associated with the 

proposed project when considering whether to approve, approve with modification, or 

disapprove a lessee’s COP pursuant to 30 CFR 585.628. 

Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences of Alternative A (Full Leasing of WEAs) 

In the draft version of this EA (published for comment on July 12, 2011 (76 FR 40925)), 

BOEM identified Alternative A as the proposed action and the preferred alternative. However, 

on September 26, 2011, BOEM received information from the United States Coast Guard 

(USCG) indicating that, should lessees attempt to develop commercial-scale renewable energy 

facilities in certain areas of the WEA offshore Virginia, substantial risks to navigational safety 

would likely arise. Although BOEM is not currently considering approving any COPs for wind 

energy generation facilities in any area offshore the Mid-Atlantic States, it would make little 

sense to give priority to issuing leases in areas that the USCG currently believes would not be 

suitable for development in the future (see also Section 2.3 of the EA). Therefore, and for the 

same reasons it eliminated USCG “Category A” areas from priority leasing in the Maryland 

WEA during scoping, BOEM ultimately determined that Alternative A should no longer be the 

proposed action and the preferred alternative, and instead identified Alternative E as the 

proposed action and the preferred alternative (see Chapter 2 and Section 4.5. of the EA). 

Alternative A is the alternative that contemplates the issuance of commercial and research 

wind energy leases within the maximum area of the WEAs offshore New Jersey, Delaware, 

Maryland and Virginia (see Figure 1.2 of this EA), and approval of site assessment activities on 

those leases. Alternatives B, C, and E contemplate issuing leases and approving SAPs in smaller 

areas offshore these states. Alternative D contemplates issuing leases in the same areas as 

Alternative A, but imposes seasonal restrictions on leasehold activities. Alternative A is 

generally anticipated to have the greatest environmental consequences of the action alternatives. 

vi 
As a result, Alternative A is the focus of the environmental analysis in the EA, and is the 

alternative against which the generally lesser impacts of the other alternatives are compared. 

Like the other alternatives, Alternative A presumes the reasonably foreseeable scenarios for 

leasing, site characterization, and site assessment (see Chapter 3 of the EA). Alternative A 

contemplates leasing the maximum area of each WEA, resulting in 13 total leases. Like the 

other action alternatives, Alternative A assumes that lessees would conduct the maximum 

amount of site characterization surveys (i.e., shallow hazards, geological, geotechnical, 

archaeological and biological surveys) in their leased areas, which, under Alternative A, would 

constitute the full area of each WEA. Under Alternative A, assuming that all lessees choose to 

install meteorological facilities, BOEM assumes that up to 12 meteorological towers, 25 

meteorological buoys, or some combination would be installed within in the WEAs. These site 

characterization and assessment activities are projected to result in about 12,000 round-trips by 

vessels over a five and half year period, which would be divided between 9 major and 28 smaller 

ports in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. 

Under Alternative A, as well as the other alternatives, BOEM would require lessees to 

undertake activities on their leases in a particular fashion for the purpose of ensuring that 

potential impacts to the environment are minimized or eliminated. These requirements will be 

imposed as stipulations in the lease instrument and/or as conditions of approval of a SAP. Such 

requirements include the unanticipated finds (“chance finds”) requirements described in Section 

4.1.3.1.2 of the EA and the mandatory project design criteria detailed in Appendix B of the EA. 

The reasonably foreseeable impacts of Alternative A (full leasing of the WEAs) on 

environmental resources and socioeconomic conditions based on the scenario above are 

described in detail in Section 4.1 of the EA and summarized below: 

Air Quality: Due to the low level of WEA-related vessel traffic that will be traversing any of the 

areas offshore or in the coastal or harbor areas of the Mid-Atlantic states at any one time over the 

course of five and one-half years of site assessment and characterization activities, and due to the 

existing air quality in these areas, the amount of human activity that emits air pollutants in these 

areas, and the short duration of emissions associated with Alternative A, potential impacts to 

onshore ambient air quality from the Alternative A would be minor, if detectable. Prevailing 

westerly (west to east flow) winds would prevent any substantial amount of emissions associated 

with Alternative A activities from making it to onshore areas from the WEAs. Emissions 

associated with Alternative A within port and harbor areas would be negligible, if detectable, due 

to the low volume of vessel activity associated with Alternative A, particularly when compared 

to the high volume of historic, current, and anticipated future activity in and around these areas 

which emit pollution, and in light of the ambient air quality in most of these areas. A nonroutine event such as a diesel spill may have short-term impacts on ambient air quality in a 

localized area, but these effects would dissipate very quickly. Neither routine activities nor nonroutine events associated with Alternative A in harbor areas, coastal waters, or in the WEAs 

would significantly impact onshore air quality, including the Brigantine Wilderness Area Class I 

Area. 

Water Quality: Impacts to coastal and marine waters from vessel discharges associated with 

Alternative A should be of short duration and remain minimal, if detectable. Sediment 

disturbance resulting from anchoring and coring would be short-term, temporarily impacting 

local turbidity and water clarity. As a result, sediment disturbance resulting from Alternative A 

is not anticipated to result in any significant impact to any area within the WEAs or along any 

vii 
potential transmission cable route. Since collisions and allisions occur infrequently and rarely 

result in a spill, the risk of a spill would be small. In the unlikely event of a fuel spill, minimal 

impacts would result since the spill would very likely be small, and would dissipate and 

biodegrade within a short time. As a result, the potential impacts to water quality are not 

expected to be significant. Storms may disturb surface waters and cause a faster dissipation of 

diesel if spilled, but impacts to water quality would be negligible and of a short duration. 

Therefore, impacts from vessel discharges, sediment disturbance, and potential spills associated 

with Alternative A on harbors, ports, coastal areas, and WEAs would be minor. 

Coastal Habitats: Since no expansion of existing onshore facilities is expected to occur as a 

result of Alternative A, impacts from routine activities would be limited to a negligible increase, 

if any, to wake induced erosion around the smaller, non-armored, waterways that may be used by 

project-related vessels. Impacts to coastal habitats from an accidental diesel fuel spill, should 

one occur, would likely be negligible, localized, and temporary. 

Benthic Resources: The primary reasonably foreseeable impacts resulting from routine activities 

on benthic communities would be direct contact by anchors, driven piles, and scour protection 

that could cause crushing or smothering. The data collected during HRG surveys would indicate 

the presence of any potential benthic resources, so that sensitive habitat types, such as hard 

bottom and live bottom habitats, would be avoided by the lessee during sub-bottom sampling and 

when meteorological facility siting decisions are made. As a result, Alternative A is not 

anticipated to result in any significant impact to benthic communities. 

Marine Mammals: Alternative A is not anticipated to result in any significant or populationlevel effects to marine mammals. Under all alternatives, lessees would be required to abide by 

the mandatory project design criteria detailed in Appendix B of the EA. See also discussion of 

NMFS Concurrence, Section 5.2.1 of the EA. The potential effects to marine mammals are 

expected to be very localized and temporary resulting in minimal to negligible harassment 

depending on the specific activity. The impacts are considered minimal due to the impact 

producing factor itself in certain instances (e.g., most sonar work and grab samples), and/or the 

limited spatial and/or temporal extent of the activity in other instances (e.g. vessel transits and 

pile driving activity). Specifically, harassment from sound and slight increases in the risk of 

vessel collisions are the primary potential impacts to marine mammals associated with 

Alternative A, but these impacts, if any, are anticipated to be minimal. This conclusion is 

supported by the NMFS, which agreed that the activities to be conducted are not likely to 

adversely affect listed whales when implemented according to BOEM’s mandatory project 

design criteria detailed in Appendix B of the EA (USDOC, NOAA, NMFS 2011c). 

Sea Turtles: The effects of Alternative A to sea turtles, specifically leatherback, loggerhead, 

Kemp’s ridley, and green sea turtles, are expected to be short term and would result in minimal 

to negligible harassment. See discussion of NMFS Concurrence, Section 5.2.1 of this EA. The 

impacts are considered minimal due to the nature of the activity itself in some cases, and the 

spatial-temporal setting in which the activity associated with Alternative A would take place. 

Harassment from noise, minor loss/displacement from forage areas, and to a lesser degree vessel 

collisions, are the primary anticipated direct and indirect impacts to ESA-listed sea turtles, but 

these impacts are anticipated to be minimal. Thus, the consequences to sea turtles are not 

anticipated to be significant. This conclusion is supported by the NMFS, which agreed that the 

viii 
activities contemplated under Alternative A are not likely to adversely affect sea turtles when 

implemented according to BOEM’s mandatory project design criteria detailed in Appendix B of 

the EA (USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 2011c). 

Birds: While birds may be affected by vessel discharges, the presence of meteorological towers 

and buoys, vessel discharges, and accidental fuel releases, activities and events associated with 

Alternative A pose no threat of significant impacts to these animals. See discussion of USFWS 

Concurrence, Section 5.2.1 of this EA. The risk of collisions with meteorological towers would 

be minor due to the small number of towers proposed, their size, and their distance from shore 

and each other. The impact of meteorological buoys on ESA-listed and non-ESA listed 

migratory birds (including pelagic species) is similarly expected to be negligible, because buoys 

are much smaller and closer to the water surface than meteorological towers, and would be 

similarly dispersed over a wide area. 

Bats: While it is rare that bat species would be foraging or migrating through the WEAs, these 

mammals may on occasion be driven to the project area by prevailing winds and weather. In the 

event bats are present, impacts would be limited to avoidance or attraction responses. Because 

of the anticipated distance between the meteorological towers and buoys, there would be no 

additive effect of constructing all the anticipated meteorological towers or placement of buoys on 

bats. In fact, the anticipated data collection activities (e.g., biological surveys) may assist in 

future environmental analyses of impacts of OCS activities on bats. To the extent that there 

would be any impacts to individuals, the overall impact of Alternative A on bats would be 

negligible. 

Fish and Essential Fish Habitat: Impacts from HRG surveys and meteorological tower 

construction noise on fish and essential fish habitat would be limited to behavioral reactions such 

as avoidance of, or flight from, the sound source. Fish that do not flee the immediate action area 

during pile driving procedure could be exposed to lethal sound pressure levels. However, 

BOEM’s mandatory project design criteria, including the implementation of a “soft start” 

procedure, will minimize the possibility of exposure to lethal sound levels (see Appendix B of 

the EA). Impacts to fish and their habitat from the discharge of waste materials or the accidental 

release of fuels are expected to be minor due to the limited number of structures and vessels 

involved in the reasonably foreseeable leasing and site assessment scenarios. Thus, potential 

population-level impacts on fish resulting from Alternative A are expected to be negligible. 

Archaeological Resources: Offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia to the 

seaward extent of the WEAs, where bottom disturbing activities associated with Alternative A 

would occur, has the potential to contain historic and pre-contact archaeological resources. The 

information generated from the lessee’s initial site characterization activities, the unanticipated 

discoveries requirement, and existing regulatory measures would make the potential for 

seafloor/bottom-disturbing activities (e.g. core samples, anchorages and installation of 

meteorological towers and buoys) to cause damage or significant impacts to archaeological or 

historic resources very low. Visual impacts of meteorological facilities and project-associated 

vessel traffic to onshore cultural resources would be limited and temporary in nature, if 

noticeable, and consist predominately of vessel traffic which most likely would not be 

distinguishable from existing vessel traffic.

ix 
Recreational Resources: Due to the distance of the proposed lease areas from shore, the fact that 

no new coastal infrastructure would be necessary, and the small amount of vessel traffic 

associated with Alternative A that would be present in any given recreational area (particularly 

given the existing amount of vessel traffic currently traversing these areas), no impacts to coastal 

recreational resources from routine activities or potential spills are expected. While impacts 

could occur from marine trash and debris, it is unlikely that any additional trash that could be 

associated with Alternative A would be perceptible. 

Demographics and Employment: Alternative A is expected to have negligible but positive 

impacts on the population and employment of coastal counties of Virginia, Maryland, Delaware 

and New Jersey that would provide support services for project-related site assessment and 

characterization activities. 

Environmental Justice: Due to the distance from shore of the proposed lease areas and the use of 

existing facilities, Alternative A is not expected to have disproportionately high or adverse 

environmental or health effects on minority or low-income populations. 

Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure: Since existing ports or industrial areas are expected to be 

used, and expansion of these existing facilities is not anticipated to support Alternative A, no 

significant impact on land use or coastal infrastructure is expected as a result of Alternative A. 

Commercial and Recreational Fishing Activities: The increase in vessel traffic, and activities 

related to the installation/operation of the meteorological towers and buoys would not 

significantly impact commercial or recreational fishing activities, total catch of fish and shellfish, 

or navigation over any substantial period of time. Any impacts, such as localized fishing 

displacement and/or target species availability within the immediate area of anticipated projectrelated site assessment and characterization activities, would be of short duration, limited area, 

and temporary, and result in negligible impacts to fishing. 

Other Uses of the OCS: The increase in vessel traffic, and activities associated with the 

installation/operation of the meteorological towers and buoys would not significantly impact 

current or projected future shipping or navigation. It is unlikely that vessels would collide with 

meteorological towers or buoys due to USCG requirements relating to marking and lighting of 

meteorological towers or buoys, the fact that the WEAs were identified and refined to avoid the 

highest traffic areas, and the fact that the few anticipated structures are small and dispersed over 

such a wide area of ocean. An oil spill resulting from a collision or allision between a cargo 

vessel/tanker and a meteorological tower/buoy is not reasonably foreseeable due to the small 

footprint of these facilities, the fact that they will be lit and marked on navigational charts, their 

distance from each other and from shore, and the strong likelihood that a meteorological tower 

would collapse without serious damage to an oil tanker or large ship. In addition, survey 

activities related to Alternative A require relatively calm seas; therefore, it is unlikely that the 

vessel activities associated with Alternative A would occur during periods of adverse weather 

when tug/towboat routes may alter course and move into or close to the New Jersey, Delaware, 

Maryland and Virginia WEAs. 

Cumulative Effects: As discussed throughout Section 4.1 of the EA, the hallmark of the affected 

environment is one of past, present, and future human activities and anthropogenic impacts over 

x 
an extended period of time. The incremental contribution of Alternative A to other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions which may also affect the affected environment would be 

negligible. 

Throughout the EA, and in Section 4.7, BOEM considered the cumulative impacts of leasing 

and site assessment and characterization activities in light of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that may also affect the affected environment, including, but not 

limited to, projected future increases in vessel traffic, future increases in vessel traffic resulting 

from the anticipated widening of the Panama canal, existing and future onshore development, 

existing port and waterway usage, other potential future BOEM renewable energy-related 

activities (e.g., Atlantic Grid Holdings’ (AGH) right of way (ROW) grant application for a 

renewable energy transmission line, New York Power Authority’s application for a commercial 

lease offshore New York, surveying and installing meteorological facilities on existing interim 

policy leases), an application for constructing a renewable energy test facility in New Jersey 

State waters, existing buoys and other potential obstructions offshore the Mid-Atlantic states, and 

existing DoD activities in and around the WEAs. 

In summary, since a relatively minor amount of additional vessel traffic (12,000 round trips) 

would be added to already heavily used and impacted areas, the incremental impacts to coastal 

habitats and the economy from onshore activities associated with Alternative A would be 

negligible, if detectable. Offshore, the impacts of this additional vessel traffic generated by 

Alternative A would likely be undetectable compared to the millions of military, commercial and 

recreational vessel trips projected to occur during the same five and one-half year period 

(USDOI, MMS, 2007a). 

While there are several meteorological, oceanographic, and navigational buoys installed in 

vicinity of the WEAs, there are currently no meteorological towers or buoys installed within the 

New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia WEAs. Due to the distance between the 

anticipated structures and the impacts associated with installing, maintaining, and 

decommissioning these structures, overlapping or additive impacts are not anticipated to be 

significant. Since the proposed action would account for nearly all of the meteorological towers 

and buoys in the WEAs, the cumulative impacts of the installation, operation and 

decommissioning of meteorological towers and buoys would be primarily a result of approving 

SAPs in the WEAs and, therefore would likely be negligible to minor on all environmental 

resources and socioeconomic conditions, as described above. Even in light of the potential 

impacts associated with other offshore projects, such as AGH’s proposed ROW grant, the 

installation of meteorological facilities on existing Interim Policy leases, New York Power 

Authority’s application for a commercial lease offshore Long Island, and Fishermen’s Energy’s 

proposal to construct a renewable energy test project in New Jersey State waters, the cumulative 

impacts of issuing leases and approving SAPs in the WEAs are not anticipated to be significant. 

Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences of Alternative B (Removal of Anchorage 

Ground Offshore Delaware) 

Under Alternative B, lease issuance and approval of site assessment activities could occur in 

all areas of the WEAs offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, except for a 

potential anchorage ground (equivalent to about a half of an OCS block) in the Delaware WEA. 

Like Alternative A, the reasonably foreseeable impacts of Alternative B would not be significant, 

though they would differ slightly from those contemplated in alternative A within and around the 

xi 
Delaware WEA, and coastal areas in Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey. Compared to the 

proposed action, the slightly reduced level of survey and construction activities under Alternative 

B would slightly reduce the impacts on environmental resources, primarily air and water quality, 

within the vicinity of the Delaware WEA. Under Alternative B, on-lease survey and 

meteorological tower construction activities that could impact vessel traffic density and patterns 

would not occur in the anchorage ground. It is assumed that the risk of collisions and allisions 

would be greater in this area, because it has higher concentrations of vessels. By eliminating the 

greater risk of collisions allisions in the area, Alternative B would provide a slight reduction in 

the overall risk of collisions and allisions than would Alternative A. See Section 4.2 of the EA. 

Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences of Alternative C (Removal of Category B 

Areas Offshore Maryland) 

Under Alternative C, lease issuance and approval of site assessment activities could occur in 

all areas of the WEAs offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, except for about 

82 percent of the Maryland WEA. Like Alternative A, the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative C would not be significant, though they would differ within and around the Maryland 

WEA, and coastal areas in Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey. Compared to Alternative A, 

the reduced level of survey and meteorological tower construction activities under Alternative C 

would reduce the impacts on environmental resources within the vicinity of the Maryland WEA, 

while producing slightly fewer positive impacts on the population and employment of coastal 

counties of Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey. Under Alternative C, survey and 

meteorological tower construction activities that could impact vessel traffic density and patterns 

would not occur in the excluded blocks. Due to the reduced level of vessel traffic and one less 

meteorological tower anticipated, Alternative C would provide a slightly lower risk of collisions 

and allisions than would Alternative A. See Section 4.3 of the EA. 

Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences of Alternative D (Seasonal Prohibition to 

protect the North Atlantic Right Whale) 

Like Alternative A, under Alternative D, lease issuance and approval of site assessment 

activities could occur in all the areas of the WEAs offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and 

Virginia. However, under Alternative D, high resolution geophysical (HRG) surveys and the 

installation and decommissioning of meteorological facilities would not be permitted during the 

peak migration of right whales, which is also when other marine mammals are most likely to be 

present. While Alternative D would reduce the risk of vessel strikes to North Atlantic right 

whales and other marine mammals in and around the WEAs, as a whole, it is not anticipated that 

the impacts of Alternative D would be substantially different from those anticipated in 

connection with Alternative A. In its Concurrence letter, NMFS indicated that, should 

Alternative A be implemented in accordance with BOEM’s mandatory project design criteria 

(see Appendix B of the EA), it is unlikely that project-related activities would adversely affect 

marine mammals, including the right whale (USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 2011c). Therefore, the 

degree of benefit to the right whale associated with selecting alternative D is anticipated to be 

marginal. Since Alternative D would be narrowing the window of time to complete 

meteorological tower construction and site characterization activities and could result in 

additional biological surveys, Alternative D may result in slightly greater overall impacts, but not 

xii 
significant impacts, on air and water quality than would Alternative A (see Section 4.4 of this 

EA). 

Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences of Alternative E (Removal of Inclement 

Weather Diversion and USCG Category A Areas Offshore Virginia) (Proposed Action - 

Preferred Alternative) 

Under Alternative E, lease issuance and approval of site assessment activities could occur in 

all areas of the WEAs offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, except for two 

full and five partial blocks OCS blocks in the Virginia WEA identified by the American 

Waterways Operators and USCG as presenting navigational safety issues, assuming leases in the 

areas other than the excluded blocks would be developed with commercial wind energy facilities 

in the future. Like Alternative A, the reasonably foreseeable impacts of Alternative E would not 

be significant, although they would be less than Alternative A within and around the Virginia 

WEA. The potential impacts of Alternative E would not be significant and would differ from the 

proposed action only within the Virginia WEA and in the coastal and harbor areas of Virginia. 

Compared with Alternative A, the reduced level of survey and construction activities under 

Alternative E would reduce the impacts on environmental resources within the vicinity of the 

Virginia WEA, while producing slightly fewer positive impacts on the population and 

employment of coastal counties of Virginia. Since survey and meteorological tower construction 

activities that could impact vessel traffic density and patterns would not occur in the excluded 

blocks, Alternative E would present a lower risk of collisions and allisions than would 

Alternative A, and would have generally lower environmental impacts than would Alternative A. 

See Section 4.5 of the EA. 

Alternative E has been identified as the preferred alternative because it maximizes the 

potential leasing area while avoiding those areas within the WEA offshore Virginia that, should 

they ultimately be developed with wind generation facilities, could pose a risk to navigational 

safety. Although BOEM is not currently considering approving any COPs for wind energy 

generation facilities in any area offshore the Mid-Atlantic States that could pose such a risk, it 

would make little sense to give priority to issuing leases in these areas that the USCG currently 

believes would not be suitable for development in the future (see also Section 2.3 of the EA). 

Therefore, and for the same reasons it eliminated USCG “Category A” areas from priority 

leasing in the Maryland WEA during scoping, BOEM ultimately identified Alternative E as the 

proposed action and the preferred alternative (see Chapter 2 and Section 4.5. of the EA). 

 

Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences of Alternative F (No Action) 

Under the No Action alternative, no OCS wind energy leases would be issued and no new 

site assessment activities would be approved within the WEAs offshore New Jersey, Delaware, 

Maryland and Virginia at this time. While any potential environmental and socioeconomic 

impacts from these activities would not occur or would be postponed, the collection of data 

necessary to successfully determine the feasibility of the proposed lease areas for commercial 

wind energy development from a dedicated data collection facility would not occur and site 

xiii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xix 

LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................... xxi 

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1 

1.1 Background.......................................................................................................................1 

1.1.1 “Smart from the Start” Atlantic Wind Energy Initiative .......................................... 1 

1.1.2 BOEM Authority and Regulatory Process................................................................ 1 

1.2 Purpose and Need .............................................................................................................2 

1.3 Description of the Proposed Action..................................................................................2 

1.4 Objective of the Environmental Assessment ....................................................................3 

1.4.1 Information Considered ............................................................................................ 3 

1.4.2 Scope of Analysis ..................................................................................................... 3 

1.4.3 Planning Process ....................................................................................................... 5 

1.5 Development and Refinement of Wind Energy Areas .....................................................5 

1.6 Existing Interim Policy Leases .........................................................................................9 

2 ALTERNATIVES.................................................................................................................13 

2.1 Alternative A – Full Leasing of the WEAs.....................................................................14 

2.2 Alternative B – Removal of Anchorage Ground Offshore Delaware.............................15 

2.3 Alternative C – Removal of Category B Areas Offshore Maryland...............................18 

2.4 Alternative D – Seasonal Prohibition to Protect the North Atlantic Right Whale..........19 

2.5 Alternative E (Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative) – Removal of 

Inclement Weather Diversion and USCG Category A Areas Offshore Virginia ...........19 

2.6 Alternative F – No Action...............................................................................................21 

2.7 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................21 

3 SCENARIO OF REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTIVITY AND IMPACT 

PRODUCING FACTORS ....................................................................................................23 

3.1 Routine Activities ...........................................................................................................23 

3.1.1 Leasing Scenario..................................................................................................... 24 

3.1.2 Site Characterization Surveys................................................................................. 24 

3.1.2.1 High-resolution Geophysical (HRG) Surveys for the Collection of Shallow 

Hazards, Archaeological, and Bathymetric Data.............................................................. 26 

3.1.2.2 Sub-bottom Sampling...................................................................................... 29 

3.1.2.3 Biological Surveys........................................................................................... 30 

3.1.2.4 Timing ............................................................................................................. 32 

3.1.2.5 Onshore Activities ........................................................................................... 32 

3.1.2.6 Vessel Traffic Associated with Site Characterization ..................................... 33 

3.1.2.7 Operational Waste ........................................................................................... 33 

3.1.3 Site Assessment Activities and Data Collection Structures.................................... 34 

3.1.3.1 Meteorological Towers and Foundations ........................................................ 35 

3.1.3.2 Meteorological Buoy and Anchor System....................................................... 45 

3.1.3.3 Meteorological Tower and Buoy Equipment .................................................. 47 

xv 
3.1.3.4 Vessel Traffic Associated with Site Assessment............................................. 48 

3.2 Non-Routine Events........................................................................................................49 

3.2.1 Storms ..................................................................................................................... 49 

3.2.2 Allisions and Collisions .......................................................................................... 49 

3.2.3 Spills ....................................................................................................................... 50 

4 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES ...............................53 

4.1 Alterative A – Full Leasing of the WEAs.......................................................................53 

4.1.1 Physical Resources.................................................................................................. 53 

4.1.1.1 Air Quality....................................................................................................... 53 

4.1.1.2 Water Quality .................................................................................................. 59 

4.1.2 Biological Resources .............................................................................................. 68 

4.1.2.1 Coastal Habitats............................................................................................... 68 

4.1.2.2 Benthic Resources ........................................................................................... 72 

4.1.2.3 Marine Mammals............................................................................................. 77 

4.1.2.4 Sea Turtles ....................................................................................................... 98 

4.1.2.5 Birds............................................................................................................... 107

4.1.2.6 Bats ................................................................................................................ 114

4.1.2.7 Fish and Essential Fish Habitat ..................................................................... 118 

4.1.3 Socioeconomic Conditions and Impacts............................................................... 127 

4.1.3.1 Archaeological Resources ............................................................................. 127 

4.1.3.2 Recreational Resources.................................................................................. 132 

4.1.3.3 Demographics and Employment ................................................................... 137 

4.1.3.4 Environmental Justice.................................................................................... 138 

4.1.3.5 Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure ............................................................. 138 

4.1.3.6 Commercial and Recreational Fishing Activities.......................................... 142 

4.1.3.7 Other Uses of the OCS .................................................................................. 149 

4.2 Alternative B – Removal of Anchorage Ground Offshore Delaware...........................165 

4.3 Alternative C – Removal of Category B Areas Offshore Maryland.............................171 

4.4 Alternative D – Seasonal Prohibition to Protect the North Atlantic Right Whale........179 

4.5 Alternative E – Removal of Inclement Weather Diversion Area Offshore 

Virginia (Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative) .................................................185 

4.7 Alternative F – No Action.............................................................................................192 

4.8 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................................193

5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ....................................................................199 

5.1 Public Involvement .......................................................................................................199 

5.1.1 Notice of Intent ..................................................................................................... 199 

5.1.2 Notice of Availability ........................................................................................... 199 

5.1.3 Cooperating Agencies........................................................................................... 200 

5.2 Consultations.................................................................................................................200 

5.2.1 Endangered Species Act ....................................................................................... 200 

5.2.2 Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act....................................... 201 

5.2.3 Coastal Zone Management Act............................................................................. 201 

5.2.4 National Historic Preservation Act ....................................................................... 202 

6 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................207 

7 PREPARERS ......................................................................................................................227 

APPENDIX A Marine Mammal, Sea Turtle, and Large Epipelagic Fish Sightings Data..........229 

xvi 
xvii 

APPENDIX B Mandatory Project Design Criteria Related to Marine Mammals and Sea 

Turtles .....................................................................................................................263 

B.1. Mandatory Project Design Criteria related to Marine Mammals and Sea 

Turtles .....................................................................................................................265 

B.1.1. Requirements for All Phases of Site Characterization and Site Assessment 

Activity on a Lease .................................................................................................265 

B.1.2. Requirements for Site Characterization Surveys .........................................................267 

B.1.3. Requirements for the Construction of Meteorological Towers and Installation of 

Meteorological Buoys.............................................................................................269 

APPENDIX C Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment.....................273 

LIST OF FIGURES

Page 

Figure 1.1. Original WEAs offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia 

identified in the Notice of Intent. ............................................................................10 

Figure 1.2. Refined Wind Energy Areas offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and 

Virginia....................................................................................................................11 

Figure 1.3. USCG-Identified Areas Offshore Maryland............................................................12 

Figure 2.1 U.S. Coast Guard Proposed Anchorage Ground......................................................17 

Figure 2.2 Inclement Weather Diversion and USCG Category A Areas Offshore 

Virginia....................................................................................................................21 

Figure 3.1. Cape Wind Meteorological Tower...........................................................................36 

Figure 3.2. Examples of Lattice Mast Meteorological Towers..................................................37 

Figure 3.3. The zones of origin and tracks for the month of September during the 

hurricane season. .....................................................................................................49 

Figure 4.1. Water Quality Index for the Northeast Coast (USEPA, 2008b). .............................61 

Figure 4.2. Recreational charter boat fishing effort 2004-2008...............................................143 

Figure 4.3. Recreational party boat fishing effort 2004-2008..................................................144 

Figure 4.4. Annual Commercial Fishing – All Gear. ...............................................................146 

Figure 4.5. Military Activity Areas and Uses. .........................................................................151 

Figure 4.6. Interim Policy leases, traffic separation schemes and the proposed Atlantic 

Wind Connect project............................................................................................156 

Figure 4.7a. Delaware and Maryland AIS Vessel Count Data 2009.........................................161 

Figure 4.7b. New Jersey AIS Vessel Count Data 2009. ............................................................162 

Figure 4.7c. Virginia AIS Vessel Count Data 2009. .................................................................163 

Figure A.1. Bottlenose dolphin sightings – Spring (April-June, 1979-2007). .........................231 

Figure A.2. Bottlenose dolphin sightings - Summer (July-August, 1979-2007)......................232 

Figure A.3. Bottlenose dolphin sightings – Fall (October-December, 1979-2007). ................233 

Figure A.4. Bottlenose dolphin sightings - Winter (January-March, 1979-2007)....................234 

Figure A.5. Minke whale sightings – Spring (April-June) (April-June, 1979-2007)...............235 

Figure A.6. Minke whale sightings – Summer (July-August, 1979-2007). .............................236 

Figure A.7. Minke whale sightings – Fall (October-December, 1979-2007)...........................237 

Figure A.8. Minke whale sightings – Winter (January-March, 1979-2007). ...........................238 

Figure A.9. Fin whale sightings – Spring (April-June, 1979-2007).........................................239 

Figure A.10. Fin whale sightings – Summer (July-August, 1979-2007)....................................240 

Figure A.11. Fin whale sightings – Fall (October-December, 1979-2007)................................241 

Figure A.12. Fin whale sightings – Winter (January-March, 1979-2007). ................................242 

Figure A.13. Humpback whale sightings – Spring (April-June, 1979-2007).............................243 

Figure A.14. Humpback whale sightings – Summer (July-August, 1979-2007). ......................244 

Figure A.15. Humpback whale sightings – Fall (October-December, 1979-2007)....................245 

Figure A.16. Humpback whale sightings – Winter (January-March, 1979-2007). ....................246 

Figure A.17. North Atlantic right whale sightings – Spring (April-June, 1979-2007). .............247 

Figure A.18. North Atlantic right whale sightings – Summer (July-August, 1979-2007). ........248 

Figure A.19. North Atlantic right whale sightings – Fall (October-December, 1979-2007). ....249 

Figure A.20. North Atlantic right whale sightings – Winter (January-March, 1979-2007).......250 

xix 
xx 

Figure A.21. Summer (July 24-August 14) 2010 Marine Mammal Aerial Sightings Data........251 

Figure A.22. Leatherback turtle sightings – Spring (April-June, 1979-2007)...........................252 

Figure A.23. Leatherback turtle sightings – Summer (July-September, 1979-2007).................253 

Figure A.24. Leatherback turtle sightings – Fall (October-December, 1979-2007). .................254 

Figure A.25. Leatherback turtle sightings – Winter (January-March, 1979-2007). ...................255 

Figure A.26. Loggerhead turtle sightings – Spring (April-June, 1979-2007). ...........................256 

Figure A.27. Loggerhead turtle sightings – Summer (July-September, 1979-2007). ................257 

Figure A.28. Loggerhead turtle sightings – Fall (October-December, 1979-2007). ..................258 

Figure A.29. Loggerhead turtle sightings – Winter (January-March, 1979-2007).....................259 

Figure A.30. Summer (July 24 – August 14) 2010 Sea Turtle Aerial Sightings Data. ..............260 

Figure A.31. Summer (July 24 – August 14) 2010 Large Epipelagic Fish Aerial Sightings 

Data. ......................................................................................................................261 
LIST OF TABLES 

Page 

Table 2.1 Alternatives Considered.........................................................................................13 

Table 3.1 Projected Site Characterization and Assessment Activities for Alternative A......23 

Table 3.2 Typical Equipment to be Utilized during an HRG Survey....................................28 

Table 3.3 Projected Number of Meteorological Towers and Buoys......................................35 

Table 3.4 Projected Vessel Usage and Specifications for the Construction of a 

Meteorological Tower............................................................................................40 

Table 4.1 Total Number of Coastal Counties in Nonattainment of Each Criteria 

Pollutant per State..................................................................................................55 

Table 4.2 Mid-Atlantic Benthic Habitat Types1 ....................................................................74 

Table 4.3 Marine Mammals in the Mid and North Atlantic OCS Waters.............................79 

Table 4.4 Functional Marine Mammal Hearing Groups, Auditory Bandwidth, and 

Genera Represented from Each Group ..................................................................88 

Table 4.5 Modeled Areas of Ensonification from Pile Driving.............................................91 

Table 4.6 Sea Turtle Taxa of the Western North Atlantic ...................................................100 

Table 4.7 Relevant Counties Along the Mid-Atlantic Where Piping Plovers are Known 

to Occur................................................................................................................110 

Table 4.8 Occurrence (“X”) of Bats by State.......................................................................116 

Table 4.9 Major Recurrent Demersal Finfish Assemblages of the Mid-Atlantic Bight 

During Spring and Fall.........................................................................................120 

Table 4.10 Number of Coastal Beaches in New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware 

 and Virginia by County.......................................................................................134 

Table 4.11 Related Tourism and Recreation Economy by County, 2004..............................135 

Table 4.12 Population and Economic Data for Shore Adjacent Counties of New Jersey, 

Delaware, Maryland and Virginia........................................................................137 

Table 4.13 Total Commercial Fishery Landed Weight and Value in 2009 ...........................145 

Table 4.14 Top Ports by National Value Rank Adjacent to WEAs.......................................145 

Table 4.15 Projected Site Characterization and Assessment Activities for Alternative B 

(Removal of Anchorage Ground Offshore Delaware).........................................166 

Table 4.16 Projected Site Characterization and Assessment Activities for Alternative C 

(Removal of Category B Areas Offshore Maryland)...........................................172 

Table 4.17 Projected Site Characterization and Assessment Activities for Alternative E 

(Removal of Inclement Weather Diversion and USCG Category A Areas 

Offshore Virginia)................................................................................................186 

xxi 

1 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background 

1.1.1 “Smart from the Start” Atlantic Wind Energy Initiative 

On November 23, 2010, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced the “Smart from the 

Start” Atlantic wind energy initiative to facilitate the responsible development of wind energy on 

the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). This initiative calls for the identification of areas of 

the Atlantic OCS that appear most suitable for commercial wind energy activities, and the 

opening of these areas for leasing and detailed site assessment activities. 

On February 9, 2011, the former Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement (BOEMRE), now the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), launched 

the first phase of this initiative through the publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal 

Register (76 FR 7226). The NOI identified areas of the OCS offshore the Mid-Atlantic States – 

New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia – that appeared to provide the most suitable 

opportunity for wind energy development, while presenting the fewest apparent user conflicts. 

See Figure 1.1. These Wind Energy Areas (WEAs), were originally delineated in the NOI, and 

later refined. See Figure 1.2. These wind areas were developed and refined through extensive 

consultation with other Federal agencies and BOEM’s Intergovernmental Renewable Energy 

Task Forces of each affected state, taking place since October 29, 2010. See Section 1.5 for 

further discussion of BOEM’s Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Forces, and 

development and refinement of the WEAs. The NOI solicited public input regarding the 

environmental and socioeconomic issues associated with wind energy leasing in these areas (76 

FR 7226). 

1.1.2 BOEM Authority and Regulatory Process 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, added subsection 8(p)(1)(C) to the OCS 

Lands Act (OCSLA), which grants the Secretary of the Interior the authority to issue leases, 

easements, or rights-of-way on the OCS for the purpose of renewable energy development, 

including wind energy development. See 43 U.S.C. § 1337(p)(1)(C). The Secretary delegated 

this authority to the former Minerals Management Service (MMS), now BOEM. On April 22, 

2009, BOEM promulgated final regulations implementing this authority at 30 CFR Part 585. 

Under the renewable energy regulations, the issuance of leases and subsequent approval of 

wind energy development on the OCS is a staged decision-making process. BOEM’s wind 

energy program occurs in four distinct phases: (1) planning and analysis; (2) lease issuance; (3) 

approval of a site assessment plan (SAP); and, (4) approval of a construction and operation plan 

(COP). The first phase is to identify suitable areas for wind energy leasing consideration through 

collaborative, consultative, and analytical processes. The second phase is the issuance of a 

commercial wind energy lease. The competitive lease process is set forth at 30 CFR 585.210 – 

585.225, and the noncompetitive process is set forth at 30 CFR 585.230 – 585.232. A 

commercial lease gives the lessee the exclusive right to subsequently seek BOEM approval for 

the development of the leasehold. The lease does not grant the lessee the right to construct any 

facilities; rather, the lease grants the right to use the leased area to develop its plans, which must 

be approved by BOEM before the lessee can move on to the next stage of the process. See 30 

CFR 585.600 and 585.601. On September 6, 2011, BOEM published in the Federal Register the 

1 
proposed form to be used to issue commercial renewable energy leases on the OCS (76 FR 

55090). The third stage of the process is the submission of a SAP, which contains the lessee’s 

detailed proposal for the construction of a meteorological tower and/or the installation of 

meteorological buoys on the leasehold. See 30 CFR 585.605 - 585.618. The lessee’s SAP must 

be approved by BOEM before it conducts these “site assessment” activities on the leasehold. 

BOEM may approve, approve with modification, or disapprove a lessee’s SAP. See 30 CFR 

585.613. The fourth stage of the process is the submission of a COP, a detailed plan for the 

construction and operation of a wind energy project on the lease. See 30 CFR 585.620-585.638. 

BOEM approval of a COP is a precondition to the construction of any wind energy facility on 

the OCS. See 30 CFR 585.628. As with a SAP, BOEM may approve, approve with 

modification, or disapprove a lessee’s COP. See 30 CFR 585.628. 

The regulations also require that a lessee provide the results of surveys with its COP, 

including a shallow hazards survey (30 CFR 585.626 (a)(1)), geological survey (30 CFR 

585.616(a)(2)), geotechnical survey (30 CFR 585.626(a)(4)), and an archaeological resource 

survey (30 CFR 585.626(a)(5)), though BOEM does not issue permits or approvals for these 

activities. BOEM refers to these surveys as “site characterization” activities. See also 

http://www.boemre.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/PDFs/GGARCH4-11-2011.pdf. 

In addition to commercial leases, BOEM has the authority to issue leases to other Federal 

agencies and to States for the purpose of conducting renewable energy research activities that 

support the future production, transportation, or transmission of renewable energy. See 30 CFR 

585.238. The terms of these types of research leases would be negotiated by the Director of 

BOEM and the head of the Federal agency or the Governor of the relevant State, or their 

authorized representatives, on a case-by-case basis, subject to the provisions of 30 CFR Part 585, 

including those pertaining to public involvement. 

1.2 Purpose and Need 

The purpose is to issue leases and approve site assessment plans to provide for the 

responsible development of wind energy resources in previously identified WEAs offshore New 

Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. The need is to adequately assess wind and 

environmental resources of the WEAs to determine whether and which areas within the WEAs 

are suitable for and could support commercial-scale wind energy production. 

1.3 Description of the Proposed Action 

Alternative A is the issuance of commercial and research wind energy leases within the 

WEAs offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia as shown in Figure 1.2, and 

approval of site assessment activities on those leases. Of the alternatives considered in this EA, 

Alternative A contemplates issuing leases in the largest geographic area 

In the draft version of this EA (published for comment on July 12, 2011, 76 FR 40925), 

BOEM identified Alternative A as the proposed action and the preferred alternative. However, 

on September 26, 2011, the USCG advised BOEM that issuing leases in certain areas offshore 

Virginia posed substantial risk to navigation, should structures be installed on those leases. 

Although BOEM is not currently considering approving any COPs for wind energy generation 

facilities in any area offshore the Mid-Atlantic States, BOEM may not want to give priority to 

issuing leases in areas that the USCG currently believes would not be suitable for development 

in the future (see Section 2.3 of the EA). Therefore, and for the same reasons it eliminated 

USCG “Category A” areas from priority leasing in the Maryland WEA during scoping, BOEM 

2 
ultimately determined that Alternative A should no longer be the proposed action and the 

preferred alternative, and instead identified Alternative E as the proposed action and the 

preferred alternative. 

1.4 Objective of the Environmental Assessment 

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370f, and 

the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations at 40 CFR 1501.3, this Environmental 

Assessment (EA) was prepared to assist the agency in determining which OCS areas offshore the 

Mid-Atlantic States should be the focus of BOEM’s wind energy leasing efforts. 

This EA considers a number of reasonable geographic and non-geographic alternatives, and 

evaluates the environmental and socioeconomic consequences (including potential user conflicts) 

associated with issuing leases and approving site assessment plans under each alternative. 

1.4.1 Information Considered 

Information considered in scoping the NEPA document includes: 

1. Public response to the February 9, 2011, NOI to prepare this EA; 

2. BOEM research and review of current relevant scientific and socioeconomic literature; 

3. Comments received in response to the Requests for Interest (RFIs) and Calls for 

Information and Nominations (Calls) associated with wind energy planning offshore each 

of the Mid-Atlantic States; 

4. Ongoing consultation and coordination with the members of BOEM’s Intergovernmental 

Renewable Energy Task Forces in each Mid-Atlantic State; 

5. Consultation with potentially affected tribes in each Mid-Atlantic State; 

6. Ongoing consultations with other federal agencies including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the U.S. Department 

of Defense (DOD), and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG); and, 

7. Relevant material from the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Alternative Energy Development and Production and Alternate Use of Facilities on the 

Outer Continental Shelf, Final Environmental Impact Statement (Programmatic EIS) 

(USDOI, MMS, 2007a). 

1.4.2 Scope of Analysis 

BOEM intends to use this EA to inform decisions to issue leases in the refined WEAs, and to 

subsequently approve SAPs on those leases. As discussed above, BOEM does not issue permits 

for shallow hazards, geological, geotechnical, or archaeological resource surveys. However, 

since BOEM regulations require that a lessee include the results of these surveys in its 

application for COP approval, this EA will treat the environmental consequences of these 

surveys as reasonably foreseeable consequences of issuing a lease. 

Thus, this EA will analyze the reasonably foreseeable consequences associated with two 

distinct BOEM actions in the WEAs identified in the alternatives: 

(1) Lease issuance (including reasonably foreseeable consequences associated with 

shallow hazards, geological, geotechnical, and archaeological resource surveys); and, 

(2) SAP approval (including reasonably foreseeable consequences associated with the 

installation and operation of a meteorological tower and/or meteorological buoys). 

Additional analysis under NEPA will be required before any future decision is made 

regarding construction or operation of any wind energy facility on leases that may be issued 

3 
within the WEAs. BOEM is not currently reviewing any COP, nor has any COP been submitted 

for the agency’s consideration in the aforementioned WEAs. The purpose of conducting surveys 

and installing meteorological measurement devices is to assess the wind resources in the lease 

area and to characterize the environmental and socioeconomic resources and conditions so that a 

lessee can determine whether the site is suitable for commercial development and, if so, submit a 

COP for BOEM review. 

BOEM’s experience with the Cape Wind Project offshore Massachusetts, as well as its 

understanding of the evolution of the wind industry offshore northern Europe, has demonstrated 

that rapidly changing technology, different wind resources and wave conditions, various seabed 

characteristics, different project economics, and the variety of possible project designs can affect 

whether, to what extent, and how a lease ultimately develops. Additionally, project design and 

the resulting environmental impacts are often geographically and design specific, and therefore it 

would be premature to analyze environmental impacts related to approval of any future COP at 

this time (Musial and Ram, 2010; Michel et al., 2007). Since no entity is currently in a position 

to submit a COP (as no entity has yet been awarded a lease or acquired the necessary leasehold 

information to formulate such a plan), and since the specific information contained in such a plan 

would be determinative of the reasonably foreseeable environmental consequences associated 

with the development of any lease, BOEM will not speculate in this EA as to what the 

consequences of the potential future development of any leasehold within in a WEA would be. 

While analyzing the specific environmental consequences of project construction and operation 

would be impossibly speculative at this stage in the leasing process, this EA considers obvious 

navigational issues that could be presented by wind energy development on the OCS, when 

considering what areas should be leased. See Chapter 2, Alternatives, of this EA. 

This EA considers whether issuing leases and approving site assessment activities in certain 

areas of the OCS offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia would lead to 

reasonably foreseeable significant environmental impacts on the environment, and thus, whether 

an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared before leases are issued. See 40 

CFR 1508.9. After BOEM either issues a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or 

completes an EIS process, BOEM may issue one or more wind energy leases in the WEAs. In 

the event that a particular lease is issued, and the lessee subsequently submits a SAP, BOEM 

would then determine whether this EA adequately considers the environmental consequences of 

the activities proposed in the lessee’s SAP. If BOEM determines that the analysis in this EA 

adequately considers these consequences, then no further NEPA analysis would be required 

before the SAP is approved. If, on the other hand, BOEM determines that the analysis in this EA 

is inadequate for that purpose, BOEM would prepare an additional NEPA analysis before 

approving the SAP. 

If and when a lessee is prepared to propose wind energy generation on its lease, it will submit 

a COP. If a COP is submitted, BOEM would prepare a separate site- and project-specific NEPA 

analysis. This may take the form of an EIS and would provide additional opportunities for 

public involvement pursuant to NEPA and the CEQ regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. 

This NEPA process would provide the public and Federal officials with comprehensive site- and 

project-specific information regarding the potential environmental impacts of the specific project 

that the lessee is proposing. BOEM will use a site- and project-specific NEPA document to 

evaluate the potential environmental and socioeconomic consequences associated with the 

proposed project when considering whether to approve, approve with modification, or 

disapprove a lessee’s COP pursuant to 30 CFR 585.628. 

4 
1.4.3 Planning Process 

In 2010, BOEM began publishing in the Federal Register RFIs and Calls for the WEAs 

originally identified in the NOI pursuant to 30 CFR 585.210-585.216. See the section below for 

further discussion of the RFI and Call processes. The RFI and Call processes are planning 

notices designed to assist BOEM in acquiring environmental and socioeconomic information and 

determining whether competitive interest exists in acquiring a wind energy lease on the OCS. 

See 43 U.S.C. § 1337(p)(3). Anyone interested in acquiring a lease in the area identified in the 

RFI or Call must submit a valid expression of interest, which includes the identification of the 

specific block or blocks the applicant is interested in acquiring, and a general description of the 

applicant’s objectives and the facilities that it contemplates using to achieve them. See 30 CFR 

585.213. This information has assisted BOEM in developing some of the reasonably foreseeable 

scenarios on which the alternatives in this EA are based: 

(1) The reasonably foreseeable leasing scenario, which was used to determine how many 

leases a particular WEA could reasonably support; and, 

(2) The reasonably foreseeable site assessment scenario, which was used to determine how 

many meteorological towers or buoys, would likely be installed in a particular WEA. 

The RFIs and Calls also solicited public comment and information on all issues associated 

with wind energy leasing in the areas identified. BOEM has received robust public input in 

response to the RFIs and Calls dealing with a full range of issues including environmental, 

socioeconomic, user conflict, and refinement of the WEAs, all of which were considered in the 

preparation of this EA. 

1.5 Development and Refinement of Wind Energy Areas 

In consultation with other Federal agencies and BOEM’s Intergovernmental Task Forces, 

BOEM identified WEAs offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. As a result of 

comments received on the NOI, RFIs, and Calls, the WEAs were further refined to arrive at the 

area considered under Alternative A. 

Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP) 

On July 19, 2010, the President signed Executive Order 13547: Stewardship of the Ocean, 

Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes establishing a national ocean policy and the National Ocean 

Council (75 FR 43023). The Order establishes a comprehensive, integrated national policy for 

the stewardship of the ocean, our coasts and the Great Lakes. Where BOEM actions affect the 

ocean, the Order requires BOEM to take such action as necessary to implement this policy, the 

stewardship principles and national priority objectives adopted by the Order, and guidance from 

the National Ocean Council. Following the principles of CMSP, BOEM developed and refined 

the WEAs by coordination with the Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Forces. 

New Jersey WEA 

The Call for Information and Nominations for Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the 

OCS Offshore New Jersey, published on April 20, 2011, described how the WEA/Call area was 

identified through consultation with BOEM’s New Jersey Intergovernmental Renewable Energy 

Task Force (76 FR 22130). This is the same area identified as a WEA in the February 9, 2011 

NOI to prepare this EA (76 FR 7226). 

The New Jersey WEA and Call area were developed using the boundary of New Jersey’s 

Ocean/Wind Power Ecological Baseline Studies (OWPEBS), as a base. The results of the 

5 
OWPEBS (http://www.nj.gov/dep/dsr/ocean-wind/report.htm) helped to identify areas that may 

not be suitable for development, based on features ranging from physical obstructions and 

usages, to the presence and density of biological resources including avian populations and 

aquatic habitat. Certain areas were removed from consideration prior to the publication of the 

NOI for the following reasons: 

 The northern portion of the OWPEBS area was removed from further consideration 

due to the presence of a major shipping lane and telecommunications cables, and high 

bird densities. 

 The southernmost section of the OWPEBS area was removed from further 

consideration, where a large number of shoals and biological resources are 

concentrated (e.g., birds, marine mammals, sea turtles). The presence of these 

biological resources increases the area’s sensitivity to development and includes 

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). 

 The area of the OCS from the state boundary seaward to the 7 nautical mile (nm) line 

was also removed from further consideration. The 7 nm line is the point at which the 

OWPEBS identified that avian density steeply declined (moving from inshore to 

offshore). BOEM has excluded the area from the state boundary to the 7 nm limit 

due to high avian densities, the numerous shipwrecks, reefs, and shoals that occur in 

this zone, as well as the high level of recreational and commercial vessel activity. 

The New Jersey WEA was designed to avoid the following areas: 

1. Shipping lanes, traffic separation schemes (TSS), areas in close proximity to pipelines 

and cables, artificial reefs and shipwrecks; 

2. Shoals, since they function as feeding grounds and nurseries for various pelagic and 

bottom-dwelling species, as well as serve as fishing/feeding hotspots for recreational 

and commercial fishermen, birds, sea turtles and marine mammals; 

3. High Avian Densities—Areas with high avian densities are mostly concentrated in 

state waters along the coast. However, some hotspots can be found offshore, usually 

associated with shoals or other unique bottom features and/or oceanographic 

dynamics. 

4. Fishing Hot Spots—Although, usually associated with shoals, other natural and 

artificial bottom features can contribute to fisheries productivity, and should be 

avoided when possible. 

5. Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles— As shown in the OWPEBS, marine mammal and 

sea turtles densities are roughly evenly distributed throughout the study area, and low 

in number (with the exception of dolphins). However, marine mammal and sea turtle 

densities are often found to be higher near underwater features such as shoals and 

ridges; and, 

6. EFH— EFHs, although not well defined in the study area, are present for numerous 

fish species, and are known to use the area during all or some life stages. 

The area analyzed in the OWPEBS encompassed a portion of the TSS in the approaches to 

New York and a traditional transit route utilized by tugs and barge operators. Based on 

recommendations by the USCG, and considering the lack of information currently available to 

assess vessel traffic types, densities and routing direction of vessels leaving the TSS, BOEM 

determined that OCS blocks within and directly south of the TSS were not included in the WEA. 

OCS blocks within one nm of an identified traditional tug and barge transit route were also 

removed from consideration. 

6 
DOD conducts offshore testing, training and operations on the OCS offshore New Jersey. 

Certain areas were excluded from the WEA based on DOD assessments of compatibility 

between commercial offshore wind development and DOD testing, training and operations. 

No refinements have been made to the WEA since its identification in the NOI. The New 

Jersey WEA, under consideration in this NEPA document, begins 7 nm from the shore and 

extends roughly 23 nm seaward (or the approximate 100 ft depth contour) and extends 53 nm 

along the Federal/state boundary from Seaside Park south to Hereford Inlet. The entire area is 

approximately 418 square nm (354,408 acres; 143,424 hectares) and contains approximately 43 

whole OCS blocks and 26 partial blocks. See Figures 1.1 and 1.2. 

Delaware WEA 

On April 26, 2010, BOEM published in the Federal Register a RFI for an area offshore 

Delaware for the purpose of determining whether interest exists in acquiring a commercial wind 

energy lease there (75 FR 21653). The area offshore Delaware identified in the RFI was 

delineated based on preliminary indications of interest from developers in response to Delmarva 

Power’s Request for Proposals (RFP) in 2006 and through consultation with BOEM’s Delaware 

Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force. The area was situated between a TSS at the 

entrance of the Delaware Bay, and includes a 500-meter buffer from this TSS. 

On January 26, 2011, BOEM published a new notice in the Federal Register, a Request for 

Competitive Interest (RFCI) offshore Delaware, to describe a further refined area for the purpose 

of determining whether competitive interest exists in acquiring a lease there (see 76 FR 4716; 

Figure 1.1). A charted explosive dumping ground located in the westernmost part of the area 

identified in the RFI was removed from the RFCI in response to safety concerns. In addition, 

several aliquots (1/16th of an OCS block) along the northern and southern edges of the area 

identified in the RFI that were transected by the edge of the RFI area were removed. Of the 

aliquots transected, eighteen partial aliquots were retained in the RFCI area, primarily due to the 

relatively close proximity to land and shallow water. The RFCI described five charted fishing 

grounds and a potential vessel anchorage area, which were raised in comments submitted in 

response to the RFI by NMFS and USCG, respectively. The USCG had requested excluding 

from consideration a potential future vessel anchorage area located partially within the RFI area; 

however, given that establishment of this anchorage ground is pending rulemaking with no clear 

timetable for completion, the anchorage ground was retained in the RFCI noting that mitigation 

measures may apply pending the authorization of a future vessel anchorage area. Located in 

between two traffic separation schemes and the charted explosives dumping ground, the RFCI 

area is absent of shoals and high avian densities, and known ordinance disposal areas. 

 The WEA offshore Delaware identified in the February 9, 2011, NOI to prepare this EA (76 

FR 7226) is the same area identified in the RFCI. No refinements have been made to the WEA 

since the NOI was published. The Delaware WEA, under consideration in this NEPA document, 

constitutes the area offshore Delaware situated between the incoming and outgoing shipping 

routes for Delaware Bay, and is made up of 11 whole OCS blocks and 16 partial blocks. The 

closest point to shore is approximately 11 miles due east from Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. The 

entire area is approximately 122 square nm (103,323 acres; 41,813 hectares). See Figure 1.2. 

On April 12, 2011, BOEM published in the Federal Register a Determination of No 

Competitive Interest (DNCI) for the purpose of providing notice that no competitive interest 

exists in the area identified in the RFCI and NOI (see 76 FR 20367). The DNCI discussed 

concerns and comments expressed during the public comment period for the RFCI, including 

7 
consideration of important fishing grounds (see Section 4.1.2.7.1.2), exclusion of the potential 

USCG vessel anchorage area (see Sections 2.2 and 4.2) and consideration of a wider buffer 

between the area considered for leasing and the adjacent TSS (see Section 4.1.3.7.2). 

Maryland WEA 

The Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the OCS Offshore Maryland—RFI, published 

in the Federal Register on November 9, 2010, discussed how the RFI area was delineated 

through consultation with BOEM’s Maryland Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force 

(75 FR 68824). As a result of that consultation process, BOEM removed several OCS blocks in 

response to concerns raised by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources regarding the 

existence of cold water corals, recreational and commercial fishing activities, bird 

concentrations, shipwrecks, artificial reefs and certain benthic habitats, including shoals. The 

RFI area is the same area identified as a WEA in the February 9, 2011 NOI to prepare this EA 

(76 FR 7226). 

Since the announcement of the WEA, BOEM requested that the USCG identify those blocks 

that, should wind energy installations be placed on them, would present navigational safety 

issues. The USCG identified those OCS blocks or portions of the OCS blocks that it believes 

should not be developed because of existing and possible future increase in vessel traffic density. 

The USCG also identified OCS blocks or portions of OCS blocks that it believes require further 

study, including analysis of existing traffic usage and patterns, as well as projected future traffic 

increases. Additionally, the USCG identified blocks or portions of OCS blocks where the 

installation of wind energy structures appear to pose minimal or no detrimental impact on 

navigational safety. The USCG is studying these areas further to determine if their development 

would have any impact to navigational safety (USCG, communication, 2011). See Category C 

on Figure 1.3. In response to the input of the USCG, BOEM refined the Maryland WEA since 

the publication of the NOI to include only the latter two categories of OCS blocks. 

The Maryland WEA, under consideration in this NEPA document, is defined as 9 whole 

OCS blocks and 11 partial blocks. The western edge of the WEA is located approximately 10 

nm from the Ocean City, Maryland coast and the eastern edge is approximately 27 nm from the 

Ocean City, Maryland coast. The entire area is approximately 94 square nm (79,706 acres; 

32,256 hectares). See Categories B and C on Figure 1.3. 

Virginia WEA 

The WEA, identified in the February 9, 2011 NOI (76 FR 7226), was delineated through 

consultation with BOEM’s Virginia Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force. No RFI 

or Call has yet been issued to gauge competitive interest in acquiring a lease offshore Virginia. 

BOEM identified this WEA to avoid sensitive ecological habitat and shoals along the coast north 

of the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, as well as a number of other important use areas, such as 

DOD training areas, a charted dredge disposal site, areas of concern specified by the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center’s Wallops Flight 

Facility, and the traffic separation schemes. BOEM included portions of OCS Block 6109 for 

which the Commonwealth of Virginia, January 13, 2010, submitted an unsolicited request for a 

renewable energy research lease to be held by the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and 

Energy. The request contemplated placement of three wind turbine test platforms on the lease. 

Subsequent to BOEM’s receipt of the research lease request, the USCG determined that wind 

energy structures in OCS Block 6109 would constitute a hazard to navigation. In addition, the 

8 
Virginia Maritime Association, in their March 3, 2011, response to the NOI, requested that OCS 

Block 6109 be removed from further leasing consideration, because, should wind energy 

structures ultimately be placed in that area, they could pose a potentially hazardous impediment 

to navigation. BOEM has determined that activities, such as the installation of meteorological 

towers and buoys on OCS Block 6109 would constitute a hazard to navigation, and therefore 

removed the block from the WEA after publication of the NOI. See Figure 1.1. 

The Virginia WEA, under consideration in this NEPA document, consists of 22 whole OCS 

blocks and 4 partial blocks. The western edge of the area is approximately 18 nm from Virginia 

Beach, and the eastern edge is approximately 37 nm from Virginia Beach. The entire area is 

approximately 164 square nm (138,788 acres; 56,165 hectares). See Figure 1.2. 

1.6 Existing Interim Policy Leases 

It should be noted that, on November 6, 2007, the MMS issued an Interim Policy for 

authorizing the issuance of leases for the installation of offshore data collection and technology 

testing facilities on the OCS (72 FR 62673). In November 2009, the MMS issued four Interim 

Policy leases offshore New Jersey and Delaware for data collection facilities (meteorological 

tower/buoys) to assess wind resource potential in these areas. Three Interim Policy leases were 

issued offshore New Jersey in the following lease blocks for wind resource data collection: 

Wilmington NJ 18-02 Blocks 6931, 6836 and 7033. One Interim Policy lease was issued 

offshore Delaware in lease block Salisbury NJ 18-05 Block 6325. On July 11, 2011, 

Fishermen’s Energy of New Jersey (FERN), LLC submitted their final project plan to BOEM for 

their Interim Lease on OCS Block 6931 to begin meteorological and oceanographic data 

collection. BOEM is in the process of reviewing FERN’s final project plan. Site assessment 

activities authorized under the four Interim Policy leases are not analyzed, as part of the 

proposed action or alternatives considered in this EA. The environmental consequences of those 

activities are instead considered in the cumulative impacts section of this NEPA document and in 

the Issuance of Leases for Wind Resource Data Collection on the Outer Continental Shelf 

Offshore Delaware and New Jersey Environmental Assessment (Interim Policy EA) (USDOI, 

MMS, 2009a). 

 

9 
Figure 1.1. Original WEAs offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and 

Virginia identified in the Notice of Intent. 

10 
Figure 1.2. Refined Wind Energy Areas offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland 

and Virginia. 

11 
12 

Figure 1.3. USCG-Identified Areas Offshore Maryland. 
2 ALTERNATIVES 

This chapter describes a number of geographic and non-geographic alternatives for lease 

issuance and the approval of site assessment activities within WEAs offshore New Jersey, 

Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. See Table 2.1. These alternatives were developed based on 

input from the following sources: 

 Responses to the February 9, 2011 NOI to prepare this EA (76 FR 7226); 

 Input from other Federal agencies; and 

 Environmental analysis conducted for this EA. 

In the Draft EA put out for public comment on July 12, 2011 (76 FR 40925) Alternative A 

was BOEM’s proposed action and preferred alternative. On September 26, 2011, the USCG 

advised BOEM that issuing leases in certain areas offshore Virginia posed substantial risk to 

navigation, should structures be installed on those leases. Although BOEM is not currently 

considering approving any COPs for wind energy generation facilities in any area offshore the 

Mid-Atlantic States, BOEM may not want to give priority to issuing leases in areas that the 

USCG currently believes would not be suitable for development in the future. As a result, 

BOEM has modified Alternative E accordingly and has identified Alternative E as the proposed 

action and the preferred alternative. 

Table 2.1 

Alternatives Considered 

Alternative Description 

Alternative A – Full Leasing 

for WEAs 

Under Alternative A, lease issuance and approval of site 

assessment activities could occur in all areas of the WEAs 

offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, as 

shown in Figure 1.2. 

Alternative B – Removal of 

Anchorage Ground Offshore 

Delaware 

Under Alternative B, lease issuance and approval of site 

assessment activities could occur in all areas of the WEAs 

offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, except 

for an anchorage ground (equivalent to about a half of an OCS 

block) in the Delaware WEA. 

Alternative C – Removal of 

Category B Areas Offshore 

Maryland 

Under Alternative C, lease issuance and approval of site 

assessment activities could occur in all areas of the WEAs 

offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, except 

for about 82% of the Maryland WEA. 

Alternative D – Seasonal 

Prohibition to Protect the 

North Atlantic Right Whale 

Under Alternative D, lease issuance and approval of site 

assessment activities could occur in all areas of the WEAs 

offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, except 

the high resolution geological surveys, construction and 

decommissioning of meteorological towers and buoys would 

not occur during peak migration of right whales. 

13 
Alternative E (Proposed 

Action and Preferred 

Alternative) – Removal of 

Inclement Weather Diversion 

and USCG Category A Areas 

Offshore Virginia 

Under Alternative E, lease issuance and approval of site 

assessment activities could occur in all areas of the WEAs 

offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, except 

for 2 full and 5 partial OCS blocks in the Virginia WEA (or 

19% of the Virginia WEA). 

Alternative F – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, no wind energy leases would 

be issued and no site assessment activities would be approved 

within the WEAs offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland 

and Virginia at this time. Site assessment activities authorized 

under the four Interim Policy leases offshore New Jersey and 

Delaware could still occur. 

2.1 Alternative A – Full Leasing of the WEAs 

In consultation with other Federal agencies and BOEM’s Intergovernmental Renewable 

Energy Task Forces, BOEM identified WEAs offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and 

Virginia. As a result of comments received on the NOI, RFIs, and Calls, the WEAs have been 

further refined to arrive at the following areas considered under the Alternative A (Section 1.4.3 

and Figures 1.1 and 1.2): 

New Jersey WEA 

The proposed area offshore New Jersey begins 7 nm from the shore and extends roughly 23 

nm seaward (or the approximate 100 ft depth contour) and extends 53 nm along the Federal/state 

boundary from Seaside Park south to Hereford Inlet. The entire area is approximately 418 

square nm (354,408 acres; 143,424 hectares) and contains approximately 43 whole OCS blocks 

and 26 partial blocks. 

Delaware WEA 

The proposed area offshore Delaware rests between the incoming and outgoing shipping 

routes for Delaware Bay, and is made up of 11 whole OCS blocks and 16 partial blocks. The 

closest point to shore is approximately 11 miles due east from Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. The 

entire area is approximately 122 square nm (103,323 acres; 41,813 hectares). 

Maryland WEA 

The Maryland WEA is now defined as 9 whole OCS blocks and 11 partial blocks. The 

western edge of the WEA is located approximately 10 nm from the Ocean City, Maryland coast 

and the eastern edge is approximately 27 nm from the Ocean City, Maryland coast. The entire 

area is approximately 94 square nm (79,706 acres; 32,256 hectares). 

Virginia WEA 

The Virginia WEA now consists of 22 whole OCS blocks and 4 partial blocks. The western 

edge of the area is approximately 18 nm from Virginia Beach, and the eastern edge is 

approximately 37 nm from Virginia Beach. The entire area is approximately 164 square nm 

(138,788 acres; 56,165 hectares). 

14 
Alternative A is the issuance of commercial and research wind energy leases within the 

WEAs offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia (see Figure 1.2), and approval of 

site assessment activities on those leases. This action presumes reasonably foreseeable scenarios 

for leasing, site characterization and site assessment as described in Chapter 3 of this document.

Based on the expressions of interest in commercial wind energy leases received by BOEM, 

BOEM assumes that the entire area of each WEA would be leased, resulting in 13 total 

leaseholds. See Chapter 3, Reasonably Foreseeable Scenarios, of this EA. This EA also assumes 

that the maximum amount of site characterization surveys (i.e., shallow hazards, geological, 

geotechnical, archaeological and biological surveys) would be conducted in the leased areas of 

the WEAs. A site assessment scenario was also developed to address the range of data collection 

devices that may be installed under approved SAPs. BOEM assumes that, for each lease, 0-1 

meteorological towers, 1-2 buoys, or a combination thereof, would be constructed or deployed. 

Since only one qualified company has expressed interest in the WEA offshore Delaware, and this 

interest was for leasing the entire WEA, only one lease is anticipated within the WEA offshore 

Delaware. See 76 FR 20367. This company already holds an Interim Policy lease authorizing 

the construction of a meteorological tower and/or buoy on its Interim Policy lease, so one 

additional meteorological buoy and no additional meteorological towers are projected in the 

Delaware WEA under the reasonably foreseeable scenario. As a result, up to 12 meteorological 

towers (should all lessees choose to propose meteorological towers on their leases) or 25 

meteorological buoys (should all lessees choose to propose meteorological buoys on their leases) 

are projected. These site characterization and assessment activities are projected to result in 

about 12,000 round-trips by vessels over a five and half year period, which would be divided 

between 9 major and 28 smaller ports in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. These 

leasing, site characterization and site assessment scenarios are described in detail in Chapter 3 of 

this EA. 

Under the Alternative A as well as the other alternatives, BOEM will require lessees to 

undertake activities on their leaseholds in a particular fashion for the purpose of ensuring that 

impacts to the environment are minimized. These requirements will be imposed as stipulations 

in the lease instrument and/or as conditions of approval of a SAP. Such requirements include 

stipulations regarding the unanticipated discovery (i.e., “chance find”) of potential 

cultural/historic resources on the seabed (see Section 4.1.3.1.2, stipulations specifying processes 

and operating procedures designed to ensure maximum protection of endangered species and 

marine mammals (see Appendix B). Such terms and conditions are included in Chapter 4 of this 

EA, under the discussion of the resources they are designed to protect. These requirements are 

included as a part of Alternative A itself, and would be mandatory on lessees under all of the 

alternatives considered in this EA. 

The impacts of Alternative A on environmental resources and socioeconomic conditions are 

described in detail in Section 4.1 of this EA. 

2.2 Alternative B – Removal of Anchorage Ground Offshore Delaware 

Ships frequently anchor in the vicinity of TSSs in unofficial anchorage areas, while waiting 

to go to port. There is such an anchorage area within the Delaware WEA offshore of Delaware 

Bay. See Figure 2.1. The USCG requested that an unofficial anchorage ground offshore 

Delaware, which it is considering designating officially, be excluded from consideration for 

leasing because, should those leases ultimately be developed with commercial wind energy 

generation facilities, USCG believes that those facilities would present navigational safety 

15 
concerns. The anchorage ground under consideration by the USCG is bounded on its southern 

border by the southeast approach to Delaware Bay, on its northern border by the charted 

ordnance dumping ground, and on its eastern border by the 12 nm territorial sea line, and is 

equivalent to about half of an OCS block in size. 

Alternative B differs from Alternative A in that the proposed anchorage ground (equivalent 

to about a half of an OCS block) would be excluded from leasing decisions under this action. An 

area slightly smaller (equivalent to about a half of an OCS block) than the area described under 

Alternative A would be considered for lease issuance and site assessment activities. 

All the environmental consequences associated with selecting Alternative B would be the 

same as those associated with Alternative A, except for the level of impacts associated with site 

characterization activities. Because the proposed anchorage areas would not be leased, 

Alternative B would result in a slight reduction (two percent), in site characterization survey 

activities compared to Alternative A (reduction of about 220 nm or 50 hours of high resolution 

geophysical (HRG) surveys and about 6-18 bottom samples). Like Alternative A, up to one 

meteorological buoy is projected in the Delaware WEA (Section 3.1.3 of this EA). However, 

under Alternative B, that tower or buoy could not be located within the proposed anchorage 

ground, and therefore would pose no risk of any obstruction to navigation. 

The impacts of Alternative B on environmental and socioeconomic resources are described in 

detail in Section 4.2 of this EA. 

16 
Figure 2.1 U.S. Coast Guard Proposed Anchorage Ground. 

 

17 
2.3 Alternative C – Removal of Category B Areas Offshore Maryland 

Until its completion of the Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study (ACPARS) in 2012 (see

76 FR 27788 (May 11, 2011)), the USCG has classified areas in the Maryland WEA into three 

categories (see Figure 1.3): 

1. Category A – areas that USCG believes should not be leased because, should these 

leases be ultimately developed in the future, they would pose navigational risks due to 

existing and anticipated future increase in vessel traffic density (equivalent to about 

18.5 OCS blocks); 

2. Category B – areas which, if ultimately developed, USCG is uncertain whether 

navigational risks will be presented. USCG has informed BOEM that USCG needs to 

study these areas further before determining whether structures in these areas will 

pose a risk to navigational safety. (equivalent to almost 10 OCS blocks); and 

3. Category C – areas in which potential future wind energy development currently 

appears to pose minimal or no detrimental impact on navigational safety (equivalent 

to about 2.5 whole OCS blocks). 

The USCG’s classification of these areas is based on its review of: available information 

including AIS data and user input; existing traffic patterns; existing literature, the consideration 

of opinions and advice of USCG subject matter experts on waterways management and the 

ACPARS Workgroup; applied concepts from the United Kingdom Maritime Guidance Note 

MGN 371 (guidance for determining risk levels based on proposed Offshore Renewable Energy 

Installations (OREI) distances from shipping routes); and opinions of senior USCG leadership. 

As referenced above, the USCG is conducting an ACPARS to determine how to best route 

traffic on the Atlantic coast. The goal of the ACPARS (see 76 FR 27788 (May 11, 2011)) is to 

enhance navigational safety by examining existing shipping routes and waterway uses, and, to 

the extent practicable, reconcile the right of navigation within designated port access routes with 

other reasonable waterway uses such as the leasing of OCS blocks for potential construction and 

operation of offshore wind energy facilities. 

Although BOEM is not currently considering approving any COPs for wind energy 

generation facilities in any area offshore the Mid-Atlantic States, BOEM may not want to give 

priority to issuing leases in areas that the USCG currently believes would not be suitable for 

development in the future. Based on the USCG’s recommendation and BOEM’s own 

preliminary analysis of vessel traffic data, BOEM has removed the Category A blocks from the 

Maryland WEA in all alternatives because the potential future placement of any wind energy 

generation facilities in these areas would pose a navigation risk to vessel traffic (see Section 1.5). 

The USCG will provide BOEM with additional navigational safety recommendations once it has 

completed the ACPARS. 

While the USCG did not recommend that the Category B areas be removed from leasing 

consideration, BOEM elected to consider this as an alternative. Selection of the alternative 

would exclude the Category B areas from the present leasing action and allow the decision 

maker to make future leasing decisions for these areas after the ACPARS is complete. 

Alternative C differs from Alternative A by excluding Category B Areas from leasing 

decisions under this action. Portions of nine OCS blocks (equivalent to about 2.5 whole OCS 

blocks) in the Maryland WEA would be considered for leasing and subsequent site assessment 

activities under Alternative C. Based simply on the reduced area, there would be about an 82% 

reduction in site characterization surveys offshore Maryland, and a 10% reduction to overall site 

characterization surveys associated with all WEAs contemplated in Alternative A. Due to the 

18 
reduction in area, one less leasehold is anticipated, so it is likely one fewer meteorological tower 

or two fewer meteorological buoys would be constructed under Alternative C (see Section 3.1.3 

for a reasonably foreseeable scenario for meteorological towers and buoys). 

The impacts of Alternative C on environmental and socioeconomic resources are described in 

detail in Section 4.3 of this EA. 

2.4 Alternative D – Seasonal Prohibition to Protect the North Atlantic 

Right Whale 

The North Atlantic right whale is among the most endangered whales in the world. Current 

estimates of the North Atlantic right whale population are between 350-400 individuals (Waring 

et al., 2010). Two primary human-induced threats have been identified – collisions with vessels 

(ship strikes), and entanglement with fishing gear. To reduce the likelihood of ship strikes from 

vessels engaged in site characterization and site assessment activities, Alternative D would limit 

vessel activity by excluding high resolution geological surveys and the construction and 

decommissioning of meteorological towers and buoys during the peak migration of right whales 

to and from the summer feeding grounds in New England and winter calving grounds offshore 

Georgia and Florida. The period of exclusion would be between November and April, when the 

whales are present, and would apply to all four Mid-Atlantic WEAs. Vessel traffic not 

associated high resolution geological and geophysical surveys (e.g., vessel based and aerial 

avian, bat, marine mammal, sea turtle, and fish surveys), and periodic maintenance trips to install 

meteorological towers and buoys would not be restricted under the seasonal prohibition 

contemplated in this alternative. 

The impacts of Alternative D on environmental and socioeconomic resources are described 

in detail in Section 4.4 of this EA. 

2.5 Alternative E (Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative) – 

Removal of Inclement Weather Diversion and USCG Category A 

Areas Offshore Virginia 

In response to the NOI, the American Waterways Operators (AWO) raised concerns 

regarding navigational safety in inclement weather and requested that BOEM exclude eight OCS 

lease blocks (6013, 6014, 6063, 6064, 6113, 6114, 6163, and 6164) within the Virginia WEA 

from leasing consideration (see Figure 2.2). The AWO states that: 

Under inclement weather conditions, vessel traffic plans require north and south 

bound tugboats, barge, and ATBs [articulated tug barges] to divert westward 

approximately 24 nm from Virginia Beach, through the proposed area of interest, 

between OCS leasing blocks 6013, 6014, 6063, 6064, 6113, 6114, 6163 and 6164. 

This area provides tugboats and barges with safer operating conditions, enough 

depth for tow-wires to sag 50 to 75 feet and provides ATBs with enough depth for 

under-keel clearance. Towing vessels would be forced to divert further west, 

away from the proposed area, in order to safely navigate around wind turbines. 

Diverting west, tugboats and barges would have to shorten their tow-wires and 

decrease speeds, placing crewmembers, vessels and cargo at additional risk, along 

with decreased maneuverability as they navigate through the shoals south of the 

Chesapeake Light Tower. To avoid navigating through such hostile 

19 
environments, vessels would have to be delayed while captains plot alternative 

bad weather diversion routes. 

In response to the NOA of a draft version of this EA, AWO, after consulting with their 

members who are intimately familiar with the area, informed BOEM that its comments stated 

above were incorrectly drafted. In a letter dated August 22, 2011, AWO revised its previous 

comment as follows: 

AWO believes it would be preferable instead to create a channel on the most western edge of 

the leasing blocks by eliminating a column of parcels on the most western edge of the leasing 

blocks by eliminating a column of parcels on the western edge of the proposed area [full 

OCS blocks 6111 and 6161, and partial OCS blocks 6011, 6061, 6110, and 6160]. This 

change will preserve an area currently used by members during inclement weather while 

making a large block of undeveloped ocean available for alternative energy development. 

As part of its continuing consultation with the USCG, BOEM requested that the USCG 

identify those OCS blocks in the Virginia WEA that, should wind energy installations be placed 

on them, would present navigational safety issues. On September 26, 2011, the USCG identified 

areas it believes would pose navigational risks should these leases be ultimately developed in the 

future (see Figure 2.2). Like it did in its analysis of the Maryland WEA, the USCG categorized 

these two full and five partial OCS blocks as Category A areas. The area identified by the USCG 

as Category A is the same as that identified as an area of concern by the AWO, except the USCG 

also found risk present in three additional aliquots in OCS blocks 6012. 

Although BOEM is not currently considering approving any COPs for wind energy 

generation facilities in any area offshore the Mid-Atlantic States, BOEM may not want to give 

priority to issuing leases in areas that the USCG currently believes would not be suitable for 

development in the future (see Section 2.3). Based on the USCG’s recommendation and 

BOEM’s own preliminary analysis of vessel traffic data, BOEM has identified Alternative E as 

the preferred alternative. 

BOEM revised Alternative E accordingly. Under the revised Alternative E, these areas 

identified by AWO and USCG would be excluded from leasing decisions under this action (see

Figure 2.2). As a result, an area slightly less than 20 OCS blocks in the Virginia WEA would be 

considered for leasing and subsequent site assessment activities under Alternative E. Based 

simply on the reduction of the area potentially leased, there would be an 19% reduction in site 

characterization surveys in Virginia (about a 4% reduction in overall site characterization 

surveys potentially occurring in all WEAs). Due to the reduction in area, one less lease is 

anticipated in the Virginia WEA; therefore, one fewer meteorological tower and/or two fewer 

meteorological buoys would be constructed (see Section 3.1.3 discussing reasonably foreseeable 

site assessment scenarios). 

Under alternative E, the scenario and impact analysis would be the same as that described 

under Alternative A for the WEAs offshore New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. 

The impacts of Alternative E on environmental and socioeconomic resources are described in 

detail in Section 4.5 of this EA. 

20 
Figure 2.2 Inclement Weather Diversion and USCG Category A Areas Offshore 

Virginia. 

2.6 Alternative F – No Action 

Under the No Action Alternative, no wind energy leases would be issued and no site 

assessment activities would be approved within the WEAs offshore New Jersey, Delaware, 

Maryland and Virginia at this time. Site assessment activities authorized under the four Interim 

Policy leases offshore New Jersey and Delaware could still occur (see Section 1.6). While site 

characterization surveys are not under BOEM’s jurisdiction and could still be conducted, due to 

the expense involved in conducting such surveys, it is not likely they would occur in areas that 

are not leased. The impacts of Alterative F (No Action) on environmental and socioeconomic 

resources are described in detail in Section 4.6 of this EA. 

2.7 Mitigation Measures 

Under the renewable energy regulations, after the lease is issued, the lessee may not 

commence construction of meteorological or other site assessment facilities until a SAP and the 

site characterization survey reports are submitted to and reviewed by BOEM (see 30 CFR 

585.605 – 585.618). The lessee’s SAP must contain a description of environmental protection 

features or measures that the lessee will use. 

21 
22 

For offshore cultural resources and biologically sensitive habitats, BOEM’s primary 

mitigation strategy has and will continue to be avoidance. For example, the exact location of 

meteorological towers and buoys would be adjusted to avoid adverse effects to offshore cultural 

resources or biologically sensitive habitats, if present. This EA also proposes several mitigation 

measures designed to reduce or eliminate potential environmental impacts or conflicts with 

existing uses. These proposed mitigation measures were developed through the analysis 

presented in Section 4.1, and through consultation with other Federal and State agencies. BOEM 

may make these proposed mitigation measures mandatory via lease stipulations and/or 

conditions of approval of a SAP should the specific conditions associated with a particular lease 

or SAP so warrant. 
3 SCENARIO OF REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTIVITY 

AND IMPACT PRODUCING FACTORS 

To describe the level of activity that could reasonably result from the proposed action and 

alternatives, BOEM developed the following scenarios for routine activities (Section 3.1 below) 

and non-routine events (Section 3.2 of this EA). These scenarios provide the framework for the 

analyses of potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts of Alternative A (Section 4.1 of 

this EA) and alternatives (Sections 4.2-4.6 of this EA). 

3.1 Routine Activities 

This section discusses the reasonably foreseeable leasing scenario, infrastructure that could 

be built and the activities (impact-producing factors) that could occur on those leases over the 

site assessment period (up to five years per lease) (see Table 3.1 below) subsequent to lease 

issuance, including site characterization surveys and the construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of meteorological and oceanographic data collection facilities. The routine 

scenario is intended to be broad enough to cover the range of reasonably foreseeable activities 

that would take place on a commercial or research wind lease, and structure types and activities 

that would be authorized under a SAP. 

Table 3.1 

Projected Site Characterization and Assessment Activities for Alternative A 

Site Characterization Activities Site Assessment Activities Wind 

Energy 

Area 

(WEA) 

Leaseholds 

High Resolution 

Geophysical 

(HRG) Surveys 

(max nm/hours) 

Sub-bottom 

Sampling 

(min-max) 

Meteorological 

Towers 

(max) 

Meteorological 

Buoys 

(max) 

New 

Jersey

7 31,100/6,900 900-2,500 7 14

Delaware 1 9,300/2,100 300-700 01 11 

Maryland 2 7,100/1,600 200-600 2 4 

Virginia 3 12,600/2,800 400-1,000 3 6 

Total 13 60,100/13,300 1,800-4,800 12 25 

1 Since only one qualified company has expressed interest in the WEA offshore Delaware and its interest was for the 

entire WEA, only one lease is anticipated for the WEA offshore Delaware. See 76 FR 20367. This company 

already holds an Interim Policy lease authorizing the construction of a meteorological tower and/or buoy on its 

Interim Policy lease, so one additional meteorological buoy and no additional meteorological towers are possible in 

the Delaware WEA under Alternative A. The environmental consequences of the meteorological tower currently 

authorized under the Delaware Interim Policy lease is analyzed in Issuance of Leases for Wind Resource Data 

Collection on the Outer Continental Shelf Offshore Delaware and New Jersey Environmental Assessment (Interim 

Policy EA) (USDOI, MMS, 2009a), and discussed in the Cumulative Impacts section of this EA.

To describe the reasonably foreseeable environmental consequences associated with lease 

issuance; and the approval of SAPs within the WEAs, BOEM developed the following scenarios 

based on the requirements of the renewable energy regulations at 30 CFR part 585, previous 

23 
lease applications submitted to BOEM, proposals for data collection activities under the Interim 

Policy leases received from January 2008 through February 2011 (USDOI, MMS, 2009a; 

Fishermen’s Energy, 2011; and Tetra Tech EC, Inc., 2010), and expressions of interest received 

in response to the numerous RFIs and Calls issued for the WEAs offshore each of the MidAtlantic States (Section 1.4.3 of this EA). Unless otherwise noted, assumptions in this section 

are based on these sources. 

3.1.1 Leasing Scenario 

A reasonably foreseeable leasing scenario is necessary to develop a scenario for site 

characterization and assessment activities. Given its nascency, there is no historical record to use 

to develop a leasing scenario for OCS wind energy. Instead, BOEM based its leasing scenario on 

the offshore wind industry’s unsolicited applications for commercial leases, and responses to 

BOEM’s renewable energy planning notices (i.e., RFIs and Calls). 

In response to BOEM’s renewable energy planning notices issued for WEAs offshore New 

Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, the offshore wind industry submitted expressions of 

commercial wind energy interest that completely cover each WEA. While a RFI or Call has not 

been published for the Virginia WEA, BOEM believes that this trend is likely to continue in that 

WEA as well. Based on the expressions of commercial wind energy interest received by BOEM 

it is assumed that the entire area of each WEA would be leased. 

Based on expressions of interest received by BOEM, proposed leases ranged from just a few 

OCS blocks to more than 20 blocks. The average size of a proposed wind energy lease is 

approximately 10 blocks. A lease size of 10 OCS blocks was used to determine the potential 

number of leases that may foreseeably be issued in the WEAs offshore New Jersey, Maryland, 

and Virginia. By dividing the total number of OCS blocks by 10, a total of 13 leases are 

anticipated under Alternative A. This includes 7 offshore New Jersey, 2 offshore Maryland, and 

3 offshore Virginia. Since only one qualified company has expressed interest in the WEA 

offshore Delaware and its expressed interest in the entire WEA, only one lease is anticipated for 

the WEA offshore Delaware. See 76 FR 20367. 

3.1.2 Site Characterization Surveys 

BOEM regulations require that the lessee provide the results of a number of surveys with its 

COP, including a shallow hazards survey (30 CFR 585.626 (a)(1)), geological survey (30 CFR 

585.616(a)(2)), geotechnical survey (30 CFR 585.626(a)(4)), archaeological resource survey (30 

CFR 585.626(a)(5)), and biological surveys (30 CFR 585.626(a)(3)). BOEM refers to these 

surveys as “site characterization” activities. It is assumed that the site of a meteorological tower 

or buoy would be surveyed first to meet the similar data requirements for a lessee’s SAP (30 

CFR 585.610-585.611), and the site would not be resurveyed when the remainder of the 

leasehold is surveyed to meet the data requirements for a lessee’s COP (30 CFR 585.626(a)). 

Although BOEM does not issue permits or approvals for these site characterization activities, it 

will not consider approving a lessee’s SAP or COP if the required survey information is not 

included. As it is unlikely that any applicant would invest in undertaking these potentially 

expensive site characterizations prior to acquiring a lease (which would convey the exclusive 

right to apply for SAP and or COP approvals), and since the survey information must be 

submitted to BOEM before any SAP or COP could be approved, this EA will treat site 

characterization activities as actions connected to the issuance of a lease. 

24 
As described in the Programmatic EIS, to locate shallow hazards, cultural resources, and 

hard-bottom areas; evaluate installation feasibility; assist in the selection of appropriate 

foundation system designs; and determine the variability of subsurface sediments, HRG surveys 

and sub-bottom sampling would likely be necessary to characterize a site. On April 21, 2011, 

BOEM posted guidance on its website titled, “Guidelines for Providing Geological and 

Geophysical, Hazards, and Archaeological Information Pursuant to 30 CFR Part 585” 

(GGARCH guidelines), which details the information that would be required to satisfy 30 CFR 

585.626(a) (see http://www.boemre.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/PDFs/GGARCH4-11-

2011.pdf). In this guidance, the agency provides descriptions of survey methods that, should 

lessees follow them, would very likely yield information sufficient to allow the agency to 

consider approving a SAP or COP. For the purposes of this scenario, BOEM is assuming that all 

lessees would employ these methods or methods substantially similar to acquire the information 

required under 30 CFR585.626(a). 

Lessees would only be required to submit survey information for those areas that would be 

disturbed or otherwise affected by future actions it proposes in a lease area. See GGARCH; see 

also 30 CFR 585.626. As explained further in this section, different types of site characterization 

surveys would be necessary to acquire the various types of information required by the 

regulations. Surveys with wider line spacing would likely be conducted for an entire lease area, 

while surveys for which narrower line spacing is recommended may be limited to the actual 

anticipated area of disturbance. This area of disturbance may or may not be equal to the entire 

lease area. However, in the absence of any specific proposal for ground-disturbing activities, 

this EA assumes that a lessee would survey the entire lease area at the narrower line spacing. 

As a practical matter, this assumption is reasonable because acquiring survey information for 

the entire lease area would give the lessee the maximum flexibility to propose structures in any 

area of a lease. For example, if the lessee only surveyed a portion of its lease, then, under 30 

CFR 585.610(b), 585.611 (SAP) and 585.626(a) (COP), it could only propose building 

meteorological towers or buoys or future wind energy facilities in those areas. Should those 

surveys reveal the presence of cultural resources or critical habitat, for example, in those areas 

that would preclude such development, then the lessee would need to conduct additional surveys 

on other portions of the lease that were not previously surveyed in order to find a location 

suitable for installing a facility. Doing so would incur duplicative mobilization costs (both 

financially and in terms of time) associated with the additional surveys. As a practical matter, 

comprehensive lease surveys would be far more efficient, and would allow the lessee the greatest 

flexibility in determining where on the leasehold to propose installing renewable energy-related 

structures. Comprehensive surveys would also accelerate the timeline for the lessee’s proposed 

activities by eliminating the delay and cost associated with conducting surveys in stages. 

Therefore, this EA assumes that the maximum amount of surveys would be conducted in the 

leased areas of the WEAs, and analyzes the environmental effects associated with maximum 

surveying. To the extent that lessee’s survey less than 100% of their leasehold area is the same 

extent to which the environmental effects associated with site characterization activities would 

be less than what is analyzed in this EA. If the lessee opts to conduct its surveys in stages, it is 

assumed that the potential site of a meteorological tower or buoy would be surveyed first to meet 

the data requirements for a lessee’s SAP (30 CFR 585.610-585.611), and that this site would not 

be resurveyed when the remainder of the leasehold is surveyed to meet the similar data 

requirements for a lessee’s COP (30 CFR 585.626(a)). 

25 
As discussed in Section 3.1.2.1 below, in order to meet the information requirements of 30 

CFR 585.610(b) and 585.626(a), different surveys would need to be conducted at various line 

spacing. See Section. 3.1.2.1, HRG Surveys, below. Those survey instruments that would need 

to be flown at the wider line spacing would very likely be attached to the same vessel surveying 

for a different resource at the narrower line spacing. For example, there would be no need to 

incur the extra time and expense in sending one vessel out to survey the lease area at 150 m line 

spacing for one survey, and send out another vessel to conduct a different survey of the lease 

area at 30m line spacing, when a single vessel could do both simultaneously. See GGARCH 

guidelines, Table 1. As a result, this EA assumes that the lessees would not conduct separate, 

redundant surveys based on needed line spacing, when the same vessel (or group of vessels) 

following the smallest line spacing could conduct all of the surveys necessary to acquire all of 

the relevant data in a single trip. 

3.1.2.1 High-resolution Geophysical (HRG) Surveys for the Collection of Shallow 

Hazards, Archaeological, and Bathymetric Data 

The lessee must submit the results of site characterization surveys with their SAP (30 CFR 

585.610 and 585.611) and COP (30 CFR 585.626(a) and 585.627). The purpose of the HRG 

survey would be to acquire geophysical shallow hazards data, information pertaining to the 

presence or absence of archaeological resources, and to conduct bathymetric charting. 

Assuming lessees would follow the GGARCH guidelines to meet the geophysical data 

requirements at 30 CFR 585.626(a), BOEM anticipates that the surveys would entail the 

following: 

 For the collection of geophysical data for shallow hazards assessments, side-scan 

sonar/ sub-bottom profilers would be flown at 150-meter (m) line spacing over the 

lease area; 

 For collecting geophysical data for archaeological resources assessments, 

magnetometers, side-scan sonar and all sub-bottom profilers would be flown at 30 

meter line spacing; and, 

 For bathymetric charting, lessees would use either using multi-beam technique or 

side-scan sonar mosaic construction that would adjust for depths encountered and 

provides both full-coverage of the seabed plus suitable overlap. Resolution of small 

discrete targets of 0.5 - 1.0 m in diameter is also necessary for the identification of 

potential archaeological resources. 

In addition, the geophysical survey grid(s) for proposed transmission cable route(s) to shore 

would likely include a minimum 300 meter-wide corridor centered on the anticipated 

transmission cable location(s) to characterize the seabed locations where physical disturbances 

may occur (e.g., anchoring of vessels installing the cable or movement of the proposed cable 

location, if necessary). See GGARCH guidelines. The following likely onshore transmission 

grid connection points have been identified: Bethany Beach and Indian River, Delaware; Cardiff, 

Hudson, Larrabee, Piney Grove, and Sewaren, New Jersey; and Fentress and Norfolk, Virginia 

(CIER, 2010 and Atlantic Grid Operations LLC, 2010). Line spacing for surveys associated with 

transmission cable route surveys would follow that described above. Since it is not yet possible 

to predict precisely where a power substation may ultimately be installed on any given lease 

should it be developed in the future, or the route that any potential future transmission line would 

take across the seafloor to shore, this EA uses direct lines between the potential lease areas and 

potential interconnection points on shore to approximate the reasonably foreseeable level of 

26 
surveys that may be conducted to characterize potential undersea transmission cable routes. See

Figure 4.6. The vessel traffic associated with surveying transmission corridors off-lease has 

been accounted for in the vessel traffic scenarios associated with Alternative A and alternatives 

in this EA. 

The possible types of equipment to be used during a HRG survey are summarized below and 

listed in Table 3.2). 

Bathymetry/Depth Sounder: A depth sounder is a microprocessor-controlled, high-resolution 

survey-grade system that measures precise water depths in both digital and graphic formats 

(PAL, 2006). The system would be used in such a manner as to record with a sweep appropriate 

to the range of depths expected in the survey area. This EA assumes the use of multi-beam 

and/or single-beam bathymetry systems. The use of a multi-beam bathymetry system may be 

more appropriate for characterizing those lease areas containing complex topography or fragile 

habitats. 

Magnetometer: Magnetometer surveys would be used to detect and aid in the identification of 

ferrous, ferric, or other objects having a distinct magnetic signature. The magnetometer sensor is 

typically towed as near as possible to the seafloor, which is no more than 6 meters above the 

seafloor. 

Seafloor Imagery/Side-Scan Sonar: This survey technique is used to evaluate surface sediments, 

seafloor morphology, and potential surface obstructions (USDOI, MMS, 2007a). A typical sidescan sonar system consists of a top-side processor, tow cable and towfish with transducers (or 

‘pingers’) located on the sides, which generate and record the returning sound that travels 

through the water column at a known speed. As explained in the GGARCH guidelines, BOEM 

is assuming that lessees would use a digital dual-frequency side scan sonar system with 

frequencies of 445 and 900 kHz and no less than 100 and 500 kHz to record continuous 

planimetric images of the seafloor. 

 

Shallow & Medium (Seismic) Penetration Sub-bottom Profilers: Typically, a high-resolution 

Compressed High Intensity Radar Pulse (CHIRP) System sub-bottom profiler is used to generate 

a profile view below the bottom of the seabed, which is interpreted to develop a geologic cross 

section of subsurface sediment conditions under the track line surveyed. A boomer sub-bottom 

profiler system is capable of penetrating depth ranges of 10 to 100 m depending on frequency 

and bottom composition. 

Table 3.2 below gives a list of typical equipment used in high-resolution site surveys and 

their acoustic intensity (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2004). This table is representative 

the types of equipment that BOEM has proposed in evaluating draft project plans received under 

the Interim Policy leases. It should be noted that actual equipment used could have frequencies 

and/or sound pressure levels somewhat below or above that indicated in Table 3.2. This scenario 

does not include the use of any air guns that are used for deeply penetrating the seabed to 

determine the location, extent, and properties of oil and gas resources (such as 2D and 3D 

exploratory seismic surveys), as renewable energy facilities are placed meters, rather than miles, 

deep into the seabed. 

27 
Table 3.2 

Typical Equipment to be Utilized during an HRG Survey 

Survey Task 

Example 

Equipment 

Model Type

Frequency 

(kilohertz) 

Estimated Sound Pressure 

Levels at Source (dB re 1μPa 

RMS at 1m) 

Singlebeam Depth Sounder Innerspace 

Model 448 200 kHz 202 to 215 dB 

Multibeam Depth Sounder Reson 7101 240 kHz 207 dB 

Side-Scan Sonar Marine 

Sonic 300 kHz 220 dB 

Shallow-Penetration 

Subbottom Profiler (CHIRP 

System) 

EdgeTech 

CHIRP 

System 

2-24 kHz 201 dB 

Medium-Penetration 

Subbottom Profiler (boomer) 

Applied 

Acoustics 

boomer 

0.5-8 kHz 205 dB 

Scenario for HRG Surveys 

This EA assumes that all of the WEAs would be surveyed in their entirety, and geophysical 

surveys for shallow hazards (150-m line spacing) and archaeological resources (30-m line 

spacing) would be conducted at the same time on the same vessels conducting sweeps at the finer 

line spacing. This results in about 500 nm of HRG surveys per OCS block (3 statue miles by 3 

statute miles), not including turns. Assuming a vessel speed of 4.5 knots (Continental Shelf 

Associates, Inc., 2004), and 10-hour days (daylight hours minus transit time to the site), it would 

take about 11 days to survey one OCS block or about 110 days to survey an average-size lease of 

10 OCS blocks. 

Since 13 leases are projected, 13 cable routes to shore are also projected to be surveyed. 

Surveying a 300 m-wide corridor along each potential cable route located outside of a lease area 

would result in about 5 nm or 1 hour of surveys per mile of cable. To survey all of the 

anticipated leases and potential cable routes to shore, HRG surveys would have to be conducted 

by multiple vessels and/or over multiple years. Assuming 100% coverage of the WEAs and 

potential cable corridors, Alternative A would result in a total of approximately 60,100 nm or 

13,300 hours of HRG surveys, divided among the WEAs as follows: 

 New Jersey WEA: about 31,100 nm or 6,900 hours of HRG surveys; 

 Delaware WEA: about 9,300 nm or 2,100 hours of HRG surveys; 

 Maryland WEA: about 7,100 nm or 1,600 hours of HRG surveys; and 

 Virginia WEA: about 12,600 nm or 2,800 hours of HRG surveys. 

For all vessels associated with survey activities, BOEM will require as lease stipulations, strict 

adherence to the project design criteria detailed in Appendix B of this EA. These requirements 

include exclusion zones around survey vessels, the placement of visual monitors on all surveyrelated vessels, compliance with NOAA Fisheries Northeast Regional Viewing Guidelines, 

28 
compliance with certain reporting requirements, and mandatory ramp-up procedures. These 

project design criteria are more fully explained in Appendix B of this EA. 

3.1.2.2 Sub-bottom Sampling 

Sub-bottom sampling is required by the regulations to assess the suitability of shallow 

foundation soils to support a structure or transmission cable under any operational and 

environmental conditions that might be encountered (including extreme events), and to document 

soil characteristics necessary for the design and installation of structures and cables. Sub-bottom 

sampling also contributes to the identification of potential cultural resources by identifying relict 

paleolandforms that might have been suitable for human habitation. Sub-bottom sampling 

obtains physical and chemical data on surface sediments to provide BOEM with a detailed 

geotechnical evaluation of the structure’s foundation(s) based on analysis of soil borings from 

the site (e.g., 30 CFR 585.626(4)). The results allow for a thorough investigation of the 

stratigraphic and geoengineering properties of the sediment that may affect the foundations or 

anchoring systems of project proposed renewable energy structures, which would be necessary 

for BOEM to consider a SAP or, later, a COP for a given lease. There should also be sufficient 

geological/geotechnical sampling and testing of foundation soils to thoroughly categorize 

engineering conditions within a proposed transmission cable corridor. Due to the cost of each 

sub-bottom sampling, which range from $25,000-35,000 per cone penetration test (CPT) to 

$500,000 per deep boring (in the renewable energy context, “deep” is anticipated to be up to 130 

meters below the seabed), it is assumed the lessee would first conduct the HRG surveys and 

integrate the results of the HRG surveys (including analysis of archaeological, shallow hazards, 

and bathymetric data) in planning the geotechnical site survey and in selecting locations/depths 

of soil samples and in-situ tests. 

Scenario for Sub-bottom Sampling 

The renewable energy regulations require sediment testing at the proposed site of any 

proposed bottom-founded structure. See 30 CFR 585.610(b) (SAP) and 585.626(a) (COP). This 

scenario assumes that one sub-bottom sample would be taken at the foundation location for each 

anticipated meteorological tower and/or buoy. See Section 3.1.3 below for a description of the 

reasonably foreseeable scenario for the installation of meteorological towers/buoys associated 

with Alternative A. With regard to potential future COPs, the number of sub-bottom samples 

would depend on the number of turbines a lessee ultimately proposes (see 30 CFR 585.626(a)(4). 

As discussed in the Programmatic EIS (USDOI, MMS, 2007a), spacing between turbines is 

typically determined on a case-by-case basis to minimize wake effect and is based on rotor 

diameter associated with turbine size. In Denmark’s offshore applications, for example, a 

spacing of seven rotor diameters between units has been used (USDOI, MMS, 2007a). Spacing 

of 6 x 9 rotor diameters, or 6 rotor diameters between turbines in a row and 9 rotor diameters 

between rows was approved for the Cape Wind project (USDOI, MMS, 2009b). In some landbased settings, turbines are separated by much greater distances, as much as 10 rotor diameters 

from each other (USDOI, MMS, 2007a). Based on this range in spacing for a 3.6 MW (110 m 

rotor diameter) turbine and a 5 MW (130 m rotor diameter) turbine, it would be possible to place 

anywhere from 14 – 40 turbines in one OCS block (3 statute miles by 3 statute miles). Assuming 

(1) a “maximum” scenario of wind development on every OCS block (which is extremely 

unlikely, but the lower amount of samples associated with less development would result in 

lower environmental impacts); (2) that a sub-bottom sample (vibracore, CPT and/or deep boring) 

29 
would be conducted at every potential wind turbine location throughout the WEAs; (3) that a 

sub-bottom sample would be conducted every nm along each of the 13 projected transmission 

corridors to shore (see GGARCH guidelines); and (4) that a sub-bottom sample would be 

conducted at the foundation of each meteorological tower and/or buoy, a total of 1,800-4,800 

ground penetrating surveys could occur as a result of Alternative A: 

 New Jersey WEA: about 900-2,500 sub-bottom samples; 

 Delaware WEA: about 300-700 sub-bottom samples; 

 Maryland WEA: about 200-600 sub-bottom samples; and, 

 Virginia WEA: about 400-1,000 sub-bottom samples. 

 

Additionally, all leases issued under the proposed action and alternatives will contain an 

unanticipated discovery (or “chance finds”) requirements, as described in Section 4.1.3.1.2 of 

this EA. This requirement is designed to minimize the potential of the lessee’s bottomdisturbing activities to impact potential cultural resources. . 

3.1.2.3 Biological Surveys 

A lessee must submit the results of biological surveys with its SAP (30 CFR 585.610(b)(5)) 

and COP (30 CFR 585.626(3)). To assist BOEM in complying with NEPA and other relevant 

laws, a lessee’s SAP and COP must describe biological resources, including avian resources, that 

could be affected by the activities proposed in its plan (30 CFR 585.611(a),(b)(5) and 

585.627(a)). Once a plan is submitted, BOEM, in consultation with USFWS and NMFS, would 

determine whether there is sufficient information to characterize species distribution and 

abundance, and assess the potential impacts of the proposed activities. 

These vessel and/or aerial surveys would need to characterize the biological resources of a 

leasehold, which can be divided into three primary categories: (1) benthic habitats; (2) avian 

resources; and (3) marine fauna. As part of BOEM’s project design criteria (See Appendix B of 

this EA), all vessels and aircraft associated with Alternative A would comply with the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Fisheries Northeast Regional Viewing Guidelines. 

Benthic Habitats 

The shallow hazard, and geological and geotechnical surveys described in Section 3.1.2.1 of 

this EA would capture all the salient features of the benthic habitat on the leasehold. These 

surveys would acquire information suggesting the presence or absence of exposed hard bottoms 

of high, moderate, or low relief; hard bottoms covered by thin, ephemeral sand layers; seagrass 

patches; and other algal beds, all of which are key characteristics of benthic habitat. See Section 

4.1.2.2 (defining, describing, and discussing benthic habitat). As a result, BOEM does not 

anticipate that lessees would need to conduct separate surveys to characterize the benthic habitats 

that could be affected by their potential future leasehold activities. 

 

Avian Resources

Under the renewable energy regulations at 30 CFR 585.626(a)(3), lessees are required to 

describe the state of the avian resources in its lease area in its COP submission. In some areas, 

such as the WEA offshore New Jersey, abundant information is available regarding the avian 

resources in the area (NJDEP, 2010a). 

30 
Due to the abundance of available information, BOEM does not anticipate that lessees in the 

WEA offshore New Jersey would need to conduct additional surveys for avian resources prior to 

submitting a COP. However, BOEM anticipates that lessees in an area that has not yet been 

surveyed for avian resources would conduct their own surveys of their lease area to meet the 

COP information requirement. 

Avian surveys generally involve simple visual observation, either from a vessel or aircraft. 

Shipboard observations would generally be sufficient for the purpose of identifying the state of 

avian resources in the lease area, and it would be most efficient for lessees to survey for avian 

resources while conducting the other surveys described above. The goal of the surveys is to 

define the spatial distribution of avian species throughout the year in areas that a lessee 

ultimately proposes to develop (see 30 CFR 585.626). The environmental analysis in this EA 

assumes that lessees would conduct by monthly boat and/or aerial surveys for 2 to 3 years, 

during the site assessment period of a lease, prior to submitting a COP, which would capture the 

seasonal variation in avian numbers. Similar to guidelines developed in Germany, boat surveys 

would likely cover 10% of the lease (BSH, 2007). It is estimated it would take 1 to 2 days to 

cover 10% of an average-sized leasehold of 10 OCS blocks (but could range from 2-20 OCS 

blocks), which would likely be adequate for determining the presence of avian species. 

Surveying the same area using aerial surveys would take less than one day. Although these 

surveys could be conducted from vessels conducting site characterization and assessment 

activities in the lease area, BOEM anticipates that a lessee may undertake a maximum of 24 to 

36 additional boat and/or aerial surveys for the purpose of characterizing avian resources. Should 

a lessee require less time to adequately characterize the avian resources of its leasehold, should 

vessels used for site assessment and characterization activities be used for 100% of the avian 

surveys, or should adequate information regarding the state of avian resources already exist 

(making an independent survey unnecessary), then the environmental impacts associated with 

conducting avian surveys would be less than that discussed in this EA. Therefore, this EA 

assumes that all lease areas outside of the New Jersey WEA (2 in Maryland WEA, 3 in Virginia 

WEA, and 1 in Delaware WEA) would be surveyed as described above. As a result, BOEM 

presumes that a total of 144 – 216 extra, independent surveys may be conducted to characterize 

avian resources under Alternative A. 

Marine Fauna 

Under the renewable energy regulations, a lessee would be required to describe the state of 

marine mammals, sea turtles, and fish resources in its lease area in its SAP submission (30 CFR 

585.610(b)) and COP submission (30 CFR 585.626(a)(3)). Like with avian resources, in some 

areas such as the WEA offshore New Jersey, sufficient information may already be available 

regarding marine fauna. However, BOEM anticipates that leases in a WEA that has not yet been 

surveyed for marine resources would need to characterize the state of these resources to meet the 

COP information requirement. 

Multi-year assessment periods may be necessary to capture natural seasonal and inter-annual 

variability of marine fauna in the area of potential effect (APE). Some data is readily available 

that can help inform presence or absence, and densities of marine fauna in the APE. However, 

these data are often incomplete or may not be available at a fine enough scale to assess the 

potential impacts of activities within a certain lease area. It is generally envisioned that fish, 

marine mammal, sea turtle, and bird aerial and shipboard surveys could be conducted 

simultaneously. Shipboard observations would generally be sufficient for the purpose of 

31 
identifying the state of marine mammals in the lease area, and survey vessels and aircraft would 

have marine mammal observers on board due to standard NMFS requirements and BOEM’s 

MMPA-related project design criteria described in Appendix B of this EA (Informal 

Consultation for “Non-Competitive Lease for Wind Resource Data Collection on the Northeast 

Outer Continental Shelf” (USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 2009; 2010a; and 2010b)). See also 

Biological Opinion on the Cape Wind Energy Project of Nantucket Sound (USDOC, NOAA, 

NMFS, 2010c). Marine fauna information could also be efficiently obtained through 

instrumentation installed on a meteorological buoy or tower. In addition, marine fauna 

information from surveys can be supplemented by with publicly available information on 

geographic web portals that aggregate siting information from several different sources. 

However, it is possible that independent marine fauna surveys would be undertaken in 

special circumstances or to address important data gaps. Shipboard and aerial survey 

information may be augmented by the deployment of passive acoustic monitors (PAMs) in such 

cases. As a result of the potential variability in data, the ability or inability to couple different 

surveys together, and the fact that it is unlikely that there would be any substantial data gaps after 

vessel surveys and monitoring via meteorological tower/buoy instrumentation, BOEM 

anticipates that very little, if any, additional vessel or aerial traffic would be associated with 

marine fauna surveys within the WEAs. 

3.1.2.4 Timing 

The timing of lease issuance, and weather and sea conditions would be the primary factors 

influencing timing of survey activities. Under the reasonably foreseeable site characterization 

scenario, BOEM would issue leases as early as late 2011 and continue through late 2012. It is 

assumed lessees would begin survey activities as soon as possible after receiving a lease and sea 

states and weather conditions permit. The most suitable sea states and weather conditions would 

occur from April to August (Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation and AWS Scientific, Inc., 

2004). For leases issued in late 2011, the earliest surveys would likely begin would be April 

2012. Lessees have up to five years to perform site characterization activities before they must 

submit a COP (30 CFR 585.235(a)(2)). For leases issued in late 2012, those lessees’ surveys 

would continue through August 2017 prior to submitting their COPs. Under Alternative A, it is 

projected site characterization would occur over five and one-half years from April 2012 to 

August 2017. 

3.1.2.5 Onshore Activities 

In order to conduct surveys of all of the potential leases in the WEAs and potential 

transmission cable routes, site characterization surveys would involve multiple vessels and 

would likely take place over several years. Since using vessels that could accommodate all of 

the necessary survey equipment and conducting as many surveys simultaneously would be most 

efficient, BOEM anticipates that 65 to 100 ft long vessels would be used (Irion, personal 

communication, 2011). Vessels must be able to accommodate a crew for several days and be 

large enough to mount enough cable to tow instruments. As discussed in Section 4.1.3.5, it is 

assumed existing ports or industrial areas in the adjacent or surrounding states would be used in 

support of Alternative A. 

32 
3.1.2.6 Vessel Traffic Associated with Site Characterization 

Vessel traffic associated with all site characterization surveys (HRG surveys, sub-bottom 

sampling, and biological surveys) is projected to occur over a five and half year-period as a 

result of Alternative A and be divided among several existing ports in New Jersey, Delaware, 

Maryland, and Virginia. This section explains how the number of vessel trips was estimated. 

Table 3.1 presents the amount of HRG surveys and number of sub-bottom samples that 

would be associated with Alternative A. For HRG surveys, this scenario assumes a vessel speed 

of 4.5 knots (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2004) and 10-hour days (daylight hours minus 

transit time to and from the site). For sub-bottom sampling, this scenario assumes one subbottom sample (vibracore, CPT and/or deep boring) would be conducted per work day. Each 

work day would be associated with one round trip. In addition, BOEM presumes that 144–216 

extra, independent surveys would be conducted to characterize avian resources under Alternative 

A. See Section 3.1.2.3. Based on these assumptions, approximately 3,300-6,400 vessel trips 

(round trips) associated with all site characterization surveys are projected to occur as a result of 

Alternative A over five and one-half years from April 2012 to August 2017 (Section 3.1.2.4 of 

this EA). 

Vessel trips associated with site characterization surveys would be divided among several 

existing ports in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia (Section 4.1.3.5 of this EA), 

adding traffic to already heavily-used waterways (Section 4.1.3.7 of this EA). Due to the 

distance of ports in New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland to the WEAs offshore those states, the 

ports in New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland would support the vessel activity associated with 

the seven leases projected in the New Jersey WEA, the two leases projected in the Maryland 

WEA, and the single lease projected in the Delaware WEA. Based simply on the number of 

ports in New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, the estimated 2,500-5,000 vessel trips associated 

with site characterization of the New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland WEAs would be divided as 

follows: over half of the traffic would be supported by the 3 major and 11 smaller ports in New 

Jersey; and the remainder of the traffic would be split evenly between the 3 major and 8 smaller 

ports in Delaware and Maryland, all of which are identified in Section 4.1.3.5 of this EA. Due to 

the distance from ports in the other states, BOEM anticipates that the estimated 800 - 1,400 

vessel trips associated with the three projected Virginia leases would be supported exclusively by 

the three major and nine smaller ports in Virginia identified in Section 4.1.3.5 of this EA. 

More than half of the vessel traffic associated with Alternative A would be related to site 

characterization activities. Unlike the vessel traffic associated with site assessment activities 

(see Section 3.1.3.4 below), which would need to utilize the larger ports that would staging areas 

for meteorological towers and components, the vessels associated with site characterization 

activities could use any of the ports identified in Section 4.1.3.5 of this EA. This EA assumes 

that vessels associated with site assessment would strongly trend to larger ports, while vessels 

associated with site characterization activities would use whatever port is most convenient. As a 

result, this EA assumes generally that the total vessel traffic associated with Alternative A (both 

site characterization and site assessment) offshore would be more or less evenly distributed 

among large and small ports in the manner described above. 

3.1.2.7 Operational Waste 

Operational waste generated from all vessels associated with Alternative A includes bilge 

and ballast waters, trash and debris, and sanitary and domestic wastes. Bilge water is water that 

collects in the lower part of a ship. The bilge water is often contaminated by oil that leaks from 

33 
the machinery within the vessel. The discharge of any oil or oily mixtures of greater than 15 

parts per million (ppm) into the territorial sea is prohibited under 33 CFR 151.10. However, 

discharge is not prohibited in waters farther than 12 nm from shore if the oil concentration is less 

than 100 ppm. As a result, to the extent that bilge water is expelled at sea, BOEM anticipates 

that the discharge would be more likely to occur beyond 12 nm from shore. 

Ballast water is used to maintain the stability of the vessel and may be pumped from coastal 

or marine waters. Generally, the ballast water is pumped into and out of separate compartments 

and is not usually contaminated with oil. However, the same discharge criteria apply to ballast 

water as to bilge water (33 CFR 151.10). 

The discharge of trash and debris is prohibited (33 CFR 151.51-.77) unless it is passed 

through a comminutor (a machine that breaks up solids) and can pass through a 25-mm mesh 

screen. All other trash and debris must be returned to shore for proper disposal with municipal 

and solid waste. Ballast water may be subject to the USCG Ballast Water Management Program 

to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species (113 FR 32,869 (June 14, 2004)). BOEM 

assumes compliance with regulations, and therefore assumes that vessel operators would 

discharge trash and debris only after it has passed through a comminutor and that all other trash 

and debris would be returned to shore. Vessel operators are expected to abide by the USCG 

Ballast Water Management Program. 

All vessels with toilet facilities must have a Type II or Type III marine sanitation device 

(MSD) that complies with 40 CFR 140 and 33 CFR 149. A Type II MSD macerates waste solids 

so that the discharge contains no suspended particles and has a bacteria count below 200 per 100 

milliliters. Type III MSDs are holding tanks and are the most common type of MSD found on 

boats. These systems are designed to retain or treat the waste until it can be disposed of at the 

proper shoreside facilities. State and local governments regulate domestic or gray water 

discharges. However, a State may prohibit the discharge of all sewage within any or all of its 

waters. New Jersey has no discharge zones in its rivers and the Barnegat Bay, Maryland’s zones 

are in the Herring Bay and Northern Coastal Bays, and Virginia’s no discharges zones are in the 

Lynnhaven River and the Broad Creek, Jackson Creek and Fishing Bay (USEPA, 2010a). 

Delaware does not have any discharge zones. Domestic waste consists of all types of wastes 

generated in the living spaces on board a ship including gray water that is generated from 

dishwasher, shower, laundry, bath and washbasin drains. Gray water from vessels is not 

regulated outside the State’s territory and may be disposed of overboard. Gray water should not 

be processed through the MSD, which is specifically designed to handle sewage. BOEM 

assumes that vessel operators would discharge gray water overboard outside of state waters or 

store it onboard until they are able to dispose of it at a shoreside facility. 

3.1.3 Site Assessment Activities and Data Collection Structures 

A SAP describes the activities (e.g., installation of meteorological towers and buoys) a lessee 

plans to perform for the assessment of the wind resources and ocean conditions of its commercial 

lease (30 CFR 585.605). No site assessment activities could take place on a lease until BOEM 

has approved a lessee’s SAP (30 CFR 585.600(a)). Once approved, site assessment activities 

would take place during the site assessment term of a commercial lease period, which is up to 

five years from the date of lease issuance (30 CFR 585.235(a)(2)). It is assumed that each lessee 

would install some type of data collection device (e.g., meteorological tower, buoy or both) on 

its lease to assess the wind resources and ocean conditions of the lease area. This information 

will allow the lessee to determine whether the lease is suitable for wind energy development, 

34 
where on the lease it will propose development, and what form of development to propose in a 

COP. 

The following scenario is addresses the reasonably foreseeable range of data collection 

devices that lessees may install under an approved SAP. The actual tower and foundation type 

and/or buoy type and anchoring system would be included in a detailed SAP submitted to 

BOEM, along with the results of site characterization surveys, prior to BOEM’s decision to 

approve, approve with modification, or disapproval of a SAP. See 30 CFR 585.613.. 

BOEM assumes that, for each of the 13 leaseholds projected, 0-1 meteorological towers, 1-2 

buoys, or a combination, would be constructed or deployed. Since only one qualified company 

has expressed interest in the WEA offshore Delaware and it is interested in acquiring a lease for 

the entire WEA, only one lease is anticipated for the WEA offshore Delaware. See 76 FR 20367. 

This company already holds an Interim Policy lease authorizing the construction of a 

meteorological tower and/or buoy in the Delaware WEA, so one additional meteorological buoy 

and no additional meteorological towers are projected in the Delaware WEA under Alternative 

A. As a result, Alternative A is projected to result in up to a total of 12 meteorological towers 

(should all lessees choose to propose meteorological towers on their leases) or 25 meteorological 

buoys (should all lessees choose to propose meteorological buoys on their leases) as presented in 

Table 3.3 below. 

Table 3.3 

Projected Number of Meteorological Towers and Buoys 

Wind Energy Area (WEA) Meteorological Towers 

(max) 

Meteorological Buoys 

(max) 

Delaware 01 11 

Maryland 2 4 

New Jersey 7 14 

Virginia 3 6 

1 Since only one qualified company has expressed interest in the WEA offshore Delaware and its interest was for the 

entire WEA, only one lease is anticipated for the WEA offshore Delaware. See 76 FR 20367. This company 

already holds an Interim Policy lease authorizing the construction of a meteorological tower and/or buoy on its 

Interim Policy lease, so one additional meteorological buoy and no additional meteorological towers are possible in 

the Delaware WEA under Alternative A. The environmental consequences of the meteorological tower currently 

authorized under the Delaware Interim Policy lease is analyzed in Issuance of Leases for Wind Resource Data 

Collection on the Outer Continental Shelf Offshore Delaware and New Jersey Environmental Assessment (Interim 

Policy EA) (USDOI, MMS, 2009a), and discussed in the Cumulative Impacts section of this EA.

3.1.3.1 Meteorological Towers and Foundations 

One of the traditional instruments used for characterizing wind conditions is the 

meteorological tower. The only meteorological tower currently installed on the OCS for the 

purposes of renewable energy site assessment is located on Horseshoe Shoal, in Nantucket 

Sound (see Figure 3.1). In 2002, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) prepared an EA 

for this meteorological tower (USACE, 2002). A monopole mast as shown in Figure 3.1 was 

used for this meteorological tower. The tower was installed in 2003 and consists of three pilings 

supporting a single steel pile that supports the deck. The overall height of the structure is 60 m 

(197 ft) above the mean lower low water datum. 

35 
Based on the Cape Wind meteorological tower, activities described in the Interim Policy EA 

offshore Delaware and New Jersey, and other applications received by BOEM for potential 

offshore leases, the meteorological tower scenario analyzed in this EA consists of a mast and 

data collection devices mounted on a fixed or pile-supported platform. The mast may be either a 

monopole (see Figure 3.1) or a lattice (similar to a radio tower) type (See Figure 3.2). A deck 

would be supported by a single 10-ft diameter monopole, tripod, or a steel jacket with three to 

four 36-inch-diameter piles. The monopole or piles would be driven anywhere from 25 to 100 

feet (ft) into the seafloor. Examples of steel jacket and monopile foundations and decks are 

shown in Figure 3.2, and an example of a tripod foundation is shown in Figure 3.1. The final 

foundation type for each meteorological tower would be dependent on data collected during site 

characterization surveys, and its proposed design would be included in a detailed SAP submitted 

to BOEM for approval. 

The foundation structure, and a scour control system, if required based on potential seabed 

scour anticipated at the site, would occupy less than two acres. Once installed, the top of a 

meteorological tower would be 90-100 m (295-328 ft) above mean sea level. The area of ocean 

bottom affected by a meteorological tower would range from about two hundred square ft, if 

supported by a monopole, to two thousand square ft if supported by a jacket foundation. The 

final foundation selection would be included in a detailed SAP submitted to BOEM along with 

the results of SAP-related site characterization surveys prior to BOEM consideration for 

approval. 

Figure 3.1. Cape Wind Meteorological Tower. (Source: Cape Wind Associates, LLC).

36 
Figure 3.2(a) Example of a Lattice-type 

Mast Mounted on a Steel Jacket 

Foundation. 

Source: Deepwater Wind, LLC. 

Figure 3.2(b) Example of a Latticetype Mast Mounted on a Monopile 

Foundation. 

Source: Fishermen’s Energy of New 

Jersey, LLC. 

Figure 3.2. Examples of Lattice Mast Meteorological Towers. 

37 
Installation 

Review of the SAP 

After a lease is issued and initial survey activities are conducted, the lessee may not install a 

meteorological tower until a SAP is submitted for review to, and approved by BOEM (30 CFR 

585.614(a)). BOEM regulations (30 CFR 585.600 - 585.618) require that the SAP include the 

following information: 

 A description of the proposed activities, including the technology intended to be utilized 

in conducting activities authorized by the lease and all additional surveys lessee intends 

to conduct; 

 The surface location and water depth for all proposed facilities to be constructed in the 

leased area; 

 General structural and project installation information with proposed schedules; 

 A description of the safety, prevention and environmental protection features or measures 

that lessee would use; 

 A brief description of how the meteorological tower and other components on the leased 

area would be removed and the leased area restored as required by the lease; 

 Any other information reasonably requested by BOEM to ensure lessee’s activities on the 

OCS are conducted in a safe and environmentally sound manner; and, 

 Results of the geophysical and geological surveys, hazards surveys, archaeological 

surveys, and baseline collection studies (e.g., biological) with supporting data. 

This EA considers the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of SAPs in certain areas 

of the OCS offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. In the event that a 

particular lease is issued, and the lessee subsequently submits a SAP, BOEM would then 

determine whether this EA adequately considers the environmental consequences of the 

activities proposed in the lessee’s SAP. If the analysis in this EA adequately considers these 

consequences, then no further NEPA analysis would be required before the SAP could be 

approved. If, on the other hand, BOEM determines that the analysis in this EA is inadequate for 

that purpose, BOEM would prepare an additional NEPA analysis before approving the SAP. 

The siting of meteorological towers would also be authorized by the USACE, likely under a 

Nationwide Permit 5 for scientific measurement devices. The USACE is a cooperating agency 

on this EA (see Section 5.2). 

Timing 

The timing of the issuance of a lease, and weather and sea conditions are the primary factors 

that would influence the timing of meteorological tower construction activities. Sea states follow 

annual weather patterns, with the roughest conditions occurring September through March 

(Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation and AWS Scientific, Inc., 2004). Meteorological 

towers and buoys would likely be installed from April to August. Under Alternative A, BOEM 

could issue leases in late 2011. For those lessees, the first available weather season to begin 

construction activities would be April 2012. Lessees have up to five years to perform site 

assessment activities before they must submit a COP (30 CFR 585.235(a)(2)). For leases issued 

in late 2012, those lessees’ site assessment activities would continue through August 2017 prior 

to submitting their COPs. Under Alternative A, it is projected site assessment would occur over 

five and one-half years from April 2012 to August 2017. 

38 
Total installation time for one meteorological tower would take eight days to ten weeks 

depending on the type of structure installed, and the weather and sea state conditions (USDOI, 

MMS, 2009a). Due to delays caused by weather and sea conditions, acquiring permits, and 

availability of vessels, workers, and tower components, it is possible that installation may not 

occur during the first year of a lease, and may be spread over more than one construction season. 

If installation occurs over two construction seasons, then it is likely that the foundation would be 

installed first with limited meteorological equipment mounted on the platform deck, and the mast 

and remaining equipment would be installed the following year (USDOI, MMS, 2009a). 

Onshore Activity 

A meteorological tower platform would be constructed or fabricated onshore at an existing 

fabrication yard. Production operations at fabrication yards would include the cutting, welding, 

and assembling of steel components. These yards occupy large areas with equipment including 

lifts and cranes, welding equipment, rolling mills, and sandblasting machinery. The location of 

these fabrication yards is directly tied to the availability of a large enough channel that would 

allow the towing of these structures. The average bulkhead depth needed for water access to 

fabrications yards is 15-20 ft. Thus, platform fabrication yards must be located at deep-draft 

seaports or along wider and deeper of the inland channels. Section 4.1.3.5 identifies nine major 

ports in Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia that would likely support the fabrication 

of meteorological towers. 

The meteorological tower could also be fabricated at various facilities or at inland facilities in 

sections, and then shipped by truck or rail to the port staging area. The meteorological tower 

would then be partially assembled and loaded onto a barge for transport to the offshore site. 

Final assembly of the tower itself would be completed offshore (USDOI, MMS, 2009a). 

Because Alternative A only contemplates the installation of 12 meteorological towers, and 

since the fabrication facilities in the relevant major port areas are large and have high capacities, 

BOEM does not anticipate that the fabrication of meteorological towers associated with 

Alternative A would have any substantial effect on the operations of, transportation to or from, 

or conditions at these facilities. 

Offshore Activity 

During installation, a radius of approximately 1,500 ft (162 acres) around the site would be 

needed for the movement and anchoring of support vessels. The following sections describe the 

installation of a foundation structure and tower. 

Several vessels would be involved with construction of a meteorological tower 

(see Table 3.4). 

39 
Table 3.4 

Projected Vessel Usage and Specifications for the 

Construction of a Meteorological Tower 

Vessel Type Round 

Trips 

Hours on 

Site Length (ft) Displacement (tons) 

Engines 

(hp) 

Fuel Capacity 

(gallons) 

Crane barge 2 232 150-250 1,150 0 500 

Deck cargo 2 232 150-270 750 0 0 

Small cargo 

barge 

2 232 90 154 0 0 

Crew boat 21 54 51-57 100 1,000 1,800 

Small tug boat 4 54 65 300 2,000 14,000 

Large tug boat 8 108 95 1,300 4,200 20,000 

Source: USDOI, MMS, 2009a.

Installation of the Foundation Structure and Mast 

A jacket or monopole foundation and deck would be fabricated onshore then transferred to 

barge(s) and carried or towed to the offshore site. This equipment would typically be deployed 

from two barges, one containing the pile driving equipment and a second containing a small 

crane, support equipment and the balance of materials needed to erect the platform deck. These 

barges would be tended by appropriate tugs and workboats as needed. 

The foundation pile(s) for a fixed platform could range from either a single 10-ft (3-m) 

diameter monopile to four 3-ft (0.9-m) diameter piles (jacket). These piles would be driven 

anywhere from 25 to 100 ft (7.6 to 30.5 m) below the seafloor with a pile driving hammer 

typically used in marine construction operations. 

Piles are usually driven into the substrate using one of two types of hammer: impact 

hammers and vibratory hammers. The type of hammer used depends on a variety of factors, 

including pile and substrate type. Impact hammers consist of a heavy weight that is repeatedly 

dropped onto the top of the pile, and can be used to drive all types of piles and substrates. 

Vibratory hammers utilize a combination of a stationary, heavy weight and vibration, and limited 

to softer, unconsolidated substrates such as sand and piles with a cutting edge (e.g., hollow steel 

pipe). Piles may be driven using a combination of vibratory and impact hammers. Overwater 

structures, such as the meteorological towers, must meet seismic stability criteria, requiring that 

the supporting piles are attached to, or driven into, the underlying hard material. In such cases, a 

vibratory hammer is often used to drive the pile through the overlaying soft substrate, and the 

impact hammer is used to finish driving the pile to its final depth (Hanson et al., 2003). 

 When the pile driving is complete after approximately three days, the pile driver barge 

would be removed. In its place, a jack-up barge equipped with a crane would be utilized to assist 

in the mounting of the platform decking, tower and instrumentation onto the foundation. 

Depending on the type of structure installed and the weather and sea conditions, the in-water 

construction of the foundation pilings and platform would be approximately a few days 

(monopole in good weather) to six weeks (jacket foundation in bad weather) (USDOI, MMS, 

2009a). The mast sections would be raised using a separate barge-mounted crane; installation 

would likely be complete within a few weeks. 

As a part of Alternative A, all lessees would be required to comply with the applicable 

project design standards identified in Appendix B of this EA, including “soft-start” procedures, 

monitoring for the presence of marine mammals and sea turtles, reporting requirements, and 

40 
lighting, as well as with the unanticipated finds (“chance finds”) requirements described in 

Section 4.1.3.1.2 of this EA, when installing a meteorological tower. 

Scour Control System 

Wave action, tidal circulation, and storm waves interact with sediments on the surface of the 

OCS, inducing sediment reworking and/or transport. Episodic sediment movement caused by 

ocean currents and waves can cause erosion or scour around the base of the towers. Erosion 

caused by scour may undermine meteorological tower structural foundations leading to potential 

failure. 

As part of its SAP, the lessee would provide to BOEM information on the condition of the 

proposed site, which would include an assessment of the magnitude of potential seabed sour 

anticipated at the site (30 CFR 585.610(b) and 585.611(b)(1)). Based on this information, 

BOEM may require the installation of a scour control system as a condition of SAP approval. 

BOEM may also require a lessee to install a scour system after the tower is installed if 

substantial scour is discovered during monitoring. 

There are several methods for minimizing scour around piles, such as the placement of rock 

armoring and mattresses of artificial (polypropylene) seagrass. A rock armor scour protection 

system may be used to stabilize a structure’s foundation area. Rock armor and filter layer 

material would be placed on the seabed using a clamshell bucket or a chute. The filter layer 

helps prevent the loss of underlying sediments and sinking of the rock armor (ESS Group, Inc., 

2006). In water depths greater than 15 ft, the median stone size would be about 50 pounds with a 

stone layer thickness of about 3 ft. It was estimated that the rock armor for a monopole 

foundation for a wind turbine would occupy 16,000 square ft (0.37 acres) of the seabed (ESS 

Group, Inc., 2006). While the piles of meteorological tower would be much smaller than those of 

a wind turbine, a meteorological tower may be supported by up to four piles. Therefore, the 

maximum area of the seabed impacted by rock armor for a single meteorological tower is also 

estimated to be 16,000 square ft (0.37 acres). 

Artificial seagrass mats are made of synthetic fronds that mimic seafloor vegetation to trap 

sediment. The mats become buried over time and have been effective for controlling scour in 

both shallow and deep water (ESS Group, Inc., 2003). Monitoring of scouring at the Cape Wind 

meteorological tower found that, at one pile where two artificial seagrass scour mats were 

installed, there was a net increase of 12” of sand, and at another pile with artificial seagrass scour 

mats there was a net scour of 7” pilings; both occurred over a 3-yr time frame (Ocean and 

Coastal Consultants Inc, 2006). If used, these mats would be installed by a diver or remotely 

operated underwater vehicle (ROV). Each mat would be anchored at 8 to 16 locations, about one 

ft into the sand. It is estimated for a pile-supported platform, four mats each about 5 by 2.5 m 

(16.4 by 8.2 ft) would be placed around each pile. Including the extending sediment bank, a total 

area disturbance of about 5,200-5,900 square ft for a three-pile structure and 5,900-7,800 square 

ft for a four-pile structure is estimated. For a monopole, it is estimated that eight mats about 5 by 

5 m (16.4 by 16.4 ft) would be used, and there would be a total area disturbance of about 3,700-

4,000 square ft. 

Operation and Maintenance 

Under the alternatives, BOEM is assuming that lessees would install and operate a 

meteorological tower or meteorological buoys to assess wind resource potential during the site 

assessment term of a lease. A lessee must submit a COP at least six months before the end of 

41 
their site assessment term of the lease if it intends to continue to the operations term of its lease 

(30 CFR 585.618(c)). If the COP describes continued use of existing facilities, such as a 

meteorological tower or buoy approved in the SAP, the lessee may keep such facilities in place 

on their lease during the time that BOEM reviews the COP for approval (30 CFR 585.618(a)), 

which may take up to two years. If following the technical and environmental review of the 

submitted COP, BOEM, determines that such facilities should not remain in place throughout the 

operations term, the lessee must initiate the decommissioning process (30 CFR 585.618(c)). 

Depending on how long it takes to install a meteorological tower, and depending on whether the 

lessee submits a COP (or the lease expires) and/or how long subsequent COP approval would 

take, BOEM anticipates that a meteorological tower would be present for approximately 5 years 

before BOEM decides whether to allow the tower to remain in place for the commercial term of 

a lease or whether the tower should be decommissioned immediately. 

While the meteorological tower is in place, data would be collected and processed remotely; 

as a result, data cables to shore would not be necessary. The structure and instrumentation would 

be accessible by boat for routine maintenance. As indicated in previous site assessment 

proposals submitted to BOEM, lessees with towers powered by solar panels or small wind 

turbines would conduct monthly or quarterly vessel trips for operation and maintenance activity 

over the 5 year life of a meteorological tower (USDOI, MMS, 2009a). However, if a diesel 

generator is used to power the meteorological tower’s lighting and equipment, a maintenance 

vessel would make a trip at least once every other week, if not weekly, to provide fuel, change 

oil, and perform maintenance on the generator. Depending on the frequency of the trips, support 

for all of the meteorological towers in all of the WEAs would result in anywhere from of 240 

quarterly to 3,120 weekly round trips. No additional or expansion of onshore facilities would be 

required to conduct these tasks. It is projected that crew boats 51-57 ft in length with 400-1,000 

horsepower (hp) engines and 1,800 gallon fuel capacity would be used for routine maintenance, 

and generator refueling, if diesel generators are used. The distance from shore would make 

vessels more economical than helicopters, so the use of helicopters to transport personnel or 

supplies during operation and maintenance is not anticipated. 

Lighting and Marking 

All meteorological towers and buoys, regardless of height, would have lighting and marking 

for navigational purposes. Meteorological towers and buoys would be considered Private Aids 

to Navigation, which are regulated by the USCG under 33 CFR 66. A Private Aid to Navigation 

is a buoy, light or day beacon owned and maintained by any individual or organization other than 

the USCG. These aids are designed to allow individuals or organizations to mark privately 

owned marine obstructions or other similar hazards to navigation. 

If meteorological towers are taller than 199 ft as BOEM anticipates, the lessee would also be 

required to file a “Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration” with the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) per federal aviation regulations (14 CFR 77.13). The FAA is in the 

process of finalizing guidance for the marking and lighting of meteorological towers less than 

199 ft. tall (Edgett-Baron, personal communication, 2011). According to the FAA, specific 

mitigation measures, including lighting requirements, would be applied on a case-by-case basis 

(Edgett-Baron, personal communication, 2011). Within 12 nm of shore, any meteorological 

tower greater than 199 ft tall would also require an FAA obstruction evaluation analysis, to 

determine if the meteorological tower would pose a hazard to air traffic. Should BOEM receive 

42 
a SAP for a meteorological tower outside of 12 nm from shore, BOEM would determine if the 

proposed meteorological tower would pose a threat to air navigation. 

Visual Aesthetics 

As discussed in Chapter 5.2.21.2, p. 5-120 of the Programmatic EIS, a meteorological tower 

in a typical seascape would introduce a vertical line that would contrast with the horizon line, 

and introduce a geometrical man-made element into a potentially natural landscape. Some color 

contrast would also be present. Weather conditions might render the top of the tower invisible or 

nearly so from shore, particularly for a lattice structure. While lighting on meteorological towers 

may be viewed from several miles away at night, the tower’s lighting would be difficult to 

distinguish from other lighting present (e.g., vessel traffic). 

The main concern related to visual impacts of meteorological towers would be that presented 

by the widest and most substantial portion of the tower (the deck) rather than the relatively 

slender (3-5 m) mast. Depending on the distance from shore, earth curvature, waves, and 

atmosphere could screen some or all of the deck from view. The distance (nm) that the deck of a 

meteorological tower would be visible by an observer at the shoreline is calculated as 1.17 times 

the square root of the observer’s height (about 6 ft) plus 1.17 times the square root of the height 

of the deck (about 40 ft). Based on this formula, the decks of meteorological towers located 

further than 10 miles from shore would not be visible by an observer standing on the shoreline. 

The Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia WEAs are all located more than 10 miles from shore. 

In these areas, the widest portion of meteorological towers (the decks) would be located below 

the visual horizon and would not be visible from shore. A small percentage of the New Jersey 

WEA (about 20 partial blocks) is located nearer to shore (between 7-10 miles). Only under 

unusually ideal conditions (e.g., high visibility and calm seas), would it be possible to see the 

decks of meteorological towers, should they be located in those areas of the New Jersey WEA 

closest to shore. While the tallest portions of the masts, up to 300 ft, would be above the visual 

horizon, they would be too narrow (3-5 m) to be clearly visible from shore. 

Other Uses 

The meteorological tower and platform could also be used to gather other information in 

addition to meteorological information, such as information and data regarding avian and marine 

mammals in the lease area. Information on other equipment that could be installed on 

meteorological towers is included in Section 3.1.3.3 of this EA.

Decommissioning 

At the latest (see “Timing” section above), within a period of two years after the cancellation, 

expiration, relinquishment, or other termination of the lease, the lessee would be required to 

remove all devices, works and structures from the site and restore the leased area to its original 

condition before issuance of the lease (30 CFR part 585.902(a)). 

It is estimated that the entire removal process of a meteorological tower would take one week 

or less. Decommissioning activities would begin with the removal of all meteorological 

instrumentation from the tower, typically a single vessel. A derrick barge would be transported 

to the offshore site and anchored adjacent to the structure. The mast would be removed from the 

deck and loading onto the transport barge. The deck would be cut from the foundation structure 

and loaded on the transport barge. The same number of vessels necessary for installation would 

43 
likely be required for decommissioning. The sea bottom area beneath installed structures would 

be cleared of all materials that have been introduced to the area in support of the lessee’s project. 

Cutting and Removing 

As required by BOEM, the lessee would sever bottom-founded structures and their related 

components at least 5 m (15 ft) below the mudline to ensure that nothing would be exposed that 

could interfere with future lessees and other activities in the area (30 CFR 585.910(a)). Which 

severing tool the operators use depends on the target size and type, water depth, economics, 

environmental concerns, tool availability, and weather conditions (USDOI, MMS, 2005). Due to 

the type and size of the piles, meteorological towers in the WEAs would most likely be removed 

using non-explosive severing methods. In the unlikely event that a SAP proposes the use of 

explosives, additional NEPA analysis and re-initiation of relevant consultations may be required. 

Common non-explosive severing tools that may be used consist of abrasive cutters (e.g., sand 

cutters and abrasive water jets), mechanical (carbide) cutters, diver cutting (e.g., underwater arc 

cutters and the oxyacetylene/oxyhydrogen torches), and diamond wire cutters. Of these, the 

most likely tools to be employed would be an internal cutting tool, such as a high pressure water 

jet-cutting tool which would not require the use of divers to set up the system or jetting 

operations to access the required mudline (Kaiser et al., 2005). To cut a pile internally, the sand 

that had been forced into the hollow pile during installation would be removed by hydraulic 

dredging/pumping, and stored on a barge. Once cut, the steel pile would then be lifted on to a 

barge and transported to shore. Following the removal of the cut pile and the adjacent scour 

control system, the sediments would be returned to the excavated pile site using a vacuum pump 

and diver-assisted hoses. As a result, no excavation around the outside of the monopole or piles 

prior to the cutting is anticipated. Cutting and removing piles would take anywhere from several 

hours to one day per pile. After the foundation is severed, it would be lifted on the transport 

barge and towed to a decommissioning site onshore (USDOI, MMS, 2009a).

Removal of the Scour Control System 

Any scour control system would also be removed during the decommissioning process. 

Scour mats would be removed by divers or ROV, and a support vessel in a similar manner to 

installation. Removal is expected to result in the suspension of sediments that were trapped in 

the mats. If rock armoring is used, armor stones would be removed using a clamshell dredge or 

similar equipment and placed on a barge. It is estimated that the removal of the scour control 

system would take a half day per pile. Therefore, depending on the foundation structure, 

removal of the scour system would take a total of 0.5 to 2 days to complete (USDOI, MMS, 

2009a).

Disposal 

Unless portions of the meteorological tower would be approved for use as artificial reefs, all 

materials would be removed by barge and transported to shore. The steel would be recycled and 

remaining materials would be disposed of in existing landfills in accordance with applicable law. 

Additionally, obsolete materials have been used as artificial reefs along the coastline of the 

United States to provide valuable habitat for numerous species of fish in areas devoid of natural 

hard bottom. The meteorological tower structures may also have the potential to serve as 

artificial reefs. However, the structure must not pose an unreasonable impediment to future 

development. If the lessee ultimately proposes to use the structure as an artificial reef, its plan 

44 
must comply with the artificial reef permitting requirements of the USACE and the criteria in the 

National Artificial Reef Plan of 1985 (33 CFR 35.2103). Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, and 

Virginia all have artificial reef programs. The State agency responsible for managing marine 

fisheries resources must accept liability for the structure before BOEM would release the Federal 

lessee from the obligation to decommission and remove all structures from the lease area 

(USDOI, MMS, 2009a). 

3.1.3.2 Meteorological Buoy and Anchor System 

While a meteorological tower has been the traditional device for characterizing wind 

conditions, several companies have expressed their interest in installing 1-2 meteorological 

buoys per lease instead of, or in conjunction with a meteorological tower. Meteorological buoys 

can be used as an alternative to or in conjunction with a meteorological tower in the offshore 

environment for meteorological resource data collection (i.e., wind, wave, and current). This EA 

assumes that, should a lessee choose to employ buoys instead of meteorological towers, it would 

install a maximum of two buoys per lease. These meteorological buoys would be anchored at 

fixed locations and regularly collect observations from many different atmospheric and 

oceanographic sensors. 

A meteorological buoy can vary in height, hull type, and anchoring method. NOAA has 

successfully used discus-shaped hull buoys and boat-shaped hull buoys for weather data 

collection for many years. These are the buoy types that would most likely be adapted for 

offshore wind data collection. A large discus buoy has a circular hull ranges between 10 – 12 m 

diameter, and is designed for many years of service (USDOC, NOAA, National Data Buoy 

Center, 2011). The boat-shaped hull buoy (known as the ‘NOMAD’) is an aluminum-hulled, 

boat-shaped buoy with provides long-term survivability in severe seas (USDOC, NOAA, 

National Data Buoy Center, 2011). The largest meteorological buoys anticipated in this scenario 

would be similar to one proposed offshore New Jersey by Garden State Offshore Energy (GSOE) 

(Tetra Tech EC, Inc., 2010). GSOE proposed a 100' (30 m) long spar-type buoy weighing 

approximately 15 tons and just over 6 ft (2 m) in diameter. 

A buoy’s specific mooring design is based on hull type, location, and water depth (USDOC, 

NOAA, National Data Buoy Center, 2011). Buoys can use a wide range of moorings to attach to 

the seabed. On the OCS, a larger discus-type or boat-shaped hull buoy may require a 

combination of a chain, nylon, and buoyant polypropylene materials designed for many years of 

ocean service. Some deep ocean moorings have operated without failure for over 10 years 

(USDOC, NOAA, 2011). The spar-type buoy described by GSOE would be stabilized through 

an on-board ballasting mechanism approximately 60 ft. below the sea surface. Approximately 

30 – 40 ft. of the spar-type buoy would be above the ocean surface where meteorological and 

other equipment would be located. 

There are several meteorological buoy manufacturers located domestically (JCOMMOPS, 

2011). International meteorological buoy manufacturers and designers would likely be 

competitors with domestic firms. Whether the buoys originate domestically or internationally, it 

is likely that, for future assessment work, buoys will arrive from the manufacturers to lessee’s 

staging areas by truck, rail or sea, then be assembled and fitted with instrumentation and then 

tested before deployment via a vessel with enough deck space to accommodate a structure 

potentially up to 12 m as well as a crane to lower the buoy into the sea (USDOC, NOAA, 2011). 

In addition to the meteorological buoys described above, a small tethered buoy (typically 3 m 

diameter or less) and/or other instrumentation could also be installed on or tethered to a 

45 
meteorological tower to monitor oceanographic parameters and to collect baseline information 

on the presence of certain marine life. 

Installation 

Boat-shaped and discus-shaped buoys are typically towed or carried aboard a vessel to the 

installation location. Once at the location site, the buoy would be either lowered to the surface 

from the deck of the transport vessel or placed over the final location, and then the mooring 

anchor dropped. A boat-shaped buoy in shallower waters of the WEAs may be moored using an 

all-chain mooring, while a larger discus-type buoy would use a combination of chain, nylon, and 

buoyant polypropylene materials (USDOC, NOAA, National Data Buoy Center, 2011). Based 

on previous proposals, anchors for boat-shaped and discus-shaped buoys would weigh about 

6,000-10,000 pounds with a footprint of about 6 square ft and an anchor sweep of about 8.75 

acres. After installation, the transport vessel would remain in the area for several hours while 

technicians configure proper operation of all systems. Buoys would typically take one day to 

install. Transport and installation vessel anchoring for one day is anticipated for these types of 

buoys (Fishermen’s Energy, 2011). 

Based on the proposal offshore New Jersey by GSOE, a spar-type buoy would be towed to 

the installation location by a transport vessel after assembly at a land-based facility. Deployment 

would occur in two phases: deployment of a clump anchor to the seabed as a pre-set anchor 

(Phase 1) and deployment of the spar buoy and connection to the clump anchor (Phase 2). Phase 

1 would take approximately one day, and include placement of the clump anchor on a barge and 

transporting it to the installation site. This example of rectangular clump weight anchor is 22’ x 

22’ x 3’ (approximately 6.7 m x 6.7 m x 1 m) in size and weighing approximately 100 tons, with 

a bottom footprint area of 484 square ft (45 m2

). Phase 2 would include towing the spar buoy to 

the site, deployment and connection to the clump anchor (Tetra Tech EC, Inc., 2010). Once at 

the final location site, it would be positioned vertically in the water column with a height from 

mean sea level (MSL) to main deck of 36’ (11 m) and a highest mast point of approximately 52’ 

(16 m). The monitoring buoy would be anchored to the seafloor using a clump weight anchor 

and mooring chain. Installation would take approximately two days. The total area of bottom 

disturbance associated with buoy and vessel anchors is 28’ x 28’ (8.5 m x 8.5 m), with a total 

area of 784 square ft (73 m2

). The maximum area of disturbance to benthic sediments occurs 

during anchor deployment and removal (e.g., sediment resettlement, sediment extrusion, etc.) for 

this type of buoy. 

As a part of Alternative A, all lessees would be required to comply with the applicable 

project design standards identified in Appendix B of this EA, as well as with the unanticipated 

finds (“chance finds”) requirements described in Section 4.1.3.1.2 of this EA. 

Onshore Activity 

Onshore activity (fabrication, staging, and launching of crew/cargo vessels) related to the 

installation of buoys is expected to utilize existing ports, which are capable of supporting this 

activity. Refer to Section 4.1.3.5 of this document for information pertaining to existing ports or 

industrial areas that would be used for meteorological buoys. No expansion of existing facilities 

would be necessary for the same reasons provided in the onshore activity section for 

meteorological towers, above. 

46 
Operation and Maintenance 

Monitoring information would be transmitted to shore, including systems performance 

information such as battery levels and charging systems output, the operational status of 

navigation lighting, and buoy positions. Also, all data gathered via sensors would be fed to an 

on-board radio system that transmits the data string to a receiver on shore (Tetra Tech EC, Inc., 

2010). Onsite inspections and preventative maintenance is expected to occur on a monthly or 

quarterly basis (i.e., marine fouling, wear, and lens cleaning) with periodic inspections for 

specialized components (i.e., buoy, hull, anchor chain, and anchor scour) occurring at separate 

intervals, but would likely coincide with the monthly or quarterly inspection to minimize the 

need for additional boat trips to the site. 

BOEM anticipates that equipment placed on a buoy would be powered by small solar panels 

or wind turbines. In the event that the solar or wind sources are limited for an extended period, 

batteries would be charged by an onboard diesel generator, which would cycle on as required. 

The weekly or bi-weekly vessel trips that would otherwise be taken for refueling generators on 

meteorological towers are not expected in the context of refueling backup generators on buoys, 

as BOEM anticipates that onboard generator use on buoys would be intermittent and minimal.

Decommissioning 

Decommissioning is basically the reverse of the installation process. Equipment recovery 

would be performed with support of a vessel(s) equivalent in size and capability to those used for 

installation (see section on installation, above). For small buoys, a crane lifting hook would be 

secured to the buoy. A water/air pump system would de-ballast the buoy into the horizontal 

position. The mooring chain and anchor would be recovered to the deck using a winching 

system. The buoy would then be towed to shore by the barge. 

All buoy decommissioning is expected to be completed within one day. Buoys would be 

returned to shore and disassembled or reused in other applications. It is anticipated that the 

mooring devices and hardware would be re-used or disposed of as scrap iron for recycling 

(Fishermen’s Energy, 2011). 

3.1.3.3 Meteorological Tower and Buoy Equipment 

Meteorological Data Collection 

To obtain meteorological data, scientific measurement devices, consisting of anemometers, 

vanes, barometers, and temperature transmitters, would be mounted either directly on the tower 

or buoy or on instrument support arms. In addition to conventional anemometers, Light 

Detection and Ranging (LIDAR), Sonic Detection and Ranging (SODAR) and Coastal Ocean 

Dynamic Applications Radar (CODAR) devices may be used to obtain meteorological data. 

LIDAR is a remote sensing technology that operates via the transmission and detection of light. 

SODAR is also a remote sensing technology; however it operates via the transmission and 

detection of sound. CODAR utilize high frequency (HF) surface wave propagation to remotely 

measure ocean surface waves and currents. 

Ocean Monitoring Equipment 

To measure the speed and direction of ocean currents, Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers 

(ADCP) would likely be installed on each meteorological tower or buoy. The ADCP is a remote 

sensing technology that transmits sound waves at a constant frequency, and measures the 

ricochet of the sound wave off fine particles or zooplanktons suspended in the water column. 

47 
The ADCPs may be mounted independently on the seafloor or to the legs of the platform, or 

attached to a buoy. A seafloor-mounted ADCP would likely be located near the meteorological 

tower (within approximately 500 ft) and would be connected by a wire that is hand-buried into 

the ocean bottom. A typical ADCP has 3 to 4 acoustic transducers that emit and receive 

acoustical pulses from different directions, with frequencies ranging from 300-600 kHz with a 

sampling rate of 1 to 60 minutes. A typical ADCP is about one to two ft tall and one to two ft 

wide. Its mooring, base, or cage (surrounding frame) would be several ft wider. 

Other Equipment 

A meteorological tower or buoy could also accommodate environmental monitoring 

equipment such as avian monitoring equipment (e.g., radar units, thermal imaging cameras), 

acoustic monitoring for marine mammals, data logging computers, power supplies, visibility 

sensors, water measurements (e.g., temperature, salinity), communications equipment, material 

hoist, and storage containers. 

3.1.3.4 Vessel Traffic Associated with Site Assessment 

Vessel trips would be associated with all phases of site assessment (installation, 

decommissioning and routine maintenance). As explained in Section 4.1.3.5, numerous existing 

ports or industrial areas in the adjacent states are expected to be used in support of Alternative A. 

These trips would be divided among nine major ports and 28 smaller ports in Delaware, New 

Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia, adding traffic in already heavily used waterways (see Section 

4.1.3.7). 

Based on previous site assessment proposals submitted to BOEM, up to about 40 round trips 

by various vessels are expected during construction of each meteorological tower. Should each 

potential lessee decide to install a meteorological tower on its leasehold, a total of 480 round 

trips are estimated from construction (40 multiplied by 12). These vessel trips may be spread 

over multiple construction seasons due to the various times at which lessees acquire their leases, 

and weather and sea state conditions, assessing suitable site(s), acquiring the necessary permits, 

and availability of vessels, workers, and tower components. Since decommissioning process 

would basically be the reverse of construction, vessel usage during decommissioning would be 

similar to vessel usage during construction, so another 480 round trips are estimated. 

Meteorological buoys would typically take one day to install by one vessel. One round trip is 

assumed for the installation of each buoy and again for its decommissioning. Should each 

potential lessee decide to install meteorological buoys on its leasehold, a total of 50 round trips 

are estimated for the installation and decommissioning of the 25 anticipated meteorological 

buoys. 

Assuming a single maintenance trip to each meteorological tower weekly to quarterly and 

monthly to quarterly to each buoy, Alternative A would result in an additional 148-924 vessel 

trips per year, or 740-4,620 vessel trips over a five and one-half year period. 

The total vessel traffic estimated as a result of the installation, decommissioning, and routine 

maintenance of the meteorological towers/buoys that could be reasonably anticipated in 

connection with Alternative A is anywhere from 1,750-5,630 round trips over a five and one-half 

year period (Section 3.1.3.1, Operation and Maintenance). 

As a part of Alternative A, all vessels associated with the activities of lessees would be 

required to comply with the applicable project design standards identified in Appendix B of this 

EA. 

48 
3.2 Non-Routine Events 

Chapter 5.2.24 of the Programmatic EIS discusses in detail potential non-routine events and 

hazards that could occur during data collection activities. The primary events and hazards are: 

(1) severe storms such as hurricanes and extratropical cyclones; (2) collisions between the 

structure or associated vessels with other marine vessels or marine life; and (3) spills from 

collisions or during generator refueling. These events and hazards are summarized below. 

3.2.1 Storms 

Severe weather events have the potential to cause structural damage and injury to personnel. 

Data collected from National Data Buoy Center buoys located offshore of Delaware Bay (Buoys 

44009 and 44012), Raritan Bay (Buoy 44025), and offshore of Virginia Beach (Buoy 44014) 

show wind speeds are typically lowest in June and July at 10 knots (12 mph) to 12 knots (14 

mph), and highest in January ranging from 15 knots (17 mph) in the Delaware Bay area to 21 

knots (24 mph) off the coast of Virginia Beach. Peak winds of up to 58 knots (67 mph) have 

been recorded at Buoy 44014 over the period of record (2002 – 2008) during the month of 

September. The highest winds are associated with tropical cyclones, but more often, high wind 

events are associated with extratropical cyclones in the winter season. The Atlantic Ocean 

hurricane season is June 1 – November 30 with a peak in September when it is most likely that 

hurricanes will impact the WEAs at sometime during the life of Alternative A (see Figure 3.3). 

The Atlantic basin averages about 10 storms of tropical storm strength or greater per year; about 

half reach hurricane level (USDOC, NOAA, 2005) and 2.5 become major hurricanes (Category 3 

or higher). 

Figure 3.3. The zones of origin and tracks for the month of September during the 

hurricane season. 

(Note: this figure only depicts average conditions. Hurricanes can originate in 

different locations and travel much different paths from the average; Source 

USDOC, NOAA, 2010)

3.2.2 Allisions and Collisions 

A meteorological tower or buoy located in the WEAs could pose a risk to navigation. An 

allision between a ship and a meteorological structure could result in the loss of the entire facility 

and/or the vessel, as well as loss of life and spill of diesel fuel. When a vessel hits a buoy 

49 
system, it could damage the buoy hull so the buoy loses its buoyancy and sinks, or damages the 

equipment or its supporting structure. Vessels associated with site characterization and 

assessment activities could collide with other vessels and experience accidental capsizing or 

result in a diesel spill. 

Collisions and allisions are considered unlikely since vessel traffic is controlled by multiple 

routing measures, such as safety fairways, TSSs, and anchorages. These higher traffic areas 

were excluded from the WEAs, as described in Chapter 1 of this EA. Risk of allisions with 

meteorological towers and buoys would be further reduced by USCG-required marking and 

lighting. 

Historical data supports that allisions and collisions resulting in major damage to property 

and equipment would be unlikely. Allision and collision incident data were reviewed for the 

years 1996 through 2010 (USDOI, BOEMRE, 2011a), for the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific 

regions, which contain many fixed structures on the OCS like the meteorological facilities that 

would be installed. These facilities would need operations and maintenance over the five and a 

half year period of site assessment just as the fixed structures in the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific 

regions do. Over a 15-year period with over 4,000 structures present at any one time, 236 

allisions with platforms or associated OCS structures and collisions between vessels were 

reported in the Gulf of Mexico or Pacific regions. While only allisions and collisions that result 

in property or equipment damage greater than $25,000 must be reported, this number includes 

reports of minor damage (< $25,000). The most commonly reported causes of the allisions and 

collisions included human error, weather-related causes, equipment failure on the vessels, and 

navigational aids not working on the structures. In many cases, the allisions resulted in major 

damage (> $25,000) to the platforms and/or impacting vessels. 

3.2.3 Spills 

A diesel spill could occur as a result of collisions, accidents, or natural events. If a vessel 

collision occurs and if the collision leads to major hull damage a diesel spill could occur. The 

amount of diesel fuel that could be released by a marine vessel involved in a collision would 

depend on the type of vessel and severity of the collision. From 2000 to 2009, the average spill 

size for vessels other than tank ships and tank barges was 88.36 gallons (U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security, USCG, 2011), and, should Alternative A result in a spill in any given area, 

BOEM anticipates that the average volume would be the same. 

Vessels are expected to comply with USCG requirements relating to prevention and control 

of oil spills. Most equipment on the meteorological towers and buoys would be powered by 

batteries charged by small wind turbines, solar panels. 

Diesel generators may be used on some of the anticipated meteorological towers and buoys. 

Minor diesel fuel spills may also occur during refueling of generators. Although not required by 

30 CFR Part 585, BOEM may require an Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP) for an individual SAP, 

if the lessee proposes the use of a generator (30 CFR 585.610(a)(16)). 

Impacts would depend greatly on the material spilled (diesel fuel in the related vessel and 

infrastructure types); the size and location of a spill, the meteorological conditions at the time, 

and the speed with which cleanup plans and equipment could be employed. Diesel fuel is a 

refined petroleum product that is lighter than water. It may float on the water’s surface or be 

dispersed into the water column by waves. Diesel is a distillate of crude oil and does not contain 

the heavier components that contribute to crude oil’s longer persistence in the environment. If a 

50 
51 

diesel spill were to occur, it would be expected to dissipate very rapidly and would then 

evaporate and biodegrade within a few days (USDOI, MMS, 2007b). 

4 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC 

CONSEQUENCES 

4.1 Alterative A – Full Leasing of the WEAs 

4.1.1 Physical Resources 

4.1.1.1 Air Quality 

Alternative A could affect the air quality in and offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland 

and Virginia. Survey and construction vessels would use ports in all of these states and travel 

through state waters to and from the WEAs. Vessels would emit pollutants in these areas. 

However, the volume of pollutants emitted in these areas, in light of existing vessel traffic and 

current ambient air quality, the heavily developed nature of many of the port and coastal areas 

that could be affected, and prevailing westerly winds, the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on existing air quality would be minor, if detectible. 

The ports anticipated to be used for Alternative A are the ports of Camden, Paulsboro and 

Trenton as well as eleven smaller ports in New Jersey; the ports of Wilmington and New Castle 

and two smaller ports in Delaware; the Port of Baltimore and five smaller ports in Maryland; and 

the ports of Hampton Roads, Hopewell and Richmond, as well as nine smaller ports within the 

Hampton Roads area in Virginia. More information on these ports is provided in Section 4.1.3.5 

of this EA. 

Chapter 4.2.2.2 of the Programmatic EIS describes air quality in the Atlantic Region, while 

Chapter 4.2.2.3 of the Programmatic EIS describes regulatory controls on OCS activities that 

would affect air quality. The following is a summary of that information, and incorporates new 

and site-specific information. 

4.1.1.1.1 Description of the Affected Environment 

The waterways traversed by vessels going to and from the ports in New Jersey and Delaware 

had 39,666 vessel trips in 2009 (almost 20,000 roundtrips); the ports in Maryland had 5,858 

vessel trips in 2009 (approximately 2,929 roundtrips); and the ports in Virginia had 35,360 vessel 

trips in 2009 (approximately 17,680 roundtrips) (USACE, 2009). Most of the harbors and 

associated coastal areas in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia are heavily developed 

metropolitan and industrial areas and have historically been, and continue to be host to very large 

volumes of rail, road, vessel, and air traffic, all of which emit air pollutants. 

It is anticipated that Alternative A will add over 12,000 vessel round trips in connection with 

site characterization and assessment activities over a five and half year period, if the entire area 

of each WEA would be leased and the maximum amount of site characterization surveys would 

be conducted in the leased areas of the WEAs (see Sections 3.1.2.6 and 3.1.3.4). These trips 

would be divided among nine major and 28 smaller existing ports in Delaware, New Jersey, 

Maryland, and Virginia. Due to proximity, it is assumed the majority of traffic associated with 

site characterization and assessment of the Virginia WEA (about 2,800 round trips) would be 

supported by the 3 major and 9 smaller ports in Virginia (see Sections 3.1.2.6 and 3.1.3.4 of this 

EA). If all ports are used equally, this would average about 43 round trips per year to each of the 

Virginia ports. Using this same methodology and based on the number of ports in each of the 

other states, the traffic associated with site characterization and assessment of the WEAs 

53 
offshore New Jersey (about 6,400 round trips), Delaware (about 1,100 round trips) and 

Maryland (about 1,700 round trips) would be divided as follows: over half of the traffic 

supported by 3 major and 11 smaller ports in New Jersey; and the remainder of the traffic split 

between 3 major and 8 smaller ports in Delaware and Maryland. If all ports are used equally, 

this would average about 67 round trips per year to each of the ports in New Jersey, Delaware 

and Maryland (see Section 4.1.3.5 of this EA). 

 The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for air pollutants that 

are listed as “criteria” pollutants because there was adequate reason to believe that their presence 

in the ambient air “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.” The 

NAAQS apply to sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone 

(O3), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5, particulate matter of 10 μm and 2.5 μm), and lead (Pb) 

(40 CFR Part 50). The primary NAAQS are set at levels to protect public health with an 

adequate margin of safety. The USEPA has designated secondary NAAQS to protect public 

welfare. All of the standards are expressed as concentration in air and duration of exposure. 

Many standards address both short- and long-term exposures. Any individual State may adopt a 

more stringent set of standards. 

When the monitored pollutant levels in an area of a state exceed the NAAQS for any 

pollutant, the area is classified as “nonattainment” for that pollutant. All of the counties that may 

be affected by emissions associated with Alternative A meet the NAAQS for NO2, and Pb 

(USEPA, 2008a). However, other NAAQS are not met for the counties containing port cities 

including Warren County, New Jersey, which is classified as nonattainment for SO2. New Castle 

County, Delaware; six coastal New Jersey counties (Bergen, Burlington, Essex, Hudson, 

Monmouth, and Union Counties); three coastal Maryland counties (Anne Arundel, Baltimore 

City, Baltimore County); and Alexandria, Virginia are classified nonattainment for PM2.5. The 

counties containing port cities including three Delaware counties (New Castle, Kent and Sussex), 

all New Jersey counties, four Maryland counties (Anne Arundel, Baltimore City, Baltimore, 

Calvert) and Alexandria, Virginia are classified as moderate for 8-hour ozone (see Table 4.1). 

All of the counties containing port cities in New Jersey (Camden, Mercer and Gloucester), 

Delaware (New Castle and Sussex) and Maryland (Baltimore City) are in counties classified as 

“moderate” for 8-hour ozone. All of the New Jersey port counties are in non attainment of PM2.5 

in addition to the above for Delaware and Maryland. The USEPA air quality standards for ozone 

are 0.12 ppm (1-hour average) and 0.075 ppm (8-hour average). Ozone is a regional air pollutant 

issue. Prevailing southwest to west winds carry air pollution from the Ohio River Valley, where 

major nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission sources (e.g., power plants) are located, and from MidAtlantic metropolitan areas, to the northeast, contributing to high ozone episodes. 

54 
Table 4.1 

Total Number of Coastal Counties in Nonattainment of Each Criteria Pollutant per State 

Criteria 

Pollutant 

Delaware New 

Jersey 

Maryland Virginia 

8-hour O3 3 9 4 1 

SO2 - 1 - 

PM2.5 1 9 3 1 

Source: USEPA, 2008a. 

The USEPA General Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 51 and 93 ensures that Federal actions 

comply with the national ambient air quality standards, in order to meet the Clean Air Act 

requirement. The Clean Air Act requires that Federal actions resulting in emissions in nonattainment areas and maintenance areas in a state conform to the federally approved State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). Because vessels supporting site characterization and assessment 

activities travel through state waters, a conformity determination would be required if emissions 

exceed 100 tons per year in the non-attainment areas. 

Delaware’s 2009 annual air quality report (DNREC, 2009a), which documents the changes 

and overall improvement in ambient air quality, states, “in 2009 only two pollutants, ozone and 

PM2.5, exceed the national ambient air quality standards.” Other pollutants monitored are well 

below the national standards. 

In New Jersey, ozone is a significant problem in the summer months according to the 2008 

annual air quality report (NJDEP, 2008a). During 2008, there were 30 days in which the new 

0.075 ppm 8-hour standard for ozone was exceeded across the state of New Jersey. The mean 

annual average of Fine Particulate Speciation for the four fine particle monitoring sites in New 

Jersey was 12.6527 micrograms per cubic meter. 

During the 2009 ozone season in Maryland, eleven “exceedence days were observed [,] with 

only one reaching the Unhealthy AQI range.” From 2004 to 2008 the average number of 

exceedence days was 39 (MDE, 2009). Also during 2009, PM2.5 caused air quality to exceed an 

Air Quality Index of 100 on a scale of 0 – 500, which means that the air was “Unhealthy for 

Sensitive Groups” (MDE, 2009). 

Virginia’s 2009 ambient air monitoring report (VADEQ, 2010a) indicated that Northern 

Virginia had four days that 8-hour ozone exceedence occurred. The remainder of the state had 

no exceedences recorded at the monitoring stations. 

Class I Areas 

Class I Areas are defined in Sections 101(b)(1), 169A(a)(2), and 301(a) of the CAA, as 

amended (42 USC 7401(b), 7410, 7491(a)(2), and 7601(a)). Class I areas are federally owned 

lands where very little air quality degradation is allowed. In these areas, air quality-related 

values including visibility are protected. There is one Class I area in New Jersey that could be 

affected by Alternative A, the Brigantine Wilderness Area located in southern New Jersey 

approximately 11 miles north of Atlantic City. Class I Areas have stringent incremental limits 

for NO2, SO2 and PM10. The Brigantine Wilderness Area is in a non-attainment area for ozone. 

55 
Regulatory Controls on OCS Activities That Affect Air Quality 

Section 328 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA 1990) directs the USEPA to 

promulgate regulations for OCS sources that may affect the air quality of any state (42 U.S.C. 

7627). The regulations are found in 40 CFR Part 55. Under 40 CFR Part 55, USEPA has 

authority to regulate the air emissions associated with “OCS sources,” which would include 

meteorological towers, any vessels for the purposes of constructing, servicing, or 

decommissioning them, and seafloor boring. See 40 CFR 55.2. Under the USEPA rules, for all 

OCS sources located within 25 nm of States’ seaward boundaries, the requirements are the same 

as would be otherwise applicable if the source were located in the corresponding onshore area. 

In the States potentially affected by Alternative A, the State seaward boundaries extend three nm 

from the coastline. 

Section 328 of the CAAA 1990 also establishes a unique treatment for vessels associated 

with OCS facilities. With respect to calculations of an OCS facility’s Potential to Emit (PTE), 

emissions from vessels that are servicing or associated with the operations of OCS facilities must 

be counted as direct emissions from the OCS source when those vessels are at the source or en 

route to or from the source when within 25 nm of the source. The USEPA rules set forth in 40 

CFR Part 55 replicate this treatment of vessels with respect to PTE calculations. 

Any CAA permit that may be needed by EPA regulations would be issued by the appropriate 

USEPA Region (Region 2 for New Jersey and Region 3 for Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia) 

or by the appropriate state agency authorized to do so by the USEPA. 

Some emissions associated with OCS sources may require compliance with the General 

Conformity Rule 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B. These regulations implemented Section 176 of the 

CAAA 1990 which requires that Federal actions conform to applicable SIPs developed by States 

and approved by USEPA for the purpose of attaining or maintaining compliance with NAAQS. 

To determine whether a conformity determination is required for activities described in a 

particular SAP, BOEM would conduct an applicability analysis when the SAP is received. A 

conformity determination is required when the total direct and indirect emissions for criteria 

pollutants in a nonattainment or maintenance area exceed rates (known as de minimus rates), 

specified in 40 CFR 93.153(b)(1) and (2). The emissions estimates must include emissions from 

transportation of materials, equipment, and personnel, and must extend to construction and 

decommissioning phases, as well as the operational phase of the action. Conformity only applies 

to emissions within State boundaries (onshore and in state waters) and only to emissions that are 

located within 25 nm of the state’s seaward boundary. 

4.1.1.1.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A 

Impacts of Routine Activities 

Routine activities (see Section 3.1 of this EA), which include site characterization activities 

and the construction, servicing, maintenance, and decommissioning of meteorological towers 

and buoys have the potential to impact air quality locally. Potential emission sources include 

support vessels, survey vessels and equipment, and the possible use of diesel generators to power 

equipment on meteorological towers. Vessels associated with the Alternative A would emit 

sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, 

and other chemicals categorized as air pollutants. 

56 
Emissions of Criteria Pollutants 

The primary emission sources associated with site assessment activities would be from 

engine exhaust of vessel traffic (e.g., boat or barge) and heavy equipment (e.g., pile drivers). See

Chapter 5.2.2.2 of the Programmatic EIS. In general, most criteria pollutant emissions would be 

from internal combustion engines burning diesel fuel during the installation, construction or 

decommissioning of a meteorological buoy or tower and would include primarily nitrogen oxides 

NOx and carbon monoxide (CO), lesser amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 

PM10 (mostly in the form of PM2.5), and negligible amounts of sulfur oxides (SOx). 

Site Characterization Surveys 

Survey vessels would emit pollutants both in state waters and in waters over the OCS while 

traveling to and from the WEAs and while conducting site characterization surveys within the 

WEAs. Impacts from pollutant emissions associated with these vessels would very likely be 

localized, and would not travel in between WEAs or, for example, from NJ waters to VA waters. 

Prevailing westerly (west to east flow) winds would prevent any substantial amount of pollutant 

emissions from traveling from offshore areas to onshore non-attainment areas.

In state waters, vessel traffic associated with survey vessels moving in and out of each port 

would reasonably be predicted to average 43 trips per year per port in Virginia and 67 trips per 

year per port in New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland (see Section 4.1.1.1.1 of this EA). These 

43-67 trips per year is a very small contribution to the annual average traffic in each port, 

coastal, and harbor area’s activity. The waterways traversed by vessels going to and from the 

ports in New Jersey and Delaware had 39,666 vessel trips in 2009 (almost 20,000 roundtrips); 

the ports in Maryland had 5,858 vessel trips in 2009 (approximately 2,929 roundtrips); and the 

ports in Virginia had 35,360 vessel trips in 2009 (approximately 17,680 roundtrips) (USACE, 

2009). The additional pollutant emissions resulting from the vessel traffic associated with the 

WEAs would be negligible, if detectible, in each of the WEAs. 

On the OCS, vessel traffic to conduct surveys within the WEAs would cover a maximum 

total of 60,100 nm and 13,300 hours of operation. Pollutant emissions from surveying a lease in 

a WEA offshore one state are unlikely to impact the air quality of a WEA offshore another state 

with the exception of survey work in the southern parts of the Delaware WEA and the northern 

Maryland WEA. Again, it is unlikely that these activities would impact onshore air quality in 

any way due to prevailing westerly winds. 

Construction and Decommissioning 

Alternative A is projected to result in up to 12 meteorological towers or 25 meteorological 

buoys within the WEAs (see Section 3.1.3, Table 3.3 of this EA). Potential impacts on ambient 

air quality within the WEAs during construction and decommissioning would be minor due to 

the short duration of these activities and the location of these activities offshore. Estimated 

emissions of criteria air pollutants from the construction and decommissioning of each 

anticipated meteorological tower is approximately 13.5 tons (Bluewater Wind New Jersey 

Energy LLC, 2009). As a result, should all of the lessees within the New Jersey WEA choose to 

erect meteorological towers, the total amount of all criteria pollutant emissions associated with 

constructing and decommissioning (including vessel traffic) all seven of the anticipated towers 

offshore New Jersey would be 94.5 tons, less than the de minimums permit level of 100 tons per 

year. The total criteria pollutant emissions for one meteorological tower and associated vessels 

are therefore anticipated to be well below the de minimus level. A general conformity analysis 

57 
would be performed when a SAP is submitted only if the plan indicates that the site assessment 

activities would emit over 100 tons of a criteria pollutant per year. 

Emissions associated with the construction and decommissioning of all projected 

meteorological towers offshore Maryland would be 27 tons (assuming two leases and hence, two 

towers), and offshore Virginia would be 40.5 tons (assuming three leases and hence, 3 

meteorological towers). For the WEA offshore Delaware, no meteorological towers are 

projected in connection with Alternative A (see Section 4.7, Cumulative Environmental and 

Socioeconomic Impacts, of this EA). 

Emissions associated with a buoy would be much less than those associated with a tower, 

because buoys are towed or carried aboard a vessel and then anchored to the seafloor. No 

drilling equipment would be required to install meteorological buoys. Each installation and 

decommissioning operation of a buoy can be completed in one day which involves one round 

trip. See Section 3.1.3.2 for more information. This is well below the number of trips required 

for tower installation and therefore emissions associated with construction and decommissioning 

projected meteorological buoys would also fall below the pollutant threshold. 

Whether it be towers or buoys, emissions associated with the construction and 

decommissioning of the anticipated meteorological data collection facilities would be minor (less 

than 100 tons per leasehold). The majority of these emissions would occur within the WEAs, 

and would not affect onshore air quality. 

Operations 

As explained in Section 3.1.3.1, Timing, of this EA, BOEM assumes that meteorological 

towers and buoys would be operating concurrently or staggered within the WEAs over a five and 

one half year period. Equipment on the meteorological data collection facilities would be 

powered by batteries charged by small wind turbines, solar panels, and/or diesel generators. 

Diesel generators may be used as the main source of power on meteorological towers and a 

backup power source on meteorological buoys. While turbines and solar panels would produce 

no emissions, diesel generators would emit NOx, CO, PM10 and SO2. All criteria pollutant 

emissions are estimated to total approximately one ton (1.08 tons (Bluewater Wind New Jersey 

Energy LLC, 2009)) per year for each facility. Total operational emissions for all anticipated 

meteorological towers for the New Jersey WEA is seven tons per year; for Delaware no 

meteorological towers are projected in connection with Alternative A; for Maryland it is 

estimated to be two tons per year; and for Virginia three tons per year. Due to the distance to 

shore and prevailing winds, the use of diesel generators in the WEAs would not impact onshore 

air quality. 

Support vessels traveling to and from shore and in harbor or port areas are anticipated to 

make approximately 12,000 round trips over 5.5 years (see Sections 3.1.2.6 and 3.1.3.4 of this 

EA). This vessel traffic has the potential to affect onshore air quality. Several major ports are 

suitable for supporting the fabrication and staging of meteorological towers and buoys (Section 

4.1.3.5 of this EA). Support vessels traveling from these ports and offshore sites would 

contribute very little to pre-existing emission totals in these areas. Therefore, impacts from 

additional pollutant emissions, based on estimated vessel trips associated with Alternative A, in 

conjunction with vessel trips and associated air emissions for the already busy ports and harbors 

would be negligible, if detectible. 

58 
Impacts of Non-Routine Activities 

The most likely impact to air emissions from non-routine activities would be caused by 

vapors from fuel spills resulting from either vessel collisions or allisions or from servicing or 

refueling generators that may be located on the metrological towers or buoys. A spill could 

occur from vessel collisions within or outside the WEAs, or at the sites of the 12 potential 

meteorological towers and 25 buoys within the WEAs (see Section 3.2.3 of this EA). If a vessel 

spill were to occur, the estimated spill size would be approximately 88 gallons based on the 

average spill size for vessels other than tank ships and tank barges (U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security, USCG, 2011). It is estimated that a buoy generator could contain 240 

gallons of diesel fuel (FERN, 2011). If such a spill were to occur, it would be expected to 

dissipate very rapidly and then evaporate and biodegrade within a few days (USDOI, MMS, 

2007b). Air emissions from a diesel spill would be minor and temporary. A diesel spill 

occurring in the WEAs is not projected to have any impacts on onshore air quality, because of 

the estimated size of a spill, prevailing atmospheric conditions over the WEAs, and distance 

from shore. The impacts of emissions to air quality in the vicinity of the spill within the WEAs 

would be minor and temporary. 

In the unlikely event of vessel collision or allision, a spill could occur while en-route to and 

from the WEAs or while a lessee surveys potential cable routes to shore. Spills occurring in 

these areas, which include harbor and coastal areas, are not anticipated to have significant 

impacts on onshore air quality due to the estimated size and duration of the spill. If such a spill 

were to occur, the impacts to local air quality would be minor and temporary. 

Conclusion 

Due to the low level of WEA-related vessel traffic that will be traversing any of these areas 

at any one time over the course of five and one-half years of site assessment and characterization 

activities, and due to the existing air quality in these areas, the amount of human activity that 

emits air pollutants in these areas, and their short duration of emissions associated with 

Alternative A, potential impacts to onshore ambient air quality from the Alternative A would be 

minor, if detectable. Prevailing westerly (west to east flow) winds would prevent any substantial 

amount of emissions from making it to onshore areas from offshore areas and the WEAs. 

Emissions associated with Alternative A within ports and harbors would be negligible, if 

detectable, due to the low volume of vessel activity associated with Alternative A, particularly 

when compared to the high volume of current activity in and around these areas which emit 

pollution, and in light of the current ambient air quality in most of these areas. A non-routine 

event such as a diesel spill may have short-term impacts on ambient air quality in a localized 

area, but these effects would dissipate very quickly. Neither routine activities nor non-routine 

events in harbor areas, coastal waters, or in the WEAs would significantly impact onshore air 

quality, including the Brigantine Wilderness Area Class I Area. 

4.1.1.2 Water Quality 

For the purposes of this EA, water quality is a measure of the ability of a waterbody to 

maintain the ecosystems it supports or influences. In the case of coastal and marine 

environments, the quality of the water is influenced by the bays and rivers that drain into the 

area, the quantity and composition of wet and dry atmospheric deposition, and the influx of 

constituents from sediments. Besides the natural inputs, human activity can contribute to water 

quality through discharges, run-off, dumping, burning, spills, the pollutants released into the 

59 
water from vessel traffic, and anti-fouling paints containing tributyltin (the usage of anti-fouling 

paints containing tributyltin is not anticipated in this scenario because it is banned by the 

International Maritime Organization). Also, mixing or circulation of the water can either 

improve the water through flushing or be the source of factors contributing to the decline of 

water quality. 

Evaluation of water quality is done by measurement of factors that are considered important 

to the health of an ecosystem. The factors influencing coastal and marine environments are 

temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, the presence of chlorophyll, potential of 

hydrogen (pH), oxidation reduction potential (Eh), pathogens, and turbidity or suspended load. 

Trace constituents, such as metals and organic compounds can affect water quality. 

Contaminants, which are associated with the suspended load, may ultimately reside in the 

sediments rather than the water column. 

The affected environment is divided into coastal and marine waters for the purposes of the 

following discussion. Coastal waters include all the ports/harbors, rivers, bays and estuaries that 

could be affected by Alternative A (e.g., traversed by vessels during site characterization and 

assessment activities). Marine waters include both waters offshore that are state territory (within 

three nm of shore) as well as those above the OCS in the WEAs and on the path to and from the 

WEAs from shore. 

4.1.1.2.1 Description of the Affected Environment 

Chapter 4.2.4 of the Programmatic EIS describes coastal and marine water quality in the 

Atlantic Region, including the regions in which the WEAs are located. The following 

summarizes that information, and incorporates new and site-specific information. 

Mid-Atlantic Coastal Waters and Water Quality 

In the National Coastal Condition Report III, USEPA rated the quality of the nation’s coastal 

waters on a scale of poor, fair, and good using an index based on dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll 

a, nitrogen, phosphorus, and water clarity. According to the National Coastal Condition Report 

III, the water quality index for the relevant portions of the Mid-Atlantic, which includes much of 

the New Jersey Coastline, the Delaware Coastline, Delaware Bay, the Chesapeake Bay, and 

coastal and harbor areas south of the Chesapeake were rated by USEPA as “poor” for water 

quality (see Figure 4.1 below). 

60 
Figure 4.1. Water Quality Index for the Northeast Coast (USEPA, 2008b). 

New Jersey and Delaware Coastal Waters 

The ports of Camden, Paulsboro, Trenton, Wilmington, and New Castle are all located along 

the Delaware River. The Delaware Bay Launch is located in Milford on the Delaware Bay and 

the Indian River Marina is located in Rehoboth on the Indian River. The Delaware River is the 

longest un-dammed river in the United States east of the Mississippi. The river contains 13,539 

square miles and over 15 million people (approximately five percent of the nation’s population) 

rely on the waters for multiple uses (DRBC, 2009). Beachfront communities dot the 25-mile 

coast of Delaware. In the 2006 Delaware Water Quality Assessment Report (DNREC, 2011), 

Delaware’s entire coastal shoreline was rated “good” for fish, aquatic life and wildlife, water 

supply and recreation. However, 29.5 miles of Delaware bays and estuaries that make up the 

Delaware River basin were reported as “impaired” due to municipal point source discharges, 

septic system discharges, industry, agriculture, development, runoff, vessel traffic, and natural 

sources, such as wildlife. In the lower Delaware Bay, the dissolved oxygen levels fall below 

levels adequate to provide for aerobic life forms (5.0 mg/l). Levels of the contaminants mercury, 

61 
chlorinated pesticides, and PCBs are high enough in fish to require fish consumption advisories 

throughout the Bay. 

Maryland Coastal Waters 

The Port of Baltimore and Port of Annapolis are both located on the Chesapeake Bay. 

Almost 95% of the land in Maryland drains to the Chesapeake Bay, which then leads to the 

Atlantic Ocean. According to the Chesapeake & Coastal Program, “[t]he Chesapeake Bay is 

North America’s largest and most biologically diverse estuary.” (Chesapeake & Coastal 

Program). The Port of Baltimore, located in the upper Chesapeake Bay is a major urban, 

industrial, and transportation center with heavy vessel traffic and port activity. For the year 

2009, the Chesapeake Bay Program rated the bay’s water quality as “poor” (Chesapeake Bay 

Program, 2011). The bay’s water quality is measured with respect to dissolved oxygen, water 

clarity, chlorophyll a, and chemical contaminants. In 2010 the bay attained 38% of its dissolved 

oxygen goal for the three-year period of 2008 - 2010, that is a 1% drop from the 2007 – 2009 

monitoring period. Dissolved oxygen is important for the survival of aquatic animals. The 

levels of dissolved oxygen necessary vary by species. Water clarity is the depth to which light 

can penetrate into the water (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2011). Visibility to a depth ranging 

from 0.65 – 2.0 meters is acceptable. The bay attained 18% of its target water clarity in 2010, 

which is a 26% drop from 2009. Poor water clarity is impacted by suspended sediments and 

excess nutrients leading to algae growth. Chlorophyll a is an indicator of the amount of algae 

present. Algae is a food source, but too much of it can block sunlight and reduce dissolved 

oxygen levels. In 2010 the bay achieved 22% of its target, a 7% drop from 2009. Chemical 

contaminants are harmful to the bay’s ecosystem and to human health. In 2010 the bay achieved 

27.8% of its target for chemical contaminants, which is consistent with the years 2008 and 2009, 

but is a 6% drop from 2007. 

Virginia Coastal Waters 

The Virginia ports of Hampton Roads, Richmond, and Hopewell are all located along the 

James River which is part of the Chesapeake Bay Waterway System. The James River basin is 

Virginia’s largest river basin. Approximately 12% of the basin is considered urban with a 

population of approximately 2,092,278 in 2006, concentrated in Tidewater, Greater Richmond – 

Petersburg, Lynchburg, and Charlottesville (VA DEQ, 2010). In the state of Virginia, the water 

quality standards that are in place are based upon the designated uses for the waters. There are 

six designated uses: aquatic life, fish consumption, public water supplies, shellfishing, 

swimming, and wildlife. For the designated uses of the James River basin, 902 miles of the 

4,078 miles assessed for aquatic life are “impaired”; 262 miles of the 1,960 miles assessed are 

“impaired” for fish consumption; none of the water is “impaired” for the public water supply; 

1,776 miles of the assessed 3,293 miles of water designated for recreation are “impaired”; 

shellfishing is not applicable in the James River basin; and 6 miles of the 3,395 miles assessed 

for wildlife use are “impaired.” The largest sources of impairment include agricultural runoff, 

combined sewer overflows, discharges from municipalities separate storm sewer systems, 

industrial point source discharge, livestock grazing or feeding operations, municipal point source 

discharges, natural conditions, non-point sources, domestic wastes, waste from pets, wildlife 

other than waterfowl, as well as other sources impairing discrete areas of the river basin (VA 

DEQ, 2010). 

62 
Marine Waters 

Although no data specific to the water quality of each WEA is available at this time, as the 

distance from shore increases, oceanic circulation and the volume of water increasingly serves to 

disperse, dilute, and biodegrade anthropogenic contaminants and determine water quality. Since 

the vast majority of pollutants and threats to marine waters originate on land, there are far fewer 

identified threats to marine water quality that are identified as actually originating from activities 

in the marine environment. 

Discharges from ships and onshore wastewater treatment facilities are the most likely sources 

of water-borne contaminants in the WEAs themselves. Ocean-going vessels sometimes 

discharge bilge and ballast water and sanitary waste prior to entering state waters due to state 

restrictions on discharges in their waters. Presently, sewage outfalls from both the New Jersey 

and Delaware coasts discharge treated municipal wastewater to the Atlantic Ocean in such 

concentrations and volume that water quality in the corresponding WEAs could be affected. A 

dredge spoil location in Virginia at the mouth of the Potomac River could affect the water quality 

within the WEA offshore Virginia, as the project generated in excess of 450,000 m3

 of silt loam, 

high pH, low salt dredge spoils from 2000 to 2005 (Daniels, 2011). 

Mid-Atlantic ocean waters beyond three miles offshore typically have very low 

concentrations of suspended particles, generally less than 1 milligram per liter (Louis Berger 

Group, 1999). Levels may be higher in bottom waters because bottom currents may resuspend 

sand. Storms may cause suspended sediment loads to increase by one to two orders of 

magnitude, but this effect dissipates soon (within days) after the storm passes. 

Sand, the predominant sediment type in the area, does not retain contaminants, thus 

resuspension of sediments is not a potential source of pollution. The distance of the WEAs from 

the shoreline bays and rivers limits the potential influence of land-based contaminants. 

4.1.1.2.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A 

Routine Activities 

The routine activities associated with Alternative A that would impact coastal and marine 

water quality include vessel discharges (including bilge and ballast water and sanitary waste), 

and structure installation and removal. A general description of these impacts to coastal and 

marine water quality is presented in Chapter 5.2.4 of the Programmatic EIS. The following 

summarizes that information, and incorporates new and site-specific information. 

Onshore Discharges 

 Point-source discharges onshore and in state waters are regulated by the USEPA, the agency 

responsible for coastal water quality, or the USEPA-authorized state agency. The USEPA 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm-water effluent limitation 

guidelines control storm-water discharges from support facilities, such as ports and harbors. 

Activities associated with staging and fabrication of the meteorological towers and buoys would 

account for a very small amount of activity at existing port facilities during the short duration of 

staging. Alternative A is not anticipated to increase runoff or onshore discharge into harbors, 

waterways, coastal areas or the ocean environment. 

63 
Vessel Discharges 

Vessel discharges associated with Alternative A may affect water quality when vessels are 

traveling to and from the WEAs, and during site characterization surveys and site assessment 

activities in the WEAs. Vessel discharges include bilge and ballast water, and sanitary waste. 

Bilge water is often contaminated with oil. Regulations that set limits for oil in bilge water 

would minimize the impact to water quality. Bilge water is water that collects in the lower part 

of a ship. The bilge water is often contaminated by oil that leaks from the machinery within the 

vessel. The discharge of any oil or oily mixtures is prohibited under 33 CFR 151.10; however, 

discharges may occur in waters greater than 12 nm from shore if the oil concentration is less than 

100 ppm. Ballast water is less likely to contain oil but is subject to the same limits. Ballast 

water is used to maintain stability of the vessel and may be pumped from coastal or marine 

waters. Generally, the ballast water is pumped into and out of separate compartments and is not 

usually contaminated with oil; however, the same discharge criteria apply as for bilge water (33 

CFR 151.10). Ballast water may be subject to the USCG Ballast Water Management Program to 

prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species. In coastal waters, bilge and ballast water may be 

discharged with an oil content of 15 ppm or less. In the Study of Discharges Incidental to 

Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other Non-Recreational Vessels Less 

than 79 Feet (USEPA, 2010b), USEPA sampled wastewater discharges from vessels of the type 

associated with Alternative A: tugboats, small research vessels, and supply boats, as well as 

others. The samples were taken from port and coastal cities in the Mid-Atlantic and in other 

areas. Using the samples, USEPA modeled how these vessel types may impact water quality. It 

was determined that vessels discharging to a relatively large water body such as the WEAs were 

not likely to cause an exceedance of National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. However, 

there is the potential for these discharges to impact water quality locally and temporarily within 

the WEAs. Vessels traversing those portions of the WEAs which are outside the 12 nm 

boundary potentially would release bilge water and ballast water into the ocean. As discussed 

previously (see the “Marine Waters” section above), oceanic circulation and the volume of water 

increasingly serves to disperse, dilute, and biodegrade anthropogenic contaminants. Therefore, 

the discharges may affect the water quality locally and temporarily, but the potential impacts 

from these vessels, if any, would be minor. 

The marine sanitation device (MSD) is required under 33 CFR 159 to treat sanitary waste 

generated on service vessels so that surrounding waters are not impacted by possible bacteria or 

viruses in the waste. All vessels with toilet facilities must have a MSD that complies with 40 

CFR 140 and 149. Vessels complying with 33 CFR 159 are not subject to State and local MSD 

requirements. There are three types of MSDs. The MSD Type I macerates the sewage to no 

visible solids and then reduces the bacteria count to less than 1,000 per 100 millimeters using 

chemicals before discharge at sea. The MSD Type II device requires that solids be ground up 

even finer and the bacteria count must be below 200 per 100 milliliters. The discharge of treated 

sanitary waste would still contribute small amounts of nutrients to the water. The MSD Type III 

device, where waste water is tanked aboard ship until pumped out onshore, is the most common 

type of sewerage treatment system aboard vessels. These systems are designed to retain or treat 

the waste until it can be disposed of at the proper shoreside facilities. 

State and local governments regulate domestic or gray water discharges. However, a State 

may prohibit the discharge of all sewage within any or all of its waters. Domestic waste consists 

of all types of wastes generated in the living spaces on board a ship including gray water that is 

generated from dishwasher, shower, laundry, bath and washbasin drains. Gray water from 

64 
vessels is not regulated outside state waters, and vessel operators may dump gray water outside 

state waters. Since the WEAs are all outside state waters it would be likely that vessels would 

discharge grey water while operating on the OCS. As discussed previously (see the “Marine 

Waters” section above), oceanic circulation and the volume of water increasingly serves to 

disperse, dilute, and biodegrade anthropogenic contaminants. Therefore, while the small amount 

of discharge associated with these vessels into such a large water body may affect the water 

quality locally and temporarily, the potential impacts to water quality in the open ocean, if any, 

would be minor. 

The discharge of trash and debris is prohibited in the sea, or into the navigable waters of the 

United States (33 CFR 151.51-77), unless it is passed through a comminutor and can pass 

through a 25-mm mesh screen. All other trash and debris must be returned to shore for proper 

disposal with municipal and solid waste. Because the discharge of trash is prohibited, BOEM 

concludes that no environmental effects are likely to occur as a result of trash discharge, even if 

some trash or debris is discharged accidentally. 

Sediment Disturbance 

Sediment disturbance could result from vessel and buoy anchoring, geological and 

geophysical (G&G) surveys, and structure installation and removal, most of which would take 

place within the WEAs. 

Anchoring: The process of anchoring vessels and buoys, and anchor removal would cause 

intermittent disturbance of the seafloor, with movement of sediment into the water column 

followed by sedimentation. The amount and duration of increased turbidity would be dependent 

upon the activity, the sediment grain size, current velocity, and water depth. An estimated 

12,000 vessel trips are anticipated with Alternative A, if the entire area of each WEA would be 

leased and the maximum amount of site characterization surveys would be conducted in the 

leased areas of the WEAs. A portion of this vessel traffic, specifically that associated with 

bottom sampling, construction, and decommissioning, could result in anchorages. Anchoring 

and removal are short processes; therefore sediment is expected to settle within a few minutes of 

disturbance. Short-term impacts to turbidity and water clarity are expected to be local within 

discrete areas of the WEAs. These impacts are anticipated to be minor. 

Site Characterization Surveys: The geophysical surveys within the WEAs (Described in Section 

3.1.2.1 ) would not likely influence water quality except for vessel discharges as described 

above, but sediment coring would cause temporary disturbance of the seafloor, the introduction 

of sediment into the water column, temporary increased turbidity, and sedimentation. It is 

anticipated that a total of 1800 to 4800 sediment samples will be collected for all of the WEAs 

ranging from offshore New Jersey to offshore Virginia over a 5 1/2 – year period (see Subbottom Sampling in Section 3.1.2.2). To the extent that sediment samples are collected by 

drilling equipment, the disposition of the sediment core material itself could cause short-term 

water quality impacts, such as turbidity and a degradation of water clarity in the immediate area 

of disturbance. These impacts are anticipated to be temporary and minor. 

Installation and Decommissioning: A total of twelve (12) towers (see Table 3.1) are anticipated 

to be installed and ultimately decommissioned within the WEAs from offshore New Jersey to 

offshore Virginia. It is not anticipated that all 12 meteorological towers will be constructed 

simultaneously (see “Timing” in Section 3.1.3.1 of this EA). Impacts to water quality resulting 

65 
from the construction and installation of meteorological towers would consist of sediment 

dispersal, resuspension and subsequent sedimentation from pile-driving and anchoring. Water 

quality impacts would occur during decommissioning activities from material dislodged from the 

piles during removal, and sediment resuspension and resedimentation during the removal of the 

tower, foundation, and scour protection system. When the tower structure is decommissioned, 

sediments that had collected in any scour control system, mats or rock armor, would be 

temporarily disturbed. The mats and rock armor would be returned to shore for disposal (see

Section 3.1.3.1 of this EA). Due to the short duration of installation, anticipated to be 8 days to 

ten weeks (see “Timing” in Section 3.1.3.1 of this EA), and decommissioning, anticipated at one 

week (see “Decommissioning” in Section 3.1.3.1 of this EA) impacts to water quality would be 

localized and temporary, and these impacts are anticipated to be minor. As a result, construction 

and decommissioning of the tower or installation may create temporary and localized water and 

sediment impacts but these impacts are anticipated to be minor. 

If all lessees were to install meteorological buoys, a total of 25 buoys would be installed in an 

area of the OCS from offshore New Jersey to offshore Virginia. Meteorological buoy 

installation and decommissioning would likely take place in one (1) day for each installation and 

decommissioning (see Section 3.1.3.2 of this EA). Impacts to water quality resulting from the 

installation of meteorological buoys would consist of sediment dispersal, resuspension and 

subsequent sedimentation from anchoring. Water quality impacts would occur during 

decommissioning activities from material dislodged during the removal of the buoy anchor. 

Because the installation and removal of a buoy does not involve any pile driving or installation 

(or removal) of a foundation (see Section 3.1.3.1 of this EA), a buoy would likely have even less 

of an impact to local water quality than would the installation and decommissioning of a 

meteorological tower. However, if every lessee chose to install two buoys instead of one tower, 

there would be approximately twice as many buoys as towers (25) on the OCS from New Jersey 

to Virginia. Nevertheless, the impacts during installation and decommissioning of this number 

of meteorological buoys on the OCS from New Jersey to Virginia may create temporary and 

localized water and sediment impacts, but these impacts are anticipated to be minor (see Section 

4.1.2.2.2 for further discussion). 

Non-Routine Events 

During travel to and from ports and harbors, and during site characterization and site 

assessment activities within the WEAs and along potential transmission cable routes, multiple 

sources of diesel fuel would be present on vessels, generators, and pile driving hammers. Spills 

could occur during refueling or as the result of an allision or collision. 

A vessel allision with the meteorological structures or collision with other vessels may result 

in the spillage of diesel fuel. Vessels are expected to comply with USCG requirements relating 

to prevention and control of oil spills. Spills are not projected to have significant impacts due to 

the small size of a projected spill. A could occur while enroute to and from the WEAs but this is 

considered unlikely. If a spill were to occur, either inside or outside of a WEA, the estimated 

spill size would be small. From 2000 to 2009, the average spill size for vessels similar to those 

anticipated to be used for Alternative A was 88.36 gallons (U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security, USCG, 2011). Vessel allision with a meteorological buoy containing diesel powered 

generator may also occur. It is estimated that a buoy generator could contain 240 gallons of 

diesel fuel (FERN 2011). If a diesel spill of this size were to occur, it would be expected to 

66 
dissipate very rapidly in the water column of the open ocean, then evaporate and biodegrade 

within a few days (see Section 3.2.3 of this EA). 

The meteorological towers and buoys could also serve as attractants for marine life, which in 

turn attracts recreational fishermen to the area. Therefore, there is some potential for collisions 

with recreational fishing boats and accidental release of diesel fuel. Should this occur, the spill 

would similarly small, and would dissipate and biodegrade in the same manner discussed above. 

Storms may also cause allisions and collisions that could result in a spill, yet the storm 

conditions would cause the spill to dissipate faster. 

As a result, the impacts to the environment that could result from an oil spill, should one 

occur, associated with Alternative A are expected to be both minor and temporary. 

It is also possible that larger vessels, such as tankers or container ships, could collide with 

meteorological structures within the WEAs. Such a collision is considered unlikely, as these 

structures would be sparsely placed on the OCS offshore New Jersey to Virginia, and will be lit 

and marked for navigational purposes (see Section 3.1.3.1 of this EA). If a larger vessel should 

collide with a meteorological facility, a large spill would be extremely unlikely (see Section 

3.2.2 of this EA). Thus, the largest spill that could result in the unlikely event that a larger ship 

were to collide with a meteorological facility is on the order of 240 gallons – the estimated 

amount of generator fuel that could be present on the meteorological facility itself (assuming that 

a generator is present on the facility). 

Conclusion 

Impacts to coastal and marine waters from vessel discharges associated with Alternative A 

should be of short duration and remain minimal, if detectable. Sediment disturbance resulting 

from anchoring and coring would be short-term, temporarily impacting local turbidity and water 

clarity. As a result, sediment disturbance resulting from Alternative A is not anticipated to result 

in any significant impact to any area within the WEAs or along any potential transmission cable 

route. Since collisions and allisions occur infrequently and rarely result in a spill, the risk of a 

spill would be small. In the unlikely event of a fuel spill, minimal impacts would result since the 

spill would very likely be small, and would dissipate and biodegrade within a short time. As a 

result, if a spill occurred, the potential impacts to water quality are not expected to be significant. 

Storms may disturb surface waters and cause a faster dissipation of diesel if spilled, but impacts 

to water quality would be negligible and of a short duration. Therefore, impacts from vessel 

discharges, sediment disturbance, and potential spills associated with Alternative A on harbors, 

ports, coastal areas, and WEAs would be minor, if detectable. 

67 
4.1.2 Biological Resources 

4.1.2.1 Coastal Habitats 

4.1.2.1.1 Description of the Affected Environment 

The Mid-Atlantic WEAs are located offshore of the Atlantic coastal plain. This plain is a flat 

stretch of land that borders the Atlantic Ocean for approximately 2,200 miles from Cape Cod 

through the southeast United States. The general description of coastal habitats along the 

Atlantic Coastal Plain are incorporated here by reference and can be found in Chapter 4.2.13 of 

the Programmatic EIS (USDOI, MMS, 2007a) and summarized in this section. The following 

sections include a description of the affected coastal environments for each state. 

The four WEAs are located offshore Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia, which 

have a complex range of diverse coastal habitats consisting of barrier islands, sand spits, 

beaches, dunes, tidal and non-tidal wetlands, mudflats, and estuaries (USDOI, MMS, 2007a). 

Much of the Atlantic shoreline in these states has been altered to some degree, in many cases to a 

substantial extent, and most of the coastal habitats have been historically, and are presently 

impacted by human activities. Much of this alteration has been from development, agriculture, 

vessel and ground traffic, industry, agriculture, beach replenishment, or shore protection 

activities, such as jetties (USDOI, MMS, 2007a). 

Delaware 

Delaware has approximately 24 miles of oceanfront coastline along the Atlantic Ocean and 

over 380 miles bordering various estuaries, including Delaware Bay (DNREC, 2009b). 

Delaware is home to two large ports at New Castle and Wilmington on the Delaware side of the 

Bay. New Jersey has additional ports on its side (see Section 4.1.3.5.2 of this EA). All of these 

ports could potentially be used to support the activities contemplated in Alternative A. 

Delaware Bay 

Delaware Bay is home to several ports that would support activities in the WEAs. The 

Delaware Bay’s coastal resources include extensive areas of tidal wetlands, mudflats and sandy 

beaches (Cole et al., 2005). Southern Delaware Bay is predominately lined with saline fringe, 

while northern Delaware Bay is predominately lined with estuarine marsh (Adkins, 2008). 

Portions of the Bay consist of tidal brackish-water and salt marshes and open waters of creek, 

river, and bay areas (USDOC, NOAA, NERRS, 2011). The Delaware estuary wetlands, which 

include the Delaware Bay area, provide critical habitat for 35% of the region’s threatened and 

endangered species (Adkins, 2008). The Bay is a critical staging area for migratory shorebird 

species, and every spring close to a million shorebirds descend on Delaware Bay before 

resuming their northward migrations. The most important factor for shorebirds migrating to the 

Delaware Bay is food supply, which includes the world’s largest spawning population of 

horseshoe crabs (Adkins, 2008). 

Loss of essential spawning habitat due to erosion and shoreline development can threaten 

horseshoe crab populations (Tanacredi et al., 2009). Shoreline erosion from natural forces 

(wind and wave action) and human influenced forces (i.e., development activity, vessel wakes) 

result in erosion rate of 2 – 6 m per year, limiting the available habitat for horseshoe crab 

spawning areas and nesting and feeding areas for birds. 

68 
Rehoboth Bay

Although little vessel activity associated with Alternative A is likely to occur in this area, 

Rehoboth Bay is part of Delaware’s inland bays, which includes Little Assawoman Bay and 

Indian River Bays. Depths in these bays are generally shallow (<6 – 7 ft below Mean Lower 

Low Water (MLLW) (Moffat and Nickel, 2007). Rehoboth Bay has tidal exchange with the 

Atlantic Ocean through Indian River Inlet, and could provide a limited exchange between ocean 

and bay waters in event of a diesel spill near the city of Dewey Beach. 

New Jersey 

New Jersey has 127 miles of coastline and 83 miles of shoreline along the Raritan and 

Delaware Bays, and over 300,000 acres of tidal wetlands (NJDEP, 2002 and 2008b). At the 

South end of the New Jersey Atlantic shore, Cape May and Atlantic Counties have short and 

fairly wide tide dominated barrier islands. Behind the islands, 97 square miles (253 square 

kilometers (km)) of marshes dominate the small open water bays (USEPA, 2009a). New Jersey 

is considered the most developed and densely populated shoreline in the country, with only 31 

miles of shoreline between Sandy Hook in the north and Cape May Point in the south without 

human development between the salt marshes and the sea (Richard Stockton College, Coastal 

Research Center, 2011). New Jersey’s coastal area is comprised of a variety of landscapes 

ranging from elevated headlands to wave-dominated and mixed-energy barrier islands to tidal 

and freshwater wetlands. Long-term biophysical and climate trends indicate that New Jersey, 

like other Mid-Atlantic States, will likely be subject to continued shoreline erosion, higher sea 

levels, and loss of natural coastal buffers (NJDEP, 2011a). 

Raritan Bay 

The Raritan Bay area of New Jersey (including Sandy Hook, NJ) is home to several ports 

that would support activities in the WEAs. The shoreline of Raritan Bay consists of 3,600 acres 

of shallow tidal mudflats, sandflats, and salt marsh. Many state listed species of birds forage 

along Raritan Bay during breeding season (New Jersey Audubon Society, 2007). Much of the 

upland and wetland shoreline of Raritan Bay and its associated watersheds have been developed, 

impaired, or degraded by industrial, commercial, and residential uses (USFWS, 2009). 

Maryland 

The State of Maryland has several different coastal habitat types along the Atlantic Ocean 

and the Chesapeake Bay, with 32 miles of coastline along the Atlantic Ocean, including 

Assateague Island National Seashore, and numerous shallow coastal bays near Ocean City 

(USEPA, 2009a). The densely populated area of Ocean City occupies roughly 9 miles of 

coastline and is a likely area for launching survey vessels and/or vessels associated with 

installing, maintaining, and decommissioning meteorological towers or buoys. Counteracting 

shoreline erosion in developed areas may continue in the near term (USEPA, 2009a). The 

Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay houses a number of ports, including Baltimore harbor, 

which could be used to support activities related to Alternative A. Many of these areas are the 

subject of intense historic and current human development and industry. A description of the 

natural environs of the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay can be found in the Virginia 

description below. 

69 
Virginia 

Virginia has 5,000 miles of shoreline, with 120 miles on the Atlantic Ocean, and over one 

million acres of non-tidal and non-wetlands (VADEQ, 2011). There are numerous large and 

small ports located in the Chesapeake Bay of Virginia, especially the large ports in the Hampton 

Roads area, which could be used to support activities associated with Alternative A. In addition, 

the City of Virginia Beach south of the entrance to Chesapeake Bay could also be used to 

support activities associated with Alternative A due to the City’s close proximity to the Virginia 

WEA. 

Chesapeake Bay

The Chesapeake Bay is about 200 miles long, is the world’s third largest estuary and includes 

coastlines in both the States of Maryland and Virginia. The Chesapeake supports more than 

3,600 species of plants, fish and other animals, including 348 species of finfish, 173 species of 

shellfish, and over 2,700 plant species. The Chesapeake is a major resting ground along the 

Atlantic Flyway, with about one million waterfowl wintering over in the bay region, and 

produces more than 500 million pounds of seafood per year (USEPA, 2009b). Historic and 

growing commercial, industrial, recreational, agricultural, and urban activities and development 

have heavily impacted and continue to impact the Chesapeake and its living resources. Chemical 

contaminants, which are often present in sediments and are particularly high near urban areas 

and commercial ports, can accumulate in tissues of birds, fish, and shellfish. The Baltimore 

Harbor area in Maryland has been identified as a region of concern where species are likely to be 

affected by chemical contaminants (USEPA, 2004). 

The Chesapeake is also an important commercial waterway, and both power and sail boating 

are major activities in the area. Sediments are a natural part of the Chesapeake ecosystem; 

however, accumulation of excessive amounts of sediments is undesirable because they fill in 

ports and waterways, and carry concentrations of toxic materials (USEPA, 2004). Sediments in 

the middle Bay are mostly made of silts and clays from shoreline erosion, while sediments in the 

lower Bay are sandier as a result of shore erosion and inputs from the ocean. Sediments can act 

as chemical sinks by absorbing nutrients, metals, oil, pesticides and other potentially toxic 

materials (USEPA, 2004). Shoreline erosion can add sediment to the Bay, and vessel traffic and 

loss of shoreline vegetation have accelerated natural erosion rates (USEPA, 2004). 

4.1.2.1.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A 

The proposed lease areas would be located at least 7 to 18 nm from the nearest shoreline. 

Therefore, site characterization surveys, and the construction, operation and decommissioning 

activities of meteorological towers/buoys occurring within the proposed lease areas would have 

no direct impact on coastal habitats. However, coastal vessel traffic associated with Alternative 

A and the use of existing coastal and port facilities have the potential to contribute to the impacts 

on coastal habitats as discussed below. 

Routine Activities 

Several existing fabrication sites, staging areas, and ports in Delaware, New Jersey, 

Maryland, and Virginia would support site characterization surveys, and the construction, 

operation and decommissioning of meteorological towers/buoys as discussed in Section 4.1.3.5 

of this EA. No expansion of these existing onshore areas is anticipated in support of Alternative 

A (see Section 4.1.3.5). Existing channels could accommodate the vessels anticipated to be 

70 
used, and no additional dredging would be required to accommodate different vessel size(s) as a 

result of Alternative A. In addition, no cables would be installed to shore to support the 

meteorological towers or buoys. 

Impacts from routine activities may occur from wake erosion and associated added sediment 

caused by vessel traffic in support of Alternative A. Over 12,000 round trips are anticipated 

from site characterization and assessment activities associated with Alternative A over a five and 

half year period, if the entire area of each WEA were to be leased and the maximum amount of 

site characterization surveys were to be conducted in the leased areas of the WEAs. These trips 

would be divided among nine major and 28 smaller existing ports in Delaware, New Jersey, 

Maryland, and Virginia (see Section 4.1.3.5 of this EA). Due to proximity, it is assumed the 

majority of traffic associated with site characterization and assessment of the Virginia 

WEA (about 2,800 round trips) would be supported by the 3 major and 9 smaller ports in 

Virginia (see Sections 3.1.2.6 and 3.1.3.4 of this EA).. If all ports are used equally, this would 

average about 43 round trips per year to each of the Virginia ports. Based simply on the number 

of ports in each state, traffic associated with site characterization and assessment of the WEAs 

offshore New Jersey (about 6,400 round trips), Delaware (about 1,100 round trips) and 

Maryland (about 1,700 round trips) would be divided as follows: over half of the traffic 

supported by 3 major and 11 smaller ports in New Jersey; and the remainder of the traffic split 

between 3 major and 8 smaller ports in Delaware and Maryland. If all ports are used equally, 

this would average about 67 round trips per year to each of the ports in New Jersey, Delaware 

and Maryland (see Sections 3.1.2.6 and 3.1.3.4 of this EA). 

Wake erosion and sedimentation effects would be limited to approach channels and the 

coastal areas near the ports and bays used to conduct activities. Given the existing amount and 

nature of vessel traffic (including tanker ships, container ships, and other very large vessels) into 

and out of these ports (see Sections 4.1.3.5.2 and 4.1.3.7.2 of this EA), the relatively small size 

and number of vessels associated with Alternative A would cause a negligible increase, if any, to 

wake-induced erosion of associated channels. Channels in the immediate vicinity of some major 

ports (e.g., Trenton, Wilmington, Baltimore, and Hampton Roads) are armored, which prevents 

most channel erosion regardless of source.

Non-Routine Events 

A spill could occur within a channel or bay from WEA-related vessels on their way to or 

from the ports, or in the WEAs during survey activities, or 

installation/decommissioning/maintenance of meteorological towers/buoys. If a spill were to 

occur within a channel or bay and contact shore the impacts to coastal habitats would depend 

greatly on the type of material spilled, the size and location of the spill, the meteorological 

conditions at the time, and the speed with which cleanup plans and equipment could be 

employed. These impacts are anticipated to be minimal since average spill size is likely to be 

small (approximately 88 gallons) (see Section 3.2.3 of this EA and U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security, USCG, 2011), and vessels are expected to comply with USCG requirements 

relating to prevention and control of oil spills. Due to the distance from shore of the activities 

and the rapid evaporation and dissipation of diesel fuel (see Section 3.2.4, non-routine spills) a 

spill occurring within the WEAs would not likely contact shore. Collisions between vessels and 

allisions between vessels and meteorological towers and buoys is considered unlikely (see

Section 3.2.2 of this EA). However in the unlikely event that a vessel allision or collision were 

to occur, and in the unlikely event that such a collision or allision would cause a spill, the most 

71 
likely pollutant to be discharged would be diesel fuel. . If a diesel spill were to occur, it would 

be expected to dissipate very rapidly in the water column, then evaporate and biodegrade within 

a few days (see Section 3.2.3 of this EA), resulting in negligible, if detectable impacts to the area 

of the spill. 

Conclusion 

No direct impacts on coastal habitats would occur from routine activities in the WEAs due to 

the distance of the WEAs from shore. Existing ports or industrial areas in New Jersey, 

Delaware, Maryland and Virginia are expected to be used in support of Alternative A. In 

addition, no anticipated expansion of existing facilities is expected to occur as a result of 

Alternative A. Indirect impacts from routine activities may occur from wake erosion and 

associated added sediment caused by increased vessel traffic in support of the Alternative A. 

However; given, the volume and nature of existing vessel traffic in these areas, a negligible 

increase, if any, to wake induced erosion may occur around the smaller, non-armored, waterways 

as a result of Alternative A. Should an accidental diesel fuel spill occur as a result of Alternative 

A, the potential impacts to coastal habitats would be negligible, localized, and temporary. 

4.1.2.2 Benthic Resources 

4.1.2.2.1 Description of the Affected Environment 

The Mid-Atlantic WEAs are located in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (MAB) of the Northeast 

Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. The following MAB characterization and Table 4.2 

are adopted from Characterization of the Fishing Practices and Marine Benthic Ecosystems of 

the Northeast U.S. Shelf (NOAA Technical Memo NMFS-NE-181, 2004 cited as Johnson, 

2002). The Nature Conservancy has also compiled several decades of NMFS benthic grab 

sample data into an informative geodatabase as part of their Northwest Atlantic Marine 

Ecoregional Assessment (NAM ERA). The Nature Conservancy (TNC) data is presented in 

Appendix A, Figures 1-3. The MAB includes the shelf and slope waters from Georges Bank 

south to Cape Hatteras, and east to the Gulf Stream. Like the rest of the continental shelf, the 

topography of the MAB was shaped largely by sea - level fluctuations caused by past ice ages. 

The shelf’s basic morphology and sediments derive from the retreat of the last ice sheet, and the 

subsequent rise in sea level. Since that time, currents and waves have modified these basic 

structure. 

Physical Features

The shelf declines gently from shore out to between 100 and 200 km offshore where it 

transforms to the slope (100-200 m of water depth) at the shelf break. In the Mid-Atlantic, 

numerous canyons incise the slope, and some cut up onto the shelf itself. The primary 

morphological features of the shelf include shelf valleys and channels, shoal massifs, scarps, and 

sand ridges and swales. The sediment type covering most of the shelf in the MAB is sand, with 

some relatively small, localized areas of sand-shell and sand-gravel. On the slope, silty sand, 

silt, and clay predominate. 

Sand ridges are more modern in origin than the shelf’s glaciated morphology. Their 

formation is not well understood; however, they appear to develop from the sediments that erode 

from the shore face. They maintain their shape, so it is assumed that they are in equilibrium with 

modern current and storm regimes. They are usually grouped, with heights of about 10 m, 

72 
lengths of 10-50 km, and spacing of about 2 km. Ridges are usually oriented at a slight angle 

towards shore, running in length from northeast to southwest. The seaward face usually has the 

steepest slope. Sand ridges are often covered with smaller similar forms, such as sand waves, 

megaripples, and ripples. Swales occur between sand ridges. Since ridges are higher than the 

adjacent swales, they are exposed to more energy from water currents, and experience more 

sediment mobility than swales. Ridges tend to contain less fine sand, silt, and clay, while 

relatively sheltered swales contain more of the finer particles. Swales have greater benthic 

macrofaunal density, species richness, and biomass due, in part, to the increased abundance of 

detrital food and the physically less rigorous conditions. Sand waves are usually found in 

patches of 5-10 with heights of about 2 m, lengths of about 50-100 m, and spacing of about 1-2 

km. Sand waves are primarily found on the inner shelf (see Table 4.2 for habitat types), and 

often observed on sides of sand ridges. Sand waves may remain intact over several seasons. 

Megaripples occur on sand waves or separately on the inner or central shelf. During the winter 

storm season, these megaripples may cover as much as 15% of the inner shelf. They tend to 

form in large patches and usually have lengths of about 3-5 m with heights of about 0.5-1 m. 

Megaripples tend to survive for less than a season. They can form during a storm and reshape 

the upper 50-100 cm of the sediments within a few hours. Ripples are also found everywhere on 

the shelf, and appear or disappear within hours or days, depending upon storms and currents. 

Ripples usually have lengths of about 1-150 cm and heights of a few centimeters. 

Natural and artificial reefs are another important feature of the Mid-Atlantic benthic habitat. 

Natural reefs, although not well mapped in the Mid-Atlantic, consist largely of exposed rock 

outcrops or random boulders left by retreating glaciers or rafted from icebergs, or erosion of 

sediment-covered rock or deltaic deposits of rock, cobble, and gravel along former river channels 

across a retreating shoreline since the last glacial period. Steimle and Zetlin (2000) report 

occurrences of northern star coral (Astrangia poculata) and molluscan shell deposits that provide 

biogenic benthic structure to the environment. 

Artificial reefs are localized areas of hard structure have been formed by shipwrecks, lost 

cargoes, disposed solid materials, shoreline jetties and groins, submerged pipelines, cables, and 

other materials (Steimle and Zetlin 2000). Steimle and Zetlin (2000) cite reports by commercial 

fishermen of cobbles and loose rock patches associated with gravelly areas in coastal areas. 

These areas could represent river deltaic deposits during periods of lower sea levels; but some 

could be ballast stones from old wooden shipwrecks. Off coastal Delaware and southward, these 

rocky patch are also associated with “live bottom,” i.e., the rocks are colonized by sea whips, 

stone coral, and other biogenic structural enhancers. While some reef structure may have been 

deposited specifically for use as fish habitat, most have an alternative primary purpose. 

However, they have all become a part of the coastal and shelf ecosystem. In general, reefs are 

important for attachment sites, shelter, and food for many species (Johnson, 2002). All of the 

features discussed above are not well mapped in the Mid-Atlantic WEAs, and it is uncertain 

whether they exist within the WEAs. The purpose of the site characterization activities is in part 

to identify the distinct features of the lease area. 

 The State of New Jersey has an artificial reef network of over 15 artificial reefs that it 

manages in cooperation with the USACE. None of these sites are within the New Jersey WEA. 

In fact, by design the New Jersey WEA diverts east around the Atlantic City artificial reef in 

order to avoid any potential impacts or conflicting uses. 

73 
Biological Features

As reported by Johnson (2002), the Mid-Atlantic shelf was divided by Boesch (1979) into 

seven bathymetric/morphologic subdivisions based on faunal assemblages (Table 4.2). 

Sediments in the region studied (Hudson Shelf Valley south to Chesapeake Bay) were dominated 

by sand with little finer materials. Ridges and swales are important morphological features in 

this area. Sediments are coarser on the ridges, and the swales have greater benthic macrofaunal 

density, species richness, and biomass. Faunal species composition differed between these 

features, and Boesch (1979) incorporated this variation in his subdivisions (Table 4.2). Much 

overlap of species distributions was found between depth zones, so the faunal assemblages 

represented more of a continuum than distinct zones. 

Table 4.2 

Mid-Atlantic Benthic Habitat Types1

 

Habitat Type2 Depth 

(m) 

Characterization3

(faunal zone) 

Characteristic Benthic 

Macrofauna 

Inner Shelf 0-30 Course sands with finer 

sands off MD and VA 

(sand zone) 

Polychaetes: Polygordius, 

Goniadella,and Spiophanes 

Central Shelf 30-50 (sand zone) Polychaetes: Goniadella,and 

Spiophanes

Amphipods: Pseudunciola 

Central and inner 

shelf swales 

0-50 Occurs in swales 

between sand ridges 

(sand zone) 

Polychaetes: Polygordius, 

Lumbrineris,and Spiophanes 

Outer shelf 50-100 (silty-sand zone) Polychaetes: Spiophanes

Amphipods: Ampelisca vadrum 

and Erichthonius

Outer shelf swales 50-100 Occurs in swales 

between sand ridges 

(silty-sand zone) 

Amphipods: Ampelisca agassizi, 

Unciola, and Erichthonius 

Shelf break 100-200 (silt-clay zone) NA 

Continental slope >200 (none) NA 

1 Johnson, 2002 

2 Boesch, 1979 

3

 Pratt, 1973 

In general, the Mid-Atlantic WEAs occur at depths between 20 and 40 m. According to the 

habitat types in Table 4.2 above, the Mid-Atlantic WEAs occur in the inner to central shelf 

zones. The characteristic benthic macrofauna for these zones are primarily polychaete worms. 

These species would be vulnerable to impacts from the installation and decommissioning of 

meteorological observation platforms and some site characterization activities, such as benthic 

grab samples and sub-bottom sampling. Where hardbottom occurs in the MAB, the area may be 

colonized by red algae (Phyllophora sp.); sponges, such as Halichondria sp. and Polymastia sp.; 

large anemones (Metridium senile, Tealia sp., or Stomphia careola); various hydroids 

74 
(Tubularia sp., Obelia sp., Campanularis sp.); northern stone coral, soft coral (Alcyonaria sp.), 

and sea whips (Leptogorgia sp.). When hardbottom features are colonized by these sessile 

macroinvertebrates, they become part of a “live bottom” community. Other macroinvertebrates 

that may be part of the livebottom communities in the MAB include barnacles; blue mussels, 

horse mussels Modiolus modiolus; the jingle shell Anomia simplex; bryozoans, including Bugula 

sp.; skeleton (caprellid) and tubiculous amphipods, such as Jassa falcata; and tubiculous 

polychaetes, such as Sabellaria vulgaris and Hydroides dianthus (Steimle and Zetlin 2000). It is 

expected that polychaete worms and other benthic macrofauna would be able to quickly 

repopulate disturbed areas that are not otherwise occupied by the installed structure itself as these 

animals are well adapted to life in the highly dynamic environment of the MAB. Although 

hard/live bottom communities would be avoided in the siting of meteorological observation 

platforms, live bottom fauna such as stone corals, soft corals, and sea whips would have recovery 

times on the order of several years, if they were impacted. Marine mammal, sea turtle, and fish 

interaction with benthic resources is presented in Sections 4.1.2.3, 4.1.2.4, and 4.1.2.7, 

respectively. 

4.1.2.2.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A 

Routine Activities 

The primary reasonably foreseeable impacts on benthic resources would be the result of site 

assessment activities: direct contact that could cause crushing or smothering by anchors, the 

scour control system, or driven piles while installing meteorological facilities. Most site 

characterization activities, on the other hand, involve remote sensing of the seafloor and are thus 

not expected to directly impact benthic resources other than fish, the impact on which are 

addressed in Section 4.1.2.7 of this EA. Site characterization activities that may disturb the 

benthic resources include grab samples, borings, vibracores, and CPTs. A total of 1,800-4,800 

sub-bottom samplings could occur as a result of Alternative A on the OCS offshore New Jersey 

to offshore Virginia (see Table 3.1). Impacts from these activities are expected to be limited to 

the immediate area of the sample and any anchoring by vessels. In addition, the data collected 

during HRG surveys would indicate any potential benthic resources, so that the lessee can 

develop and implement appropriate avoidance measures prior to each sub-bottom sampling, 

avoiding the cost of unnecessary or additional sampling (see Section 3.1.2.2 of this EA). 

It is anticipated that bottom disturbance associated with site assessment activities (the 

installation of meteorological towers and buoys) would impact the seafloor a maximum radius of 

1,500 ft (~450 m) or 52 acres around each bottom-founded structure including all anchorages 

and appurtenances of the support vessels. This would result in a total of almost 1,500 acres of 

impacted seafloor in all the WEAs, or less than one percent of the area of all WEAs, if all 12 

anticipated meteorological towers were installed and they each disturbed the maximum 

foreseeable area of seafloor. Should all lessees instead decide to install 2 meteorological buoys 

on their leases; the maximum area of disturbance would likely be approximately twice that, or 

3,000 acres of impacted seafloor – a little less than 2% of the total area of the WEAs. 

The area of ocean bottom affected by a meteorological tower or buoy would range from 

about a couple hundred square ft if supported by a monopole to 1,500 ft2

 if supported by a jacket 

foundation. A scour control system, if used, would be comprised of installed rip rap or artificial 

seaweed mattresses affixed to the seafloor by anchoring pins and would cover an area of 

approximately a 30-ft (9-m) radius around the piling. If 12 meteorological towers were built 

then the total area expected to be impacted by scour control systems or actual scour would be 

75 
approximately 0.5 acres (1,500 ft2

 x 12 meteorological towers). In some areas that are not 

expected to be subject to scour, or where expected scouring would not compromise the integrity 

of the structure, scour protection may not be required. If, however, scouring does occur at a 

given location, the area impacted can be expected to be similar to or slightly larger than the 

projected area covered by a scour control system (30-ft (9-m)) radius beyond the structure, or 0.5 

acres for all 12 sites). Upon decommissioning and removal, the equivalent area would be 

disturbed by severing the pile foundation legs at least 15 ft (4.5 m) below the mudline (30 CFR 

585.910). Removing the scour control system, would disturb the same area disturbed when they 

were installed and would introduce a proximate cloud of turbidity over the seafloor for each leg. 

Re-suspended sediment would temporarily interfere with filter feeding organisms until the 

sediment has resettled. The time of sediment suspension would depend upon ocean currents and 

sediment grain size, but is anticipated to be short-lived. 

The ability of soft-bottom communities to recover in number of individuals to predisturbance levels may take 1-3 years depending on the actual species density and diversity in 

the immediate area at the time of disturbance. Recovery of community composition or trophic 

structure that exploits all ecologic niches available may take longer (Continental Shelf 

Associates, Inc., 2004, p. 73). The duration of activity directly impacting benthic communities 

from site characterization surveys, meteorological platform installation, and removal would 

likely be short-term in duration (8 days to 10 weeks for construction and ≤1 week for removal) 

and, given the limited area of disturbance within each WEA and across all the WEAs, would 

cause impacts to benthic habitats that are negligible. 

Non-Routine Events 

Collisions between vessels and allisions between vessels and meteorological towers and 

buoys is considered unlikely (see Section 3.2.2 of this EA). However in the unlikely event that a 

vessel allision or collision were to occur, and in the unlikely event that such a collision or allision 

would cause a spill, the most likely pollutant to be discharged would be diesel fuel. If a diesel 

spill were to occur, it would be expected to dissipate very rapidly in the water column, then 

evaporate and biodegrade within a few days (see Section 3.2.3 of this EA), resulting in 

negligible, if detectable impacts to the area of the spill. 

BOEM is not proposing any mitigation measures to protect sensitive benthic habitat. Rather, 

BOEM has a policy to avoid impacts to sensitive benthic resources. This policy is reflected in 

BOEM’s regulations at 30 CFR 585.611(b)(5), which describes the information requirements for 

a SAP. The Programmatic EIS lists several best management practices for avoiding sensitive 

benthic resources. The survey information required under the renewable energy regulations 

would identify the potential for the presence of particularly sensitive benthic habitats (see 30 

CFR 585.611(b)(5)). For instance, if surveys conducted during site characterization indicate the 

presence of sensitive habitats, including but not limited to areas where information suggests the 

presence of exposed hard bottoms of high, moderate, or low relief; hard bottoms covered by thin, 

ephemeral sand layers; rocky outcrops; surfclam habitat; scallop habitat; or seagrass patches; 

then BOEM may require these areas be avoided for the installation of meteorological towers, 

buoys, or other site-disturbing activities, or may require site-specific mitigation measures. Such 

measures would be incorporated into a SAP as terms and conditions of approval. Additionally, 

BOEM would coordinate the review of a SAP with NMFS to determine if the reasonably 

foreseeable effects of the activities associated with Alternative A fall within impacts anticipated 

76 
in the NMFS Conservation Recommendations (see NMFS EFH Consultation, conservation 

recommendation #4 in Section 4.1.2.7 of this EA). 

Conclusion 

Impacts of site characterization surveys, and the construction, operation, and removal of 

meteorological towers and buoys on benthic communities would be short-term in duration and 

negligible in extent. The primary reasonably foreseeable impacts resulting from routine 

activities on benthic communities would be direct contact by anchors, driven piles, and scour 

protection that could cause crushing or smothering. These impacts would be very localized, 

given the aerial extent of the benthic habitat types on the Atlantic continental shelf, and could 

only take place in 1-2% of the total area of the WEAs. If a specific area is adversely impacted, 

the ability of soft-bottom communities to recover in number and diversity of individuals to predisturbance levels may take 1-3 years. Recovery of community composition or trophic structure 

that exploits all ecologic niches available in that particular area may take longer (Continental 

Shelf Associates, Inc., 2004, p. 73). The data collected during HRG surveys would indicate the 

presence of any potential benthic resources, so that sensitive habitat types, such as hard bottom 

and live bottom habitats, could be avoided by the lessee during sub-bottom sampling and when 

meteorological facility siting decisions are made. Alternative A is not anticipated to result in any 

significant impact to benthic communities. 

4.1.2.3 Marine Mammals 

4.1.2.3.1 Description of the Affected Environment 

The Programmatic EIS gives more detail of the life histories of the marine mammal species 

outlined in this section and is incorporated by reference and not repeated in its entirety herein. 

The area of potential effect of Alternative A is the coastal and shelf habitats offshore and in 

between the four WEAs and the adjacent Mid-Atlantic States and New Jersey (which is 

considered a part of the North Atlantic in Table 4.3. below). 

Approximately 39 species of marine mammals occur in Atlantic waters above the OCS from 

Florida to Maine. Some species are widespread and have been reported from all Atlantic waters, 

while other species are generally restricted to smaller areas of the Atlantic OCS. In addition, 

many of these species are composed of distinct stocks that exhibit distinct distributions within 

overall population distributions and may be locally abundant in some waters but absent from 

other areas of the Atlantic OCS (Waring et al., 2007). The Atlantic Coast’s marine mammals are 

represented by members of the taxonomic orders Cetacea, Pinnipedia, and Sirenia. 

The order Cetacea includes the mysticetes (the baleen whales) and the odontocetes (the 

toothed whales, including the sperm whale, dolphins, and porpoises). Occurrence of cetacean 

species is generally widespread in Northwest Atlantic waters; many of the large whales and 

populations of smaller toothed whales undergo seasonal migrations along the length of the U.S. 

Atlantic coast. The order Sirenia is represented by the West Indian manatee, which occurs 

mainly in the South Atlantic, but individual animals have been documented as far north as New 

England. The order Pinnipedia includes four species of seal, which are mainly found in the 

North Atlantic. Table 4.3 lists these species, their general occurrence in the Mid-Atlantic (i.e., 

offshore Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia) and North Atlantic (of which the area offshore New 

Jersey is a part) and their typical habitat. For the purpose of interpreting Table 4.3 below, 

Alternative A could only affect those animals in the “coastal” and “shelf” habitats offshore these 

77 
states; no activities associated with Alternative A or alternatives would take place in or affect the 

“Slope/Deep” habitats. 

This description of the affected environment for marine mammals draws upon recent studies 

and literature synthesis specifically aimed at offshore areas that include the Mid-Atlantic WEAs 

and the areas around these WEAs that could be affected by Alternative A. These studies include 

the NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports, New Jersey’s Ocean/Wind Power 

Ecological Baseline Studies Final Report: January 2008 – December 2009 (NJDEP, 2010a) and 

the Nature Conservancy’s comprehensive Northwest Atlantic Marine Ecoregional Assessment 

(NAM ERA) report (TNC, 2010). The New Jersey survey was conducted over a 24-month 

period between January 2008 and December 2009 using three sampling techniques - aerial line 

transect surveys, shipboard line transect surveys, and passive acoustic monitoring (PAM). The 

source data for the NAM ERA study was primarily NMFS aerial and shipboard surveys for the 

period 1979-2007. Information from these sources is incorporated into this document. The 

NAM ERA data for marine mammal sightings is included as Appendix A of this EA. The 

information from the New Jersey baseline study, the Study Area encompassed approximately 

97% of the New Jersey WEA, is a good representation of species presence and distribution 

within the other Mid-Atlantic WEAs, unless otherwise noted. 

78 
Table 4.3 

Marine Mammals in the Mid and North Atlantic OCS Waters

General Occurrencec Typical Habitat 

Species Statusb MidAtlantice North 

Atlanticf Coastal Shelf Slope/Deep 

Order Cetacea

Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)

Family Balaenidae

North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) E/D O UC X X X 

Family Balaenopteridae

Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) E/D A O X X 

Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera edeni) O EX X X 

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) E/D UC UC X X X 

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) E/D UC UC X X X 

Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) O UC X X X 

Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) E/D O UC X X 

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales and dolphins)

Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) O UC X 

Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) UC O X 

Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) E/D UC UC X 

Family Ziphiidae 

Blainville’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) O O X 

Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) O O X 

Gervais’ beaked whale (Mesoplodon europaeus) O O X 

True’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon mirus) O O X 

Sowerby’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon bidens) O UC X 

Family Delphinidae

Short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) C C X X 

Pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata) O O X 

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) D C C X X X 

Clymene dolphin (Stenella clymene) O A X 

False killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) O A X 

White-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus) EX C X X 

White-beaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris A O X 

Killer whale (Orcinus orca) O O X X 

Melon-headed whale (Peponocephala electra) O A X 

Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis) C C X 

Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala 

macrorhynchus) 

C O X X 

Long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas) UC C X X 

Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus) C C X 

Spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris) O A X 

Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) C C X 

Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) O C X X 

Order Sirenia, Family Trichechidae

West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) E O O X 

Order Carnivora, Suborder Fissipeda, Family Phocidae

Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) UC C X X 

Gray seal (Halichoerus grypus) O C X X 

Harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus) EX EX X X 

Hooded seal (Cystophora cristata) EX EX X X 

Source: Waring et al. (2007). 

b E = Endangered under the Endangered Species Act; D = Depleted under the MMPA. c

 The indicated occurrence does not reflect the distribution and occurrence of individual stocks of marine mammals within localized geographic 

areas, but rather the broad distribution of the species within the larger categories of OCS waters. e

 Mid-Atlantic includes OCS waters from the South Carolina-North Carolina border to the Delaware-New Jersey border. f

 North Atlantic includes OCS waters from the Delaware-New Jersey border to the Maine border with Canada. g A = Absent – not recorded from the area; C = Common – regularly observed throughout the year; 

EX = Extralimital - known only on the basis of a few records that probably resulted from unusual wanderings of animals into the region; O = 

Occasional – relatively few observations throughout the year, but some species may be more frequently observed in some locations or during 

certain times (e.g., during migration); UC = Uncommon – infrequently observed throughout the year, but some species may be more common 

in some locations or during certain times of the year (e.g., during migration or when on summer calving grounds or wintering grounds). 

79 
Non ESA-Listed Marine Mammals 

Most of the marine mammals, by species and by the total number of individuals, which occur 

in the WEAs are not listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). Marine mammals are, however, offered special protections under the MMPA. The 

Programmatic EIS provides a good overview of the known occurrence of these marine mammals, 

their distribution, and life histories. 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

The most common marine mammal in the Mid-Atlantic WEAs is the bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatues). The western north Atlantic bottlenose dolphin is divided into two 

morphotypes – coastal and migratory. The coastal morphotype is subdivided into 7 stocks based 

largely upon spatial distribution. Generally, the offshore migratory morphotype is found 

exclusively seaward of 34 km (21 miles) and in waters deeper than 34 m. Within 7.5 km (4.5 

miles) of shore, all animals are of the coastal morphotype (Waring et al 2010). Thus, both 

morphotypes are likely to be found in different portions of the Mid-Atlantic WEAs. 

The New Jersey Baseline Study did not differentiate between the different stocks in their 

survey. The New Jersey Baseline Study found that: 

bottlenose dolphins may occur in the Study Area during any time of year. Bottlenose 

dolphins were the most frequently sighted species during the study period. A total of 

319 bottlenose dolphin sightings were recorded; the majority of sightings (257) were 

on-effort. Although large groups of bottlenose dolphins were occasionally sighted 

(maximum group size=112), the mean group size of 15.3 animals is consistent with 

the typical group size of coastal bottlenose dolphins (Shane et al., 1986; Kerr et al., 

2005). The presence of calves was confirmed in 24% of all sightings. The mean (16.6 

m (54.5 ft)) and minimum water depth (1 m [3 ft]) for bottlenose dolphins were the 

most shallow of all identified cetacean species sighted during the survey and are 

indicative of bottlenose dolphins’ primarily coastal distribution within New Jersey 

waters (see Toth et al., 2007; in press); however, a bottlenose dolphin sighting 

represents the deepest water depth at which a cetacean sighting was recorded during 

this study (34 m 112” ft), suggesting that their distribution within the Study Area is 

not limited to a particular depth or depth range. Bottlenose dolphin sightings ranged 

from 0.4 to 37.7 km (0.2 to 20.4 nm) from shore (mean=11.3 km/6.1 nm) which 

further supports this species’ nearshore distribution in the Study Area but is also 

indicative of occurrence farther offshore in the Study Area. Sea surface temperatures 

(SSTs) for bottlenose dolphins ranged from 4.8 to 20.3°C (40.6 to 68.5°F) with a 

mean of 16.3°C (61.3°F). The mean and maximum SST values represent the highest 

temperatures for all cetacean sightings; this supports the strong seasonality associated 

with bottlenose dolphin occurrence in the Study Area. 

Therefore, while the general assumption has been that bottlenose dolphins are limited to 

certain ranges by depth offshore, the New Jersey Baseline study found that these animals could 

be ubiquitous throughout the area that could be potentially affected by Alternative A. This is 

also supported by the sightings data presented in Figures B1-B4 and B21 for all WEAs. This EA 

assumes that both types of dolphin could occur in the area of potential effect of all four WEAs. 

80 
Minke Whale

Although minke whales are more common to the continental shelf of New England, they 

have been sighted in the Mid-Atlantic (Waring et al 2010; NJDEP, 2010a; TNC 2010). These 

sightings data indicate that minke whales occur in the vicinity of the mid-Atlantic WEAs. 

However, the greater occurrence is likely east of the WEAs between them and the continental 

shelf break (see sightings data in Appendix A). The New Jersey Baseline study found that minke 

whales are most likely to occur during winter, but that this species may occur year-round. Four 

sightings of minke whales were recorded during the survey period; two of which were on-effort 

and two were off-effort. All sightings were of single individuals. Sightings of minke whales 

occurred during the winter and spring in water depths ranging from 11 to 24 m (36 to 79 ft) with 

a mean depth of 18 m (59 ft). SSTs associated with the minke whale sightings ranged from 5.4 to 

11.5°C (41.7 to 52.7°F) with a mean of 8.3°C (47.0°F). The winter sightings were recorded in 

February northeast of Barnegat Light offshore New Jersey. The two spring sightings were 

recorded in June southeast of Sea Isle City and northeast of Wildwood. Minke whales were 

sighted within 6.7 and 18.5 km (3.6 and 10.0 nm) from shore with a mean distance of 13.1 km 

(7.1 nm). As a result, the minke whale would occur in the nearshore areas of the New Jersey 

WEA and the areas that may be transited by vessels associated with Alternative A within the 

New Jersey WEA. These whales would likely occur more frequently in the winter than in the 

summer. 

Short-Beaked Common Dolphin

In the Mid-Atlantic short-beaked common dolphins generally occur over the continental shelf 

along the 200-2000-m isobaths and over prominent underwater topography (Waring et al. 2010). 

This general description would place them well east of the Mid-Atlantic WEAs as they are all 

generally inside of the 40m isobath. However, the New Jersey Baseline Study found shortbeaked common dolphins actually occur within the area of the New Jersey WEA and between 

the WEA and the coast. Although occurrence is more likely during the fall and winter 

(November through March), they may occur at any time of year. A total of 32 short-beaked 

common dolphin sightings were recorded during the 24-month survey period; 23 were on-effort 

and nine were off-effort. Total group size varied greatly with a minimum group size of one 

animal and a maximum of 65 animals recorded. The mean group size was 12.8 animals. 

Water depth for short-beaked common dolphin sightings ranged from 10 to 31 m (33 to 102 

ft). The mean water depth for sightings was 23.2 m (76.1 ft), which is the deepest mean depth for 

all identified cetacean sightings recorded during the survey period. This may indicate a 

preference for deeper waters or may be a construct of the fact that the distribution of sightings of 

short-beaked common dolphins during the study period was relatively far from shore. The mean 

distance from shore was 23.5 km (12.7 nm) although sightings ranged from 3.0 to 37.5 km (1.6 

to 20.2 nm) from shore. SSTs associated with short-beaked common dolphin sightings ranged 

from 4.7 to 12.4°C (40.5 to 54.3°F) with a mean of 7.1°C (44.8°F). The low mean SST 

associated with these sightings indicates that the occurrence of these animals in the area of 

potential effect would be more likely in winter. In fact, short-beaked common dolphins were 

only sighted in fall and winter (late November through mid-March). 

Therefore, while the general assumption has been that these short-beaked common dolphins 

are limited to certain ranges by depth offshore, the New Jersey Baseline study found that these 

animals could be present in the New Jersey WEA. It is well known that these dolphins have a

81 
range that includes the waters offshore all of the Mid-Atlantic States. As a result, this EA 

assumes that these dolphins could occur in all four of the WEAs. This EA also assumes that the 

occurrence of these animals would be more likely in the winter. 

Harbor Porpoise

Harbor porpoise may be found in the Mid-Atlantic primarily in the fall and winter in waters 

around the 92m isobath (Waring et al. 2010). As with short-beaked common dolphin, this 

general distribution would place them east of the Mid-Atlantic WEAs. However, as was the case 

for short-beaked common dolphin, the New Jersey Baseline Study found that harbor porpoises 

occur in the nearshore waters of New Jersey, primarily during the winter (January to March). 

However, they may also occur during other times of the year. Harbor porpoises were the second 

most frequently sighted cetacean during the survey period. A total of 51 harbor porpoise 

sightings were recorded; 42 of these were on-effort and nine were off-effort. Total group size for 

the harbor porpoise was small, ranging from one to four individuals per sighting (mean group 

size=1.7). Sightings were recorded throughout the Study Area and ranged from 1.5 to 36.6 km 

(0.8 to 19.8 nm) from shore (mean=19.5 km/10.5 nm). Water depth of sightings ranged from 12 

to 30 m (39 to 98 ft) with a mean value of 21.5 m (70.5 ft). SSTs for harbor porpoise ranged 

from 4.5 to 18.7°C (40.1 to 65.7°F) with a mean of 5.8°C (42.4°F), which is the lowest mean 

value for all identified cetacean species. The very low mean SST associated with these sightings 

indicates that their presence in the affected environment would most likely be during winter, and 

over 90% of harbor porpoise sightings during the study period were recorded during winter 

(mainly February and March). Only three sightings occurred during spring (April and May), and 

one sighting was recorded during summer (July). The NAM ERA sightings data (TNC 2010) 

also indicated harbor porpoise may be found inshore of the Virginia WEA in the winter, which 

supports their occurrence during the winter throughout the Mid-Atlantic WEAs and in the waters 

in between the WEAs and shore. 

Seals

The harbor seal may be found in all nearshore waters of the Atlantic Ocean above about 

30N (approximately Jacksonville, Florida). However, along the U.S. coast they are a seasonal 

(September – May) inhabitant from southern New England to New Jersey, with occasional 

sightings into the Carolinas (Waring et al. 2010). Thus only the New Jersey WEA and the 

waters between the New Jersey WEA and shore will likely have common occurrences of this 

marine mammal. The New Jersey Baseline Study concluded that harbor seals may occur 

offshore New Jersey during any time of the year. However, only a single sighting of an 

individual harbor seal was recorded during the survey period. This seal was observed in shallow 

waters (18 m (59 ft)) 9.9 km (5.3 nm) east of Little Egg Inlet in June 2008. The SST associated 

with this sighting was 11.4°C (52.5°F). The New Jersey Baseline Study indicated that two 

unidentified pinnipeds recorded near Ocean City, New Jersey in April 2008 were “probably 

harbor seals,” but this could not be confirmed. There were additional unidentified pinnipeds 

seen during the surveys but no supposition was made regarding their probable identification. 

While the harbor seal is the pinniped most likely to occur in the mid-Atlantic, the 

Programmatic EIS notes that other seal species do occasionally occur in the region. The hooded 

seal usually occurs in New England waters between January and May, and in summer and 

autumn off the southeast U.S. Coast (Waring et al. 2010). While the harp seal typically inhabits 

waters of the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, the numbers of sightings and strandings have 

82 
recently been increasing off the east coast from Maine to New Jersey. These extralimital 

sightings, which usually occur between January and May, may represent a southward shift in the 

winter distribution of this species (Waring et al. 2010). The gray seal occurs from New England 

to Labrador, with a year round breeding population present on outer Cape Cod and seasonal 

occurrence (September – May) to northern New Jersey (north of Atlantic City). Strandings of 

gray seal have been reported as far south as Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (Waring et al. 2010). 

ESA-Listed Threatened and Endangered Marine Mammals 

There are six cetaceans that occur in the Mid-Atlantic that are federally-listed as endangered 

(Table 4.3). The six whale species are the North Atlantic right whale, fin whale (Balaenoptera 

physalus), sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), 

sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), and blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus). However, of 

these six species, only three – right, humpback, and fin whales – are likely to occur in and 

around the Mid-Atlantic WEAs. Right and humpback whales are most likely to occur in and 

around the WEAs between November and April and fin whales are most likely to occur in the 

WEAs between October and January. However, acoustic monitoring data indicates that 

individuals may occur in the WEAs throughout the year (NJDEP, 2010a). Although sperm and 

sei whales occur in the Mid-Atlantic, sightings data indicate that these species are limited to 

areas further offshore east of the Mid-Atlantic WEAs (TNC, 2010). 

Manatees are federally listed as endangered (USFWS, 2008). Individual sightings of 

manatees have occurred in Mid-Atlantic region in the summer months, but a regular 

migration/occurrence has not been established and any potential encounters with manatees would 

be highly unlikely. 

There is no critical habitat formally identified for marine mammals in and around the MidAtlantic WEAs. 

The New Jersey study (NJDEP, 2010a) that found the following for right, humpback and fin 

whales (the only ESA-listed marine mammals observed in the Study Area) during shipboard and 

aerial surveys and passive acoustic monitoring (PAM data was not available for humpback 

whales). Similar occurrences for these species may be expected for the Mid-Atlantic WEAs 

south of New Jersey as they align with a general north/south migration corridor (NJDEP, 2010a). 

Right Whales

Observed 

Right whales were seen as single animals or in pairs (mean group size=1.5). Sightings 

occurred in water depths ranging from 17 to 26 m (56 to 85 ft) with a mean value of 22.5 

m (73.8 ft). Distances from shore ranged from 19.9 to 31.9 km (10.7 to 17.2 nm) with a 

mean of 23.7 km (12.8 nm). Right whales were seen in winter, spring, and fall in waters 

with SST ranging from 5.5 to 12.2 degrees Celsius (°C); 41.9 to 54.0 degrees Fahrenheit 

(°F); mean 10.0°C (50.0°F)). Three sightings were recorded during November, 

December, and January when right whales are known to be on the breeding/calving 

grounds farther south (Winn et al., 1986) or in the Gulf of Maine (Cole et al., 2009). The 

November 2008 sighting just south of the Study Area boundary was of an adult female 

who must have been migrating through the Study Area on her way to the calving grounds 

because she was sighted in mid-December 2008 off the coast of Florida (Zani, M., New 

England Aquarium, pers. comm., January 14, 2009). The sighting recorded in December 

2009 near the southern boundary of the Study Area (water depth of 25 m/82 ft) was also 

83 
of a female that was later sighted off the coast of Georgia in early January 2010 (Zani, 

M., New England Aquarium, pers. comm., January 11, 2010). Initially, two sightings of 

right whales were recorded close together in both time and space. Subsequent photoidentification analyses indicate that these sightings were of the same individual North 

Atlantic right whale. Therefore, the first sighting of this individual is considered the 

original sighting, and the second sighting is considered a re-sight of the individual. The 

January 2009 sighting was of two adult males; these whales were sighted offshore of 

Barnegat Light in the northernmost portion of the Study Area. The whales exhibited 

feeding behavior (i.e., surface skimming with mouths open) in 26 m (85 ft) of water; 

however, actual feeding could not be confirmed. During May 2008, a cow-calf pair was 

recorded in waters near the 17 m (56 ft) isobath southeast of Atlantic City. The pair was 

sighted in the southeast U.S. in January and February prior to the May sighting, and they 

were sighted in the Bay of Fundy in August (Zani, M., New England Aquarium, pers. 

comm., January 6, 2010). 

Passive Acoustic Monitoring

Analysis of recordings captured in the Study Area during the baseline study period 

demonstrated North Atlantic right whale occurrence throughout the year, with a peak 

number of detection days in March through June (46 days in 2008, 10 in 2009 although 

June was not represented in 2009). North Atlantic right whales were also detected 

sporadically in the eastern and northern areas of the Study Area during the summer 

through the fall in 2008 (two days detected during July, five in August, five in 

September, one in October, six in November, and one in December) and in 2009 (three in 

August, six in September, four in October, and one in November). Nine days of detection 

(mid-January to mid-March 2009) resulted from the December 2008 PAM deployment 

even though only two of the five deployed pop-ups were recovered. During these winter 

months, the North Atlantic right whale calls were detected on the pop-up located 21.4 km 

(12 nm) from shore at a depth of 24 m (79 ft). Winter represents the time of year when 

North Atlantic right whale mothers and calves are found off the southeast U.S. coast 

(mainly off northern Florida and southern Georgia; Hamilton and Mayo, 1990; Hain et 

al., 1992; Knowlton et al., 1992), but it is unknown where the majority of North Atlantic 

right whale males and females without calves spend their time during this season. Very 

little data are represented from the migratory corridor (i.e., the eastern U.S. coast from 

New Jersey to Virginia) between the southern calving grounds and the northern feeding 

grounds for comparison (Mead, 1986; Knowlton et al., 1992; McLellan et al., 2002); 

however, these winter detection days are inconsistent with current distribution data. 

Humpback Whales

Humpback whales are known to occur regularly throughout the year in the Mid-Atlantic 

and may occur in the Study Area year-round. Seventeen sightings of humpback whales 

were recorded during the study period; seven of these were off-effort and 10 were oneffort. Humpback whales were sighted during all seasons; the majority of sightings 

(nine) were recorded during winter. Humpback whales were sighted as single animals or 

in pairs (mean group size=1.2). Distance from shore ranged from 4.8 to 33.2 km (2.6 to 

18.0 nm; mean=18.4 km/9.9 nm). In mid-September 2008, a mixed species aggregation 

of a fin whale and humpback whale was recorded south of Atlantic City. The humpback 

84 
whale was observed lunge feeding in the vicinity of the fin whale; the water depth of this 

sighting was 15 m (49 ft). Humpback whale sightings occurred at water depths ranging 

from 12 to 29 m (39 to 95 ft) with a mean depth of 20.5 m (67.3 ft). This species was 

sighted in waters with SST ranging from 4.7°C to 19.5°C (40.5 to 67.1°F; mean 10.1°C 

[50.2°F]). 

Fin Whales

Observed 

Fin whales were the most frequently sighted large whale species during the survey 

period. There were a total of 37 fin whale sightings; the majority of these (27) were 

recorded on effort. Fin whale group size ranged from one to four animals (mean group 

size=1.5). Water depth for fin whale sightings ranged from 12 to 29 m (39 to 95 ft) with a 

mean depth of 21.5 m (70.5 ft). SSTs for these sightings ranged from 4.2 to 19.7°C (39.6 

to 67.5°F) with a mean temperature of 9.6°C (49.3°F). Fin whales were sighted between 

3.1 and 33.9 km (1.7 and 18.3 nm) from shore with a mean distance of 20.0 km (10.8 

nm). 

Fin whales were sighted during all seasons. Twenty-six sightings were recorded 

throughout the Study Area during the 2008 surveys. Most of these sightings were 

recorded during the winter and summer. One mixed-species aggregation of a fin whale 

and humpback whale was observed in September. While the humpback whale was lunge 

feeding, the fin whale surfaced multi-directionally but did not appear to be feeding. One 

calf was observed with an adult fin whale in August 2008. During the 2009 surveys, fin 

whales were again the most frequently sighted baleen whale species and were seen in 

every season except summer for a total of 11 sightings. 

Passive Acoustic Monitoring

The fin whale was the most common marine mammal species detected acoustically 

during PAM of the Study Area. Fin whale pulses were primarily documented in the 

northern and eastern range of the Study Area where the shelf waters were deeper (>25 m 

[82 ft]) and distance from shore was greater than 25 km (13 nm). The consistent 

presence of fin whale pulses indicates that this species, or at least members of this 

species, can be regularly found along the New Jersey outer continental shelf. Fin whale 

pulses and downsweeps were documented in every month of acoustic monitoring. The 

20-hertz (Hz) infrasonic pulses have duration of ~1 s (Thomson and Richardson, 1995; 

Charif et al., 2002). Automatic detection software facilitated an examination of all hard 

drives of data. Fin whales were detected on 47 days from March to May 2008, 62 days 

from June to September 2008, 31 days from October to December 2008, 57 days from 

January to March 2009, 16 days in April and May 2009, and 68 days from August to 

October 2009. 

As mentioned previously, sightings data for marine mammals has been compiled by the 

Nature Conservancy for their comprehensive Northwest Atlantic Marine Ecoregional 

Assessment (NAM ERA). The Nature Conservancy submitted to BOEM spatial data of 

sightings for marine mammals as part of their comments on BOEM’s NOI to prepare this EA (76 

FR 7226 (Feb. 9, 2011)). All marine mammal sightings data is included in Appendix A with the 

exception of striped dolphin, white-sided dolphin, sperm whale, and sei whale which had little to 

85 
no occurrence in the vicinity of the mid-Atlantic WEAs. The underlying data sources for these 

maps are the U.S. Navy’s Marine Resource Assessment, which in turn, utilized NMFS survey 

data. The NAM ERA study does note limitations on the data, particularly with regard to the 

disparity in spatial scales between the data and the WEAs. The ten minute square grid cells that 

do not include sightings data for marine mammals may not indicate a lack of these animals, but 

instead may simply reflect a lack of adequate survey effort in those particular areas. However, 

the overall picture presented in the NAM ERA study is consistent with the predominantly winter 

(January – March) sightings for humpback and right whales (TNC, 2010). 

Additionally, data from the Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species 

(AMAPPS), the BOEM/NOAA interagency effort for the assessment of abundance and spatial 

distribution of mammals and turtles along the U.S. East Coast, has been evaluated. As part of 

the AMAPPS program, the Southeast Fisheries Science Center conducted an aerial survey of 

continental shelf waters along the U.S. East Coast from Cape Canaveral, Florida to Cape May, 

New Jersey. The survey was conducted between July 24 and August 14, 2010. A total of 7,944 

km of trackline were surveyed on effort during 86 flight hours. Six species of marine mammals 

were identified, with the majority being bottlenose dolphins (127 groups sighted totaling 1,541 

animals). The marine mammal sightings data relevant to the Mid-Atlantic WEAs is presented in 

Appendix A, Figure A.21. The data presented in Figure A.21 and the AMAPPS Final 2010 

Annual Report, available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/psb/AMAPPS/, further supports the 

summer distribution of marine mammals described in this EA. These data sets, in combination 

with the sightings data from the New Jersey study, are not assumed to be absolute delineation of 

marine mammal year-round occurrence in the mid-Atlantic. Rather, this data gives the best 

direct observational data to date for the areas where site assessment and site characterization 

activities may occur offshore the Mid-Atlantic States. This information will be supplemented 

with the data gathered through site characterization surveys. 

4.1.2.3.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A 

Chapter 5.2.8.2 of the Programmatic EIS discusses the impacts of site characterization and 

assessment activities on marine mammals. Activities associated with site characterization and 

assessment that may affect marine mammals include: (1) G&G surveys; (2) construction and/or 

installation of meteorological observation platforms (i.e., towers and buoys); (3) vessel traffic; 

(4) discharges of waste materials and accidental fuel releases; and (5) meteorological observation 

platform decommissioning. The potential effects to marine mammals from these activities can 

be grouped into the following categories: (1) acoustic effects; (2) benthic habitat effects; (3) 

vessel collision effects; and (4) other effects (e.g., contact with waterborne pollution). It should 

be noted that all activities described below will be subject to evaluation by NMFS under the 

MMPA if and when a lessee proposes to conduct them. Accordingly, lessees would need to 

consult with NMFS to ensure necessary authorizations (such as Incidental Harassment 

Authorizations (IHAs)) are obtained when necessary. 

The following analysis includes project design criteria required by BOEM, which are 

reflected in NMFS’ programmatic concurrence which was the result of BOEM’s ESA 

consultation regarding Alternative A (see Appendix B of this EA). These measures are a part of 

Alternative A and all action alternatives, and will be included as conditions on any leases and/or 

SAPs issued or approved under Alternative A. 

86 
Acoustic Effects 

This section on acoustic effects summarizes what is known about noise sensitivity in marine 

mammals and the noise that could be produced as a result of site characterization and assessment 

activity in the Mid-Atlantic WEAs. 

Current Understanding of Noise Sensitivity in Marine Mammals 

This section is derived in large part from previous ESA consultations and biological opinions 

issued by NMFS for BOEM Atlantic wind energy projects. 

Marine organisms rely on sound to communicate with co-specifics and derive information 

about their environment. There is growing concern about the effect of increasing ocean noise 

levels due to anthropogenic sources, particularly vessel traffic on marine mammals. Effects of 

noise exposure on marine organisms can be characterized by the following range of physical and 

behavioral responses (Richardson et al., 1995): 

1. Behavioral reactions – Range from brief startle responses, to changes or interruptions in 

feeding, diving, or respiratory patterns, to cessation of vocalizations, to temporary or 

permanent displacement from habitat. 

2. Masking – Reduction in ability to detect communication or other relevant sound signals due 

to elevated levels of background noise. 

3. Temporary threshold shift (TTS) – Temporary, fully recoverable reduction in hearing 

sensitivity caused by exposure to sound. 

4. Permanent threshold shift (PTS) – Permanent, irreversible reduction in hearing sensitivity 

due to damage or injury to ear structures caused by prolonged exposure to sound or 

temporary exposure to very intense sound. 

5. Non-auditory physiological effects – Effects of sound exposure on tissues in non-auditory 

systems either through direct exposure or as a consequence of changes in behavior, e.g., 

resonance of respiratory cavities or growth of gas bubbles in body fluids. 

Current thresholds established by NMFS for determining impacts to marine mammals 

typically center around root-mean-square (RMS) received levels of 180 dB re 1Pa for potential 

injury, 160 dB re 1Pa for behavioral disturbance/harassment from a non-continuous noise 

source, and 120 dB re 1Pa for behavioral disturbance/harassment from a continuous noise 

source. These thresholds are based on a limited number of experimental studies on captive 

odontocetes, a limited number of controlled field studies on wild marine mammals, observations 

of marine mammal behavior in the wild, and inferences from studies of hearing in terrestrial 

mammals. In addition, marine mammal responses to sound can be highly variable, depending on 

the individual hearing sensitivity of the animal, the behavioral or motivational state at the time of 

exposure, past exposure to the noise which may have caused habituation or sensitization, 

demographic factors, habitat characteristics, environmental factors that affect sound 

transmission, and non-acoustic characteristics of the sound source, such as whether it is 

stationary or moving (NRC 2003). Nonetheless, the threshold levels referred to above are 

utilized by NMFS in evaluating impacts and prescribing mitigation under the ESA and MMPA. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

This section addresses the current understanding of marine mammal hearing adopted from 

Southall et al., 2007 (Table 4.4). In order for activities to adversely affect marine mammals 

through noise, the animals must be able to perceive the noises produced by the activities. If a 

87 
species cannot hear a sound, or hears it poorly, then the sound is unlikely to have a significant 

effect (Ketten, 1998). 

Table 4.4 

Functional Marine Mammal Hearing Groups, Auditory Bandwidth, and Genera 

Represented from Each Group 

Functional Hearing 

Group 

Estimated Auditory 

Bandwidth 

Genera Represented 

(number species/subspecies) 

Low-frequency cetaceans 7 Hz to 22 kHz Balaena, Caperea, Eschrichtius, Megaptera, Balaenoptera 

(13 species/subspecies) 

Mid-frequency cetaceans 150 Hz to 160 kHz Steno, Sousa, Sotalia, Tursiops, Stenella, Delphinus, 

Lagenodelphis, Lagenorhynchus, Lissodelphis, Grampus, 

Peponocephala, Feresa, Pseudorca, Orcinus, Globicephala, 

Orcaella, Physeter, Delphinapterus, Monodon, Ziphius, 

Berardius,Tasmacetus, Hyperoodon, Mesoplodon 

(57 species/subspecies) 

High-frequency 

cetaceans 

200 Hz to 180 kHz Phocoena, Neophocaena, Phocoenoides, Platanista, Inia, 

Kogia, Lipotes, Pontoporia, Cephalorhynchus 

(20 species/subspecies) 

Pinnipeds in water 75 Hz to 75 kHz Arctocephalus, Callorhinus, Zalophus, Eumetopias, 

Neophoca, Phocarctos, Otaria, Erignathus, Phoca, Pusa, 

Halichoerus, Histriophoca, Pagophilus, Cystophora, 

Monachus, Mirounga, Leptonychotes, Ommatophoca, 

Lobodon, Hydrurga, and Odobenus 

(41 species/subspecies) 

Pinnipeds in air 75 Hz to 30 kHz Same species as pinnipeds in water 

(41 species/subspecies) 

Source: Southall et al., 2007. 

From what is known of marine mammal hearing and the source levels and the volume and 

frequencies of the meteorological tower construction noise sources (see below), it is evident that, 

if present in the area where the underwater noise occurs, marine mammals are capable of 

perceiving survey and construction related noises; and have hearing ranges that are likely to have 

peak sensitivities that overlap the frequencies of sub-bottom profiling survey equipment, pile 

driving, and vessel sound. 

High Resolution Geologic Survey Acoustic Effects 

HRG surveys would be employed to characterize ocean-bottom topography and subsurface 

geology. The HRG survey would also investigate potential benthic biological communities (or 

habitats) and archaeological resources. Specifically, high resolution site surveys would be used 

to characterize the potential site of the meteorological tower and to gather the information 

necessary to submit a COP in the future. HRG surveys associated with Alternative A involve 

shallow penetration of the seafloor. Therefore, renewable energy-related HRG surveys involve 

far less energy (and therefore, far less sound introduced into the environment) than do deeppenetrating oil and gas-related surveys. 

Section 3.1.1.1 details a reasonably foreseeable scenario for HRG surveys. The survey 

would likely consist of a vessel towing an acoustic source (boomer and/or chirper) about 25m 

behind the ship and a 600-m streamer cable with a tail buoy. The total Mid-Atlantic WEA 

88 
survey area includes the entire footprint of the WEAs. Total HRG survey time is conservatively 

estimated at 13,300 hours for all the Mid-Atlantic WEAs (which would involve 59,800 nm of 

surveys). The complete state-by-state breakdown of reasonably foreseeable HRG survey 

activities is presented in Section 3.1.1.1. 

The sound levels at the source (i.e., the boomer, chirper survey vessel) would depend on the 

type of equipment used for the survey. An example of the type of equipment to be used is in 

Table 3.2. Acoustic energy generated by these survey instruments is directed downward and 

may be fanned at the seafloor and not directed horizontally. The surveys would likely use the 

full daylight hours available, approximately 10 hours per day. However, the time that any 

particular area would experience elevated sound levels would be significantly shorter as the 

vessel would be ensonifying a limited area along each transect. Since marine mammals would 

not be exposed continuously as the vessel is transiting a given area, vessel noise is not 

considered a continuous noise source. 

The sub-bottom profilers (e.g., boomers, sparkers, and chirpers) generate sound within the 

hearing thresholds of most marine mammals that may occur in the action area. As noted in Table 

3.2, the chirp has a sound source level of 201 dB re 1μPa rms with a typical pulse length of 32 

milliseconds and a pulse repetition rate of 4 per second. A typical boomer has a sound source 

level of around 205 dB re 1μPa rms with the pulse duration of 150-200 microseconds and a pulse 

repetition rate of 3 per second. However, actual specifications may vary by manufacturer and the 

environment where it is to be deployed. 

An acoustic evaluation conducted by Cape Wind Associates for its project on Horseshoe 

Shoal offshore Massachusetts indicated that HRG survey noise dissipated to 180 dB at 16 m 

from the source for the chirper and 27 m for the boomer. Underwater sound levels dissipated to 

160 dB at 227 m from the source for the chirper, and at 386 m from the source for the boomer. 

However, it should be noted that this information serves as a guide and that different equipment 

may produce different results in different sub-marine environments. For the purposes of this EA, 

these zones of ensonification for acoustic harassment have been rounded up to 30 m and 400 m 

for the boomer at 160dB and 180dB respectively. 

Effects on marine mammal behavior are generally expected to be limited due to avoidance of 

the immediate area around the HRG survey activities and short-term changes in behavior, falling 

within the MMPA definition of “Level B harassment.” Cetaceans are highly mobile and likely to 

quickly leave an area when disturbing noise levels are present. Baleen whales have also been 

found to increase call production or call frequency in the presence of noise from sub-bottom 

profilers and vessels (Di Iorio and Clark 2010 and Parks et al 2007). The only pinnipeds, harbor 

seals, are not likely to occur in the area of the survey as the only sighting in the NJ Baseline 

Study was well inshore of the current NJ WEA. While an HRG survey may disturb more than 

one individual, the surveys occurring across the WEAs at various times and locations over the 

course of 5-6 years and the localized and temporary nature of the sound emitted are not expected 

to result in any population-level effects. Individuals disturbed by HRG survey noise would 

likely return to normal behavioral patterns after the survey has ceased, after the survey vessel has 

moved out of the animal’s immediate vicinity, or after the animal has left the immediate survey 

area. Once an area has been surveyed, it is unlikely that it would be surveyed again. As a result, 

BOEM does not anticipate that any area would be precluded from use by these animals for 

longer than it takes for the vessel to traverse that area. Moreover, there is wide distribution of 

cetaceans in the proposed Mid-Atlantic WEAs. Although cetaceans may be present in a WEA 

during an HRG survey, the likely maximum ranges of the 180 dB and 160 dB isopleths, 

89 
(estimated at maximum of 30 m and 400 m, respectively) make it unlikely that any cetaceans 

would be exposed to injurious or disturbing sound levels associated with the survey. 

Because of the mobility of the sound source during HRG surveys, and the likelihood that 

marine mammals would leave the immediate vicinity of the surveys, few individuals may be 

expected, in most cases, to be present within the survey areas. Marine mammals that may be 

engaged in feeding behavior and choose not to leave the survey area may express behavioral 

changes, such as increased call production or frequency. 

The project design criteria, including marine mammal exclusion zones monitored by trained 

observers, are a part of Alternative A, and will be required by BOEM in the lease instrument 

and/or conditions of approval for any SAP (see Appendix B). The NMFS concurred that the 

activities to be carried out as described are not likely to adversely affect listed whales when 

implemented according to BOEM’s mandatory project design criteria (USDOC, NOAA, NMFS 

2011c). In addition, the lessee’s surveys would likely require an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization from NMFS, which would very likely require similar mitigation measures be 

implemented (see NMFS MMPA Proposed Notice of Incidental Harassment Authorization for 

the Cape Wind Project (76 FR 56735, September 14, 2011). 

No population-level impacts on marine mammals from HRG surveys are expected as a result 

of this activity. 

 

Sub-bottom Reconnaissance Acoustic Effects 

The majority of sub-bottom sampling work would be accomplished via CPTs, and to a more 

limited extent vibracores, which does not require deep borehole drilling. However, some 

geologic conditions may prevent sufficient data being acquired from vibracores and CPTs and 

would instead necessitate obtaining a geologic profile via a borehole. Acoustic impacts from 

borehole drilling are expected to be below the 120 dB threshold established by NMFS for marine 

mammal harassment from a continuous noise source. Previous estimates submitted to BOEM for 

geotechnical drilling have source sound levels not exceeding 145dB at a frequency of 120Hz 

(USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 2009). Previous submissions to BOEM also indicated that boring 

sound should attenuate to below 120 dB by the 150 m isopleth. According to project design 

criteria required by BOEM per the ESA consultation with NMFS, there will be a 200-m 

exclusion zone for marine mammals during deep hole boring activity (see Appendix B of this 

EA). The total drilling time would be dependent upon the target depth and substrate that would 

be drilled. 

Since drilling is considered by NMFS to be a continuous noise source, the level of noise 

considered harassment under the MMPA is 120 dB. It is generally expected that the activity of 

setting up drilling equipment would deter marine mammals from entering the immediate work 

area. There would be nothing that would prevent animals from leaving or avoiding areas where 

drilling would take place. Other sub-bottom reconnaissance activity, such as the use of a CPT, is 

expected to only have minor acoustic impacts, primarily from vessel engines. 

It is anticipated that sub-bottom reconnaissance work as a whole would have temporary 

effects lasting the duration of the work. These temporary effects include the displacement of 

marine fauna within the immediate vicinity of the work and some localized sedimentation of 

flora and sessile invertebrates. The acoustic impacts with this work are minor and ensonify only 

a small area. 

90 
Meteorological Tower Pile-Driving Noise 

The type and intensity of the sounds produced by pile driving depend on a variety of factors, 

including the type and size of the pile, the firmness of the substrate into which the pile is driven, 

the depth of the water, and the type and size of the impact hammer being used. Thus, the actual 

sounds produced would vary from area to area. Regardless, this section attempts to capture the 

range of acoustic impacts from pile driving. 

Pile driving is expected to generate sound levels in excess of 200 dB and have a relatively 

broad band of 20 Hz to >20 kHz (Madsen et al., 2006; Thomsen et al., 2006). Sound attenuation 

modeling done during construction at Utgrunden Wind Park in the Baltic Sea in 2000 and 

adopted as the model for the Cape Wind Energy Project (Report 4.1.2-1 (Noise Report)) of the 

FEIS) indicates that underwater noise levels may be greater than 160 dB re 1 uPa (i.e., NMFS 

threshold for behavioral disturbance/harassment from a non-continuous noise source) within 

approximately 3.4 km of the pile being driven. At distances greater than 3.4km from the pile 

being driven, noise levels will have dissipated to below 160 dB re 1 uPa. It should be noted that 

these measurements are for a 1.7 MW turbine mounted upon a monopile of approximately 5m in 

diameter and not for a meteorological tower. Generally, the larger the diameter of the monopole 

the greater the noise produced from pile driving (Nedwell, 2007). Actual measured underwater 

sound levels during the construction of the Cape Wind meteorological tower in 2003 were 145-

167 dB at 500m with peak energy at around 500Hz. 

Alternatively, modeling conducted by Bluewater Wind, LLC for proposed meteorological 

tower sites offshore New Jersey and Delaware under Interim Policy leases places the 160 dB 

isopleth at 7,230 m for Delaware and 6,600 m (USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 2010a). This model has 

not been field-verified. Generally, it is anticipated that actual pile driving time would last 3-8 

hours per pile driven within the Mid-Atlantic WEAs. The information from Cape Wind 

Associates and Bluewater Wind represent a good range of the area of ensonification at the 180 

dB and 160 dB levels. This is detailed in Table 4.5 below. 

Table 4.5 

Modeled Areas of Ensonification from Pile Driving 

Project (modeled) Additional Info 180 dB re 1μPa 

(rms) 

160 dB re 1μPa 

(rms) 

Bluewater Wind (Interim 

Policy Lease offshore 

Delaware) 

3.05m diameter 

monopole; 900kJ 

hammer 

760m 7,230m 

Bluewater Wind (Interim 

Policy Lease offshore New 

Jersey) 

3.05m diameter 

monopole; 900kJ 

hammer 

1,000m 6,600m 

Cape Wind Energy Project 

(Lease in Nantucket Sound) 

5.05m monopole; 

1,200kJ hammer 500m 3,400m 

Behavioral disturbance/harassment of marine mammals may occur when individuals are 

exposed to pulsed noise levels (i.e., non-continuous noise sources, such as those generated by an 

impact pile driver that would be used for pile installation) greater than 160 dB re 1 μPa. In order 

to minimize the potential effects of pile driving on listed species, BOEM proposed several 

91 
mitigation measures in the Draft EA that have been incorporated into the NMFS project design 

criteria pursuant to the ESA consultation and are now required for pile driving activities (see

Appendix B; (USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 2011c). 

During meteorological tower construction, marine mammals in the vicinity of the 

construction site may be temporarily disturbed (3-8 hours over 3 days) by noise generated during 

pile driving. Such noise could disturb normal behaviors (e.g., feeding, social interactions), mask 

calls from co specifics, disrupt echolocation capabilities, and mask sounds generated by 

predators. Behavioral effects may be incurred at ranges of many miles, and hearing impairment 

may occur at close range (Madsen et al., 2006). Behavioral reactions may include avoidance of, 

or flight from, the sound source and its immediate surroundings, disruption of feeding behavior, 

interruption of vocal activity, and modification of vocal patterns (Watkins and Scheville, 1975; 

Malme et al., 1984; Bowles et al., 1994; Mate et al., 1994). Depending on the frequency of the 

noise generated during construction of the meteorological towers, impacts to marine mammals 

may also include temporary hearing loss or auditory masking (Madsen et al., 2006). The 

biological importance of hearing loss or behavioral responses to construction noise (e.g., effects 

on energetics, survival, reproduction, population status) is unknown, and there is little 

information regarding short-term or long-term effects of behavioral reactions on marine mammal 

populations. 

While sound generated during construction of a meteorological tower may affect more than 

one individual, population-level effects are not anticipated. Some species are expected to 

quickly leave the area with the arrival of construction vessels, before pile-driving activities are 

begun, while individuals remaining in the area may flee with the initiation of pile driving, 

thereby greatly reducing their exposure to maximal sound levels and, to a lesser extent, masking 

frequencies. Individuals disturbed by or experiencing masking due to construction noise would 

likely return to normal behavioral patterns after the construction had ceased (pile driving for each 

meteorological tower installation is anticipated to be completed within a 3-day period), or after 

the animal has left the survey area. 

Injury of marine species that could be caused by the pile driving noise are expected only in 

the immediate vicinity of the pile driving activity at distances on the order of 100 m, and 

behavioral effects at ranges of the order of 20 km or more (Bailey et al., 2010). However, 

construction of a meteorological tower would be of relatively short duration and limited to a 

maximum of 10 dispersed locations throughout the Mid-Atlantic WEAs (see the meteorological 

tower/buoy action scenario in Section 3.1.2). Additionally, each of these 12 structures could be 

constructed at any time within an approximately 5 and one-half year period. Because marine 

mammals would be expected to leave the immediate vicinity of the tower during its construction, 

the total area of effect would be minor in relation to the environment in which these animals live, 

and the timing of construction would be so spatially and temporally dispersed, impacts to marine 

mammals in general would be of limited duration and intensity. 

In the unlikely event that a whale is present within the area of potential effect when the 

meteorological towers are being installed, no pile driving would occur if any marine mammal is 

within 7 km of the pile, and BOEM would require soft-start procedures as conditions of any 

lease or SAP approval (see Appendix B for detail). Additional operating requirements may be 

imposed by NMFS in an IHA issued to a lessee (see NMFS MMPA Proposed Notice of 

Incidental Harassment Authorization for the Cape Wind Project (76 FR 56735 (Sept. 14, 2011))). 

As exposure to harassing levels of sound (i.e., 160dB re 1uPa) is likely to only occur within 7 

km of the pile being driven, and it is extremely unlikely that driving would occur if a whale were 

92 
sighted within 7 km of the pile, BOEM anticipates that no whales would be exposed to sound 

levels greater than 160 dB and no whales would be exposed to sound levels at which injury could 

occur (i.e., 160dB re 1μPa). BOEM does not anticipate that these activities, due to their low 

number, intensity, dispersed location, and timing over a five and one-half year period, would 

either individually or cumulatively seriously harm or kill any of these animals. BOEM did 

consider the use of vibratory hammers as a measure to reduce exposure to disturbing levels of 

noise. BOEM does not discourage the use of vibratory hammers as their use would reduce the 

duration of exposure to the higher sound pressure levels associated with impact hammers. 

However, it should be noted that the use of vibratory hammers could result in an increase in the 

total installation time and thus total duration of sound exposure. Other noise reduction measures 

for pile driving, primarily cofferdams and foam sleeves (see Nehls, 2007 and USDOI, 

BOEMRE, 2010) have also been shown to be effective. However, the feasibility of requiring 

these technologies in the offshore environment needs further exploration and may be appropriate 

on a case-by case basis for full commercial-scale construction projects where the total duration 

of pile driving activities would be greater than that for a single meteorological tower. 

Vessel Traffic Noise 

Marine mammals may also be affected by the noise generated by surface vessels traveling to 

and from the WEAs. The dominant source of noise from vessels is from the propeller cavitation, 

and the intensity of this noise is largely related to ship size and speed. Vessel noise from vessels 

associated with Alternative A would generally produce low levels of noise, anticipated to be in 

the range of 150 to 170 dB re 1 μPa-m, at frequencies below 1,000 Hz, and would dissipate 

quickly with distance from the source. Exposure of marine mammals to individual construction 

or survey vessels would be transient, and the noise intensity would vary depending upon the 

source and specific location. Reactions of marine mammals may include apparent indifference, 

cessation of vocalizations or feeding activity, and evasive behavior (e.g., turns, diving) to avoid 

approaching vessels (Richardson et al., 1995; Nowacek and Wells, 2001). Behavior would likely 

return to normal following passage of the vessel, and it is unlikely that such short-term effects 

would result in long-term population-level impacts for marine mammals. Thus, impacts from 

vessel noise would be negligible if detectible, and short-term. 

It should be noted that the areas that could be affected by the alternatives are some of the 

most heavily-trafficked waters in the world and is also host to an active and large fishing 

industry (see Section 4.1.3 regarding for discussion of other ocean use). While vessel traffic 

associated with Alternative A may have some impact on marine mammals, that potential for 

impact would be exceedingly minor in light of the current potential for impact associated with 

current status-quo vessel activities in the area of potential effect. 

Benthic Habitat Effects 

Section 4.1.2.2 of this document discusses the benthic resources and the reasonably 

foreseeable impacts of Alternative A upon those resources. This section only discusses those 

impacts in relation to marine mammals. Benthic effects from Alternative A that would impact 

marine mammals are anticipated to be negligible due to limited utilization of the benthic 

environment by marine mammals and the limited impact to the benthos itself. It is expected that 

some benthic forage items for marine mammals may become unavailable during certain activities 

associated with Alternative A, as described below. 

93 
Sub-bottom Sampling 

The sub-bottom sampling would result in small areas of the seafloor being disturbed (i.e., 

less than one ft diameter would be disturbed in the areas where cores are sampled) for no more 

than a few days (see Section 4.1.2.2 for a full discussion of the benthic resources and impacts 

from Alternative A). This activity could conceivably impact marine mammals by removing a 

small amount of forage items that would otherwise be available to these species. However, due 

to the small footprint of disturbance, the temporary nature of the action, and likely availability of 

similar benthic habitat all around the sampling location, it is expected that Alternative A would 

have negligible benthic effects that could impact marine mammals. 

Meteorological Tower/Buoy Installation 

It is expected that re-suspension of bottom sediment and the ensuing sedimentation that 

would occur around a recently-installed tower or buoy would have only minor temporary effects 

that could impact the habitat and food availability for marine mammals for the same reasons as 

stated above. 

Meteorological Tower/Buoy Operation 

The installation of a single meteorological tower (total of 12) or buoy (total of 24) within a 

lease block (total of 12) is not expected to result in any changes in local community assemblage 

and diversity or the availability of habitat and forage items for marine mammals that could occur 

in and around the WEAs. 

Collision Effects 

This section addresses potential for impacts resulting from the collision of marine mammals 

with structures and vessels associated with Alternative A. A collision with marine life, such as a 

whale, could result in injury to the animal and/or damage to the facility or vessel. In the case of 

fixed platforms, BOEM anticipates that marine life would simply avoid colliding with the 

structures. 

Vessels associated with site characterization surveys, or construction, maintenance or 

decommissioning of the meteorological tower could collide with marine mammals during transit. 

According to project design criteria required by BOEM, all vessel operators must abide by 

“Whale-watching Guidelines,” which would limit the likelihood or prevent altogether such 

collisions. These guidelines contain vessel approach protocols derived from the MMPA (see

Appendix B). These guidelines identify safe navigational practices based on speed and distance 

limitations when encountering marine mammals. The frequency of vessel collisions with marine 

mammals, turtles, or other marine animals probably varies as a function of spatial and temporal 

distribution patterns of the living resources, the pathways of maritime traffic (coastal traffic is 

more predictable than offshore traffic), the volume of vessel traffic, and as a function of vessel 

speed, the number of vessel trips, and the navigational visibility. 

Vessel traffic conducting surveys, and bringing equipment and personnel to meteorological 

tower construction sites may affect marine mammals either by direct collisions with vessels or by 

acoustic disturbances from vessels. At least 11 species of cetaceans have been documented to 

have been hit by ships in the world’s oceans, and in most cases the whales were not seen 

beforehand or were seen too late to avoid collision (Laist et al., 2001; Jensen and Silber, 2004). 

Whale strikes have been reported at vessel speeds ranging from 2 to 51 knots (2 to 59 mph), with 

most lethal or severe injuries occurring at ship speeds of 14 knots (16 mph) or more (Laist et al., 

94 
2001; Jensen and Silber, 2004). The majority of the vessels anticipated to be associated with the 

WEAs would be subject, in certain areas, to regulations limiting their speed to 10 knots or less 

(see below). 

Whale strikes have occurred with a wide variety of vessel types, including Navy vessels, 

container and cargo ships, freighters, cruise ships, and ferries (Jensen and Silber, 2004), all of 

which are already present in the area of potential effects. Collisions with vessels greater than 80 

m (260 ft) in length are usually either lethal or result in severe injuries (Laist et al., 2001), 

although no such vessels are anticipated to be associated with Alternative A. 

Ship strikes have been recorded in U.S. waters offshore almost every coastal State. 

Collisions between whales and vessels have been most commonly reported along the Atlantic 

Coast, which is busiest in terms of vessel traffic, followed by the Pacific Coast (including Alaska 

and Hawaii); and the Gulf of Mexico (Jensen and Silber 2004). In addition, most ship strikes 

appear to occur over or near the edge of the continental shelf (Laist et al., 2001), which is 

shallower and provides habitat for these animals, and is also host to a greater concentration of 

vessel traffic than are the seas beyond the OCS. The most frequently struck species has been the 

fin whale, followed by humpback, North Atlantic right, gray, minke, southern right, and sperm 

whales (Jensen and Silber, 2004). Among these species, the North Atlantic right whale, the 

humpback whale, minke whale, and fin whale are considered more likely than the others to 

encounter vessels associated with the Mid-Atlantic WEAs. 

According to project design criteria required by BOEM, vessels associated with Alternative 

A will be required to observe a 10 knot speed limit when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large 

assemblages of cetaceans are observed near an underway vessel, when safety permits (see

Appendix B). In addition, vessels conducting activities in and around the WEAs would be 

subject to regulations requiring ships 19.8 m (65 ft) or longer to travel at 10 knots (11.5 mph) or 

less in certain areas where right whales gather (50 CFR 224.105). The purpose of the regulations 

is to reduce the likelihood of deaths and serious injuries to endangered North Atlantic right 

whales that result from collisions with ships. This regulation also benefits other marine mammal 

species. These restrictions extend out to 37 km (20 nm) around major Mid-Atlantic ports. In 

addition to the mandatory speed restrictions, in Seasonal Management Areas (SMAs), vessels 

would also be required to check with NOAA’s Sighting Advisory System when Dynamic 

Management Areas (DMAs) are in place. The full compliance guide can be found at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/shipstrike/compliance_guide.pdf. 

Considering the existing regulatory measures in place; the limited intermittent activities 

associated with Alternative A, which are spread out temporally, as well as geographically in and 

around the Mid-Atlantic WEAs, and BOEM’s mandatory project design criteria (see Appendix 

B), no significant impacts due to vessel strikes are anticipated. Moreover, due to the nature and 

volume of existing and historic vessel traffic in the area of potential effect, it is unlikely that the 

vessel traffic associated with Alternative A would substantially increase the risk that marine 

mammals are struck within the area of potential effect. As a result, Alternative A would not lead 

to any substantial effects on the population of marine mammal species in these areas. 

Discharge of Waste Materials and Accidental Fuel Leaks 

Collisions between vessels and allisions between vessels and meteorological towers and 

buoys is considered unlikely (see Section 3.2.2 of this EA). However; in, the unlikely event that 

a vessel allision or collision were to occur, the most likely pollutant to be discharged would be 

95 
diesel fuel. If a diesel spill were to occur, it would be expected to dissipate very rapidly in the 

water column, then evaporate and biodegrade within a few days (see Section 3.2.3 of this EA). 

Marine mammals could be adversely impacted by the ingestion of, or entanglement with, 

solid debris. Marine mammals that have ingested debris, such as plastic, may experience 

intestinal blockage, which in turn may lead to starvation, while toxic substances present in the 

ingested materials (especially in plastics) could lead to a variety of lethal and sub-lethal toxic 

effects. Entanglement in plastic debris can result in reduced mobility, starvation, exhaustion, 

drowning, and constriction of, and subsequent damage to, limbs caused by tightening of the 

entangling material. The discharge or disposal of solid debris into offshore waters from OCS 

structures and vessels is prohibited by BOEM (30 CFR 250.300) and the USCG (MARPOL, 

Annex V, Public Law 100−220 (101 Stat. 1458)). Thus, the entanglement in or ingestion of 

project-related trash and debris by marine mammals would not be expected during normal 

operations. 

Because of the limited amount of vessel traffic and offshore activity that would be associated 

with surveys and the construction/installation of meteorological towers/buoys, the release of 

liquid wastes would occur infrequently. The likelihood of an accident resulting in accidental 

discharges would be limited to the active construction/installation and decommissioning periods 

of the site assessment. This is because this is the time period when there would be more than one 

vessel on site conducting complex maneuvers in a restricted space. Survey activity is a much 

simpler activity usually involving one vessel moving in one continuous direction. Impacts to 

marine mammals from the discharge of waste materials or the accidental release of fuels are 

expected to be minor, if they occur at all. 

Meteorological Tower and Buoy Decommissioning 

The decommissioning of meteorological towers and buoys is described in Section 3.1.2. This 

section primarily addresses the decommissioning of a meteorological tower, as it is more 

extensive than decommissioning a meteorological buoy. 

Upon completion of site assessment activities, the meteorological tower would be removed 

and transported by barge to shore. During this activity, marine mammals may be affected by 

sound and operational discharges as described for meteorological tower construction. Removal 

of the piles would be accomplished by cutting the piles (using mechanical cutting or highpressure water jet) at a depth of 4.6 m (15 ft) below the mudline (30 CFR 585.910). Marine 

mammals could be affected by sound during pile cutting. Pile cutting techniques and associated 

sound levels have yet to be tested and evaluated in the Atlantic wind energy context. It is 

expected that only animals in the immediate vicinity of the tower (those that had not moved 

away from the area upon arrival of decommissioning vessels) would be expected to be affected 

during tower removal and transport, and pile cutting. Disturbance of marine mammals during 

decommissioning is expected to be similar to that of construction with the exception that pile 

cutting sound is expected to be much lower than that for pile driving. Impacts from vessel 

activity during decommissioning are expected to be similar to that during construction, and is 

anticipated to be minor. 

96 
BOEM Mandatory Project Design Criteria 

The following BOEM project design criteria, which are discussed in NMFS’ September 20, 

2011, concurrence letter, are intended to ensure that the potential for adverse impacts to marine 

mammals is minimized, if not eliminated (see Appendix B). These requirements will be included 

as lease stipulations and/or conditions of SAPs issued or approved under this proposed action or 

alternatives. A more detailed description of these requirements can be found in Appendix B. 

Exclusion Zone During HRG Surveys 

Effects on marine mammal behavior are generally expected to be limited to avoidance of the 

immediate area around the HRG survey activities and short-term changes in behavior, falling 

within the MMPA definition of “Level B harassment.” Although cetaceans may be present in a 

WEA during an HRG survey, the likely maximum ranges of the 180 dB and 160 dB isopleths, 

(estimated at maximum of 30 m and 400 m, respectively) make it unlikely that any cetaceans 

would be exposed to injurious or disturbing sound levels associated with the survey. The risk of 

exposure would further be reduced by requiring the use of an observer, which would ensure that 

the survey equipment is not operated if a marine mammal or sea turtle is within 500 m of the 

survey vessel. 

Exclusion Zone During Boring Activities 

Since drilling is considered by NMFS to be a continuous noise source, the level of noise 

considered harassment under the MMPA is 120 dB. As a result, this requirement would require 

a 200 m exclusion zone for marine mammals and sea turtles during deep hole boring activity. 

Pile Driving 

Behavioral disturbance/harassment of marine mammals may occur when individuals are 

exposed to non-continuous noise sources, such as those generated by an impact pile driver that 

would be used for monopole installation. BOEM will require lessees to implement a “soft start” 

procedure, and require that no pile driving occur if any whales or sea turtles are present within 7 

km of the pile to be driven. If future field-verified acoustic data indicates the 160 dB isopleths 

associated with pile driving is greater than 7 km, then the requirements would be modified to 

reflect the new data, if similar conditions/operating environment warrant the change. Regarding 

the shut down of pile driving operations, if pile driving stops and then resumes, it would 

potentially have to occur for a longer time and at increased energy levels. This would simply 

amplify potential impacts to any marine mammals and sea turtles present, as they would endure 

potentially higher sound pressure levels for longer periods of time. Thus, if a marine mammal 

was spotted during hammering operations, the requirements will allow the lessee to complete a 

pile drive segment that has been started, followed by an “all clear” period 

Conclusion 

Alternative A is not anticipated to result in any significant or population-level effects to 

marine mammals. The potential effects to marine mammals are expected to be very localized 

and temporary resulting in minimal to negligible harassment depending on the specific activity. 

The impacts are considered minimal due to the impact producing factor itself in certain instances 

(e.g., most sonar work and grab samples), and/or the limited spatial and/or temporal extent of the 

activity in other instances (e.g. vessel transits and pile driving activity). Specifically, harassment 

from sound and slight increases in the risk of vessel collisions are the primary potential impacts 

97 
to marine mammals associated with Alternative A, but these impacts, if any, are anticipated to be 

minimal. See NMFS Concurrence, Section 5.2.1. 

4.1.2.4 Sea Turtles 

4.1.2.4.1 Description of the Affected Environment 

Of the six species of sea turtles that can be found offshore the U.S., there are four species that 

potentially utilize the WEAs in the Mid-Atlantic, all of which are listed as endangered or 

threatened under the ESA (Table 4.6). These species include the loggerhead (Caretta caretta), 

leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), green (Chelonia mydas), and Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys 

kempii) sea turtles. On September 22, 2011, NMFS published a final rule to listing nine distinct 

population segments (DPS) of loggerhead sea turtles. The Northwest Atlantic DPS, which 

encompasses the action area, retained the threatened status. Of these four species only three of 

them, the leatherback, loggerhead, and green sea turtles, have had documented sightings within 

the Mid-Atlantic WEAs (TNC, 2010 and AMAPPS 2011; see Appendix A, Figures A.22-A.30). 

These four species are all highly migratory, and no individual members of any of the species are 

likely to be year-round residents of areas that could be affected by Alternative A. Individual 

animals would make migrations into nearshore waters as well as other areas of the North Atlantic 

Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. There is no formally designated critical habitat 

for sea turtles in the Mid-Atlantic WEAs. 

Few researchers have reported on the density of sea turtles offshore the Mid-Atlantic States. 

However, some useful information is available from one source (Shoop and Kenney, 1992). 

Shoop and Kenney (1992) used information from the University of Rhode Island’s Cetacean and 

Turtle Assessment Program as well as other available sightings information to estimate seasonal 

abundances of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles in northeastern waters, which include the 

waters offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia (CETAP, 1982). The CETAP 

survey consisted of three years of aerial and shipboard surveys conducted between 1978 and 

1982 and provided the first comprehensive assessment of the sea turtle population between Nova 

Scotia, Canada and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. The authors calculated overall ranges of 

abundance estimates for the summer of 7,000-10,000 loggerheads and 300-600 leatherbacks 

present in the action area from Nova Scotia to Cape Hatteras. Using the available sightings data 

(2841 loggerheads, 128 leatherbacks and 491 unidentified sea turtles), the authors calculated 

density estimates for loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles (reported as number of turtles per 

square km). These calculations resulted in density estimates of 0.00164 – 0.510 loggerheads per 

square km and 0.00209 – 0.0216 leatherbacks per square km. It is important to note, however, 

that this estimate assumes that sea turtles are evenly distributed throughout the waters off the 

northeast, even though Shoop and Kenney report several concentration areas where loggerhead 

or leatherback abundance is much higher than in other areas. The Shoop and Kenney data, 

despite considering only the presence of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles, likely 

overestimates the number of sea turtles present in the WEAs. This is due to the assumption that 

sea turtle abundance would be even throughout the Nova Scotia to the Cape Hatteras action area, 

which is an invalid assumption. Sea turtles occur in high concentrations in several areas outside 

of the action area, and the inclusion of these concentration areas in the density estimate skews 

the estimate for the action area. 

This information is supported by the results of the New Jersey study (NJDEP, 2010a) that 

found the following for leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles (the only sea turtles observed in 

the vicinity of the New Jersey WEA) (NJDEP, 2010a). 

98 
Leatherback Sea Turtles

Leatherback turtles are more common in Mid-Atlantic waters during the summer and fall; 

however, this species may occur in the Study Area year-round. Twelve sightings of leatherback 

turtles were recorded during the surveys; nine of these were on-effort and three were off-effort. 

All leatherback turtle sightings were of single individuals; eight of the total 12 sightings were 

thought to be juveniles. Water depths of leatherback sightings ranged from 18 to 30 m (59 to 98 

ft) with a mean depth of 24 m (79 ft). The SSTs associated with leatherback turtle sightings 

ranged from 18.1 to 20.3°C (64.6 to 68.5°F) with a mean of 19.0°C (66.2°F). This mean SST is 

the highest average value for any species or species group sighted during the survey period and is 

consistent with the seasonality of leatherback occurrence in the Study Area. Leatherback turtles 

were sighted only during the summer. The majority of sightings (seven) occurred in the far 

northern portion of the Study Area. Sightings were recorded from 10.3 to 36.2 km (5.6 to 19.5 

NM) from shore with a mean distance of 28.6 km (15.4 NM). 

Loggerhead Sea Turtles

Loggerhead turtles are more common in Mid-Atlantic waters during the summer and fall; 

however, this species may occur in the Study Area year-round. A total of 69 sightings of 

loggerhead turtles were recorded during the surveys; the vast majority of these (63) were recorded 

on effort. The 15 unidentified hard-shell turtle sightings recorded during spring and summer may 

have been loggerhead turtles; however, species identifications could not be confirmed. All 

loggerhead turtle sightings were of single individuals; four of the total 69 sightings were recorded 

as juveniles. Loggerhead sightings occurred in water depths ranging from 9 to 34 m (30 to 112 ft) 

with a mean depth of 23.5 m (77.1 ft). Distance from shore ranged from 1.5 to 38.4 km (0.8 to 

20.7 NM; mean=24.6 km/13.3 NM). SSTs associated with these sightings ranged from 11.0 to 

20.3°C (51.8 to 68.5°F) with a mean value of 18.5°C (65.3°F). This was the second highest mean 

SST of all sightings which is consistent with the strong seasonality of loggerhead occurrence in 

the Study Area. Loggerhead turtles were sighted from late spring through fall. The earliest a 

loggerhead was sighted was June and the latest was October. Sightings of loggerhead turtles are 

fairly evenly distributed although over 50% of the sightings were recorded in the eastern half of 

the Study Area. During the baseline study period, opportunistic sightings of sea turtles were 

recorded during monitoring efforts conducted in a potential wind farm site southeast of Atlantic 

City. Experienced observers recorded two juvenile loggerhead turtles during the geophysical 

surveys in August 2009 (GMI 2009b).

As previously mentioned, sightings data for sea turtles has also been compiled by the Nature 

Conservancy for their comprehensive Northwest Atlantic Marine Ecoregional Assessment 

(NAM ERA). The Nature Conservancy submitted sightings data for sea turtles as part of their 

comments on BOEM’s NOI to prepare this EA (76 FR 7226 (Feb. 9, 2011)), which is included in 

Appendix A of this EA. The underlying source for these maps is the U.S. Navy’s Marine 

Resource Assessment, which in turn utilized NMFS survey data. The NAM ERA study does 

note limitations on the data, especially in regards to the disparity in spatial scales between the 

data and the WEAs. The ten-minute square grid cells that do not include sightings data for sea 

turtles may not indicate a lack of these animals but instead may simply reflect a lack of adequate 

survey effort in those particular areas. The NAM ERA geodatabase was used by BOEM to 

display leatherback and loggerhead sea turtle distribution. This data, presented in Appendix A, 

is consistent with the distribution described in this section. 

Additionally, preliminary data from the Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected 

Species (AMAPPS), the BOEM/NOAA interagency effort for the assessment of abundance and 

99 
spatial distribution of mammals and turtles along the U.S. East Coast, has been evaluated. As 

part of the AMAPPS program, the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center conducted an aerial 

survey of continental shelf waters along the U.S. East Coast from Cape Canaveral, Florida to 

Cape May, New Jersey. The survey was conducted between July 24 and August 14, 2010. 

During that period, flights were conducted on 12 days with the remaining days lost due to poor 

weather conditions. A total of 7,944 km of trackline were surveyed on effort during 86 flight 

hours. Four species of sea turtles were identified within the geographic scope of this study, with 

the majority being loggerhead turtles (563 groups totaling 742 animals) from Cape Canaveral to 

Cape May. The AMAPPS Final 2010 Annual Report, available at: 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/psb/AMAPPS/, confirms the summer distribution of sea turtles. 

These data sets, in combination with the sightings data from the New Jersey study, are not 

assumed to be absolute delineation of sea turtle year-round occurrence in the mid-Atlantic. 

Rather, this data gives the best direct observational data to date for the areas where site 

assessment and site characterization activities will occur in the mid-Atlantic. This information 

will be supplemented on a site-specific level with the data gathered through site characterization 

surveys. 

Table 4.6 

Sea Turtle Taxa of the Western North Atlantic 

Order Testudines (turtles) 

Relative 

Occurrence in 

WEAs1

ESA Status 

Family Cheloniidae (hardshell sea turtles) 

Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) Common Threatened

Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) Uncommon Threatened 

Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) Rare Endangered 

Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) Uncommon Endangered 

Family Dermochelyidae (leatherback sea turtle) 

Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Common Endangered 

1

 The occurrence category is based upon NMFS survey data as present in the TNC NAM ERA 

geodatabase for sightings with the Mid-Atlantic WEAs and previous endangered species 

consultations with NMFS. 

4.1.2.4.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A 

Chapter 5.2.12.2 of the Programmatic EIS discusses the impacts of site characterization 

activities on sea turtles. Activities associated with site characterization that may affect sea turtles 

include: (1) G&G surveys; (2) construction and or installation of one or more meteorological 

observation platforms (e.g., towers, buoys, barges); (3) vessel traffic, (4) discharges of waste 

materials and accidental fuel releases; and 5) meteorological observation platform 

decommissioning. The potential effects to sea turtles from these activities can be grouped into 

the following categories: (1) acoustic effects; (2) benthic habitat effects; (3) vessel collision 

100 
effects; and (4) other effects. It should be noted that all activities described below are subject to 

the evaluation under the MMPA. Lessees would need to consult with NMFS to ensure necessary 

authorizations (such as IHAs) are obtained prior to beginning survey or meteorological facility 

construction activities. 

Acoustic Effects 

This section on acoustic effects looks at what is known about noise sensitivity in sea turtles 

and the noise that could be produced as a result of site characterization and assessment activity in 

the Mid-Atlantic WEAs. 

Current Understanding of Noise Sensitivity in Sea Turtles 

This section is derived in large part from previous ESA consultations and biological opinions 

issued by NMFS to BOEM for Atlantic wind energy projects, and from NMFS’ recent 

concurrence that, if Alternative A is implemented as BOEM proposes, Alternative A is unlikely 

to adversely affect sea turtles. See Appendix B. Much of the general discussion regarding sound 

and communication for marine organisms is presented in the marine mammal section of this 

document (see Section 4.1.2.3) and is not repeated here. 

The hearing capabilities of sea turtles are not well understood. Few experimental data exist, 

and since sea turtles do not vocalize, inferences cannot be made from their vocalizations as is the 

case with baleen whales. Direct hearing measurements have been made in only a few species. 

An early experiment measured cochlear potential in three Pacific green turtles and suggested a 

best hearing sensitivity in air of 300–500 Hz and an effective hearing range of 60–1,000 Hz 

(Ridgway et al., 1969). Sea turtle underwater hearing is believed to be about 10 dB less sensitive 

than their in-air hearing (Lenhardt, 1994). Lenhardt (1994) used a behavioral "acoustic startle 

response" to measure the underwater hearing sensitivity of a juvenile Kemp's ridley and a 

juvenile loggerhead turtle to a 430-Hz tone. Their results suggest that those species have a 

hearing sensitivity at a frequency similar to those of the green turtles studied by Ridgway et al. 

(1969). Lenhardt (1994) was also able to induce startle responses in loggerhead turtles to low 

frequency (20–80 Hz) sounds projected into their tank. Lenhardt further suggested that sea 

turtles have a range of best hearing from 100–800 Hz, an upper limit of about 2,000 Hz, and 

serviceable hearing abilities below 80 Hz. More recently, the hearing abilities of loggerhead sea 

turtles were measured using auditory evoked potentials in 35 juvenile animals caught in 

tributaries of Chesapeake Bay (Bartol et al., 1999). Those experiments suggest that the effective 

hearing range of the loggerhead sea turtle is 250–750 Hz and that it’s most sensitive hearing is at 

250 Hz. In general, however, these experiments indicate that sea turtles generally hear best at 

low frequencies and that the upper frequency limit of their hearing is likely about 1 kHz. As 

such, sea turtles are capable of hearing in low frequency ranges that overlap with the dominant 

frequencies of pile driving and vessel noise, therefore, if exposed to construction-related noise 

these species may be affected by this exposure. Regarding sound levels, evidence suggests that 

levels between 110-126 dB re 1μPa are required before sea turtles detect sound (Ridgeway, 

1969) and levels of 166 dB re 1μPa were required to evoke a behavioral reaction (McCauley, 

2000). Acoustic harassment thresholds for sea turtles are not as established as they are for 

marine mammals. Thus, this section utilizes harassment thresholds for marine mammals for 

discussion purposes since these thresholds are limiting factors for the activities associated with 

Alternative A. 

101 
High Resolution Geologic Survey Acoustic Effects 

As discussed in Section 3.1.1, HRG surveys would be used to characterize the potential site 

of the meteorological tower and possible placement of wind turbines in the future. As previously 

stated in Section 4.1.2.3, HRG surveys and sub-bottom profiling tools for wind turbine siting 

only require shallow penetration of the seafloor resulting in relatively low energy (sound) 

introduced into the environment than some other penetrating technology. 

Sections 3.1.1 and 4.1.2.3 detail a proposed action scenario for HRG surveys, which is not 

repeated herein. 

If the surveys occur between June and November, listed sea turtles could be exposed to 

acoustic effects from the HRG survey. A survey vessel would not likely travel at speeds greater 

than 4.5 knots while surveying. As the survey vessel travels along the transects it is expected 

that any sea turtles in the area that are close enough to perceive the sound would swim away 

from it. As noted in Section 4.1.2.3.2, potentially disturbing levels of noise (i.e., greater than 

160 dB) would be experienced only within approximately 400 m of the survey equipment. 

In order for a sea turtle to be exposed to injurious levels of noise, the sea turtle would need to 

be within 27 m of the survey equipment. Given the noise levels produced by the survey 

equipment and given the expected behavioral response of avoiding noise levels greater than 160 

dB, it is extremely unlikely that any sea turtles would swim towards the survey vessel. As such, 

it is extremely unlikely that any sea turtles would be exposed to injurious levels of noise. 

The available information on sea turtle behavioral responses to sound indicates that 

individuals are likely to actively avoid areas with disturbing levels of sound (O’Hara and 

Wilcox, 1990). Sea turtles whose behavior is disrupted would likely be expected to resume their 

behavior after the disturbance has stopped. Available information indicates that sea turtle forage 

items are available throughout the action area; therefore, while sea turtles may move to other 

areas within the action area to forage during the times when the survey is occurring, the ability of 

individual sea turtles to find suitable forage is not expected to be impacted. Likewise, if sea 

turtles were resting in a particular area they are expected to be able to find an alternate resting 

area within the action area. Additionally, if sea turtles are migrating through the action area, 

they may avoid the area with disturbing levels of sound and choose an alternate route through the 

action area. While the movements of individual sea turtles would be affected by the sound 

associated with the survey, these effects would be temporary and localized. Sea turtles are not 

expected to be excluded from large areas due to the activities associated with Alternative A and 

there would be only a minimal impact on foraging, migrating or resting sea turtles that would not 

result in injury or impairment in an individual’s ability to complete essential behavioral 

functions. Major shifts in habitat use or distribution or foraging success are not expected. 

Changes to the individual movements of sea turtles are expected to be minor and short-term, and 

are therefore not likely to have population-level effects. 

Sub-bottom Reconnaissance Acoustic Effects 

Section 4.1.2.3.2 of the EA gives an overview of acoustic effects and is not repeated herein. 

It is generally expected that the activity of setting up drilling equipment would deter marine 

mammals, sea turtles, and fish from entering the work area. There would be nothing that would 

prevent animals from leaving or avoiding areas where drilling would take place. Sea turtles 

could be exposed to sound levels greater than 120 dB. Other sub-bottom reconnaissance activity, 

such as the use of a CPT, borings, and grab sampling, is expected to only have minor acoustic 

impacts, primarily from vessel engines. 

102 
Since leatherback, green, Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead sea turtles are known to occur in the 

Mid-Atlantic between June and October and construction may occur during this time period, 

these species may be exposed to construction-related noise during the construction period. Noise 

from pile driving could disturb normal behaviors (e.g., feeding) and cause affected individuals to 

move away from the construction area. The biological importance of behavioral responses to 

construction noise (e.g., effects on energetic, survival, reproduction, population status) is 

unknown, and there is little information regarding short-term or long-term effects of behavioral 

reactions on sea turtle populations. While noise generated during construction of a 

meteorological tower may affect more than one individual, population-level effects are not 

anticipated due to the limited area of the activity and the much larger area occupied by the 

population as a whole. Few individuals are expected to be exposed to construction noise, given 

the short-term duration of construction activities, the limited geographic area affected, and lack 

of presence in of turtles these areas during portions of the year. 

Meteorological Tower Pile-Driving Acoustic Effects 

The type and intensity of the sounds produced by pile driving depend on the type and size of 

the pile, the firmness of the substrate into which the pile is driven, the depth of the water, and the 

type and size of the impact hammer being used. Thus the actual sounds produced would vary 

project by project. Section 4.1.2.3.2 fully describes the range of pile driving sound and is thus 

not repeated here. 

As mentioned above the available information on sea turtle behavioral responses to sound 

indicates that individuals are likely to actively avoid areas with disturbing levels of sound 

(O’Hara and Wilcox, 1990). Avoidance behavior may shorten the exposure period; however, the 

avoidance behavior could potentially disrupt normal behaviors. A reaction of individual sea 

turtles to the pile driving is expected to be limited to an avoidance response. Only pile driving 

occurring during the June – November time frame has the potential to affect sea turtles, as sea 

turtles are not expected to occur in the action area outside of this time of year. 

As stated above, sea turtles behaviorally disrupted would be expected to resume their 

behavior after the pile driving has stopped. As pile driving would occur for approximately 4-8 

hours a day, it is likely that sea turtles would be excluded from the area with disturbing levels of 

sound for at least this period each day. Available information indicates that sea turtle forage 

items are available throughout the action area; therefore, while sea turtles may move to other 

areas within the action area to forage during the times when pile driving is occurring, the ability 

of individual sea turtles to find suitable forage is not expected to be impacted. Likewise, if sea 

turtles were resting in a particular area, they are expected to be able to find an alternate resting 

area nearby. 

Additionally, if sea turtles are migrating through the an area where activities associated with 

Alternative A are taking place, they may avoid the area with disturbing levels of sound and 

choose an alternate route. As such, while the movements of individual sea turtles will be 

affected by the sound associated with the pile driving, these effects would be temporary and 

localized. It is expected that there would be only a minimal impact on foraging, migrating or 

resting sea turtles that would not result in injury or impairment in an individual’s ability to 

complete essential behavioral functions. Major shifts in habitat use or distribution or foraging 

success are not expected. 

During pile driving, sound levels would have dissipated to below the 160 dB threshold within 

a distance of 7 km. Sea turtles within 7 km would be exposed to potentially injurious or 

103 
harassing levels of sound. However, changes to individual’s movements are expected to be 

minor and short-term, and are therefore not likely to have population-level effects. BOEM did 

consider requiring the use of vibratory hammers as a measure to reduce potential exposure to 

disturbing levels of noise. BOEM does not discourage the use of vibratory hammers as their use 

would reduce the duration of exposure to the higher sound pressure levels associated with impact 

hammers. However, it should be noted that the use of vibratory hammers could result in an 

increase in the total installation time and thus total duration of sound exposure. Other noise 

mitigation measures for pile driving, primarily cofferdams and foam sleeves (see Nehls, 2007 

and USDOI, BOEMRE, 2010) have also been shown to be effective. However the feasibility of 

requiring these technologies in the offshore environment needs further exploration and may be 

appropriate on a case-by case basis for full commercial-scale construction projects where the 

total duration of pile driving activities would be greater than that for a single meteorological 

tower. 

Sea Turtle Habitat Effects 

Section 4.1.2.2 of this document discusses the benthic resources and impacts of Alternative A 

upon those resources. This section only discusses those impacts in relation to sea turtles. Impact 

to sea turtle habitat from Alternative A is anticipated to be negligible due to limited impact to the 

benthos itself. It is expected that some localized benthic forage items for sea turtles may become 

unavailable while activities associated with Alternative A are ongoing in specific areas. 

Sub-bottom Sampling 

The sub-bottom sampling would result in a negligible temporary loss of some benthic 

organisms (i.e., less than one ft diameter would be disturbed in the areas where cores are 

sampled), and a localized increase in disturbance due to vessel activity, including noise and 

anchor cable placement and retrieval. 

Meteorological Tower/Buoy Installation 

It is expected that any re-suspension of sediment and subsequent sedimentation that would 

occur around an installed tower or buoy would have only minor effects that could temporarily 

impact the habitat and food availability for sea turtles either by the activity itself causing sea 

turtles to not enter a forage area or the forage itself becoming unavailable due to smothering by 

sediment or physical structures. 

Meteorological Tower/Buoy Operation 

The operation of a single meteorological tower or buoy within a leasehold, or multiple 

towers/buoys within a WEA is not expected to result in changes in local community assemblage 

and diversity nor the availability of habitat and forage items for sea turtles that could occur in the 

action area as the footprint of the structure is expected to be less than 255 m2

 and the 

maintenance trips to the structure are limited. 

Collision Effects 

This section addresses direct impacts from the collision of sea turtles with structures and 

vessels described in Alternative A. A collision with a sea turtle, however unlikely, could result 

in injury or mortality to the animal. 

104 
Vessels associated with site characterization surveys, or construction, maintenance or 

decommissioning of the meteorological tower could collide with marine mammals, turtles, and 

other marine animals during transit. The frequency of vessel collisions with marine mammals, 

turtles, or other marine animals probably varies as a function of spatial and temporal distribution 

patterns of the living resources, the pathways of maritime traffic (coastal traffic is more 

predictable than offshore traffic), and as a function of vessel speed, the number of vessel trips, 

and the navigational visibility. 

Sea turtles have been killed or injured by collisions with vessels. Because of their limited 

swimming abilities, hatchlings may be more susceptible than juveniles or adults to vessel 

collisions. The likelihood of collision would vary depending upon species and life stage, the 

location of the vessel, and its speed and visibility. Hatchling turtles would be difficult to spot 

from a moving vessel because of their small size and generally cryptic coloration patterns. 

While adult and juvenile turtles are generally difficult to observe at the surface during periods of 

daylight and clear visibility, they are very difficult to spot from a moving vessel when they are 

resting below the water surface, and during night and periods of inclement weather. 

While the towed gear (i.e., the boomer and/or chirper) has the potential to result in interaction 

with sea turtles, the speed of towing (typically about 3 knots) presents very low potential for 

entanglement or vessel strikes during the survey as sea turtles would be able to avoid the slow 

moving gear and survey vessel. Because of the small amount, short duration, and slow speeds of 

vessel traffic that would be associated with meteorological tower/buoy construction, operation, 

and decommissioning, population-level impacts to sea turtles from vessel collisions are not 

expected. 

Discharge of Waste Materials and Accidental Fuel Leaks 

Collisions between vessels and allisions between vessels and meteorological towers and 

buoys is considered unlikely (see Section 3.2.2 of this EA). However; in, the unlikely event that 

a vessel allision or collision were to occur, and in the unlikely event that the allision or collision 

causes a spill, the most likely pollutant to be discharged would be diesel fuel. If a diesel spill 

were to occur, it would be expected to dissipate very rapidly in the water column, then evaporate 

and biodegrade within a few days (see Section 3.2.3 of this EA). 

During meteorological tower construction, a variety of sanitary and other waste fluids, and 

miscellaneous trash and debris, may be generated. Hatchling, juvenile, and adult sea turtles may 

be exposed to these wastes by discharges from the construction vessels. Operational discharges 

from construction vessels would be released into the open ocean where they would be rapidly 

diluted and dispersed, or collected and taken to shore for treatment and disposal. Sanitary and 

domestic wastes would be processed through shipboard waste treatment facilities before being 

discharged overboard. Deck drainage would also be processed prior to discharge. 

Ingestion of plastic and other non-biodegradable debris has been reported for almost all sea 

turtle species and life stages (USDOC, NOAA, 2003). Ingestion of waste debris has resulted in 

gut strangulation, reduced nutrient uptake, and increased absorbance of various chemicals in 

plastics and other debris (USDOC, NOAA, 2003). Sub-lethal quantities of ingested plastic 

debris can result in various effects including positive buoyancy, making sea turtles more 

susceptible to collisions with vessels, increasing predation risk or reducing feeding efficiency 

(Lutcavage et al., 1997). Some species of adult sea turtles, such as loggerheads, appear to readily 

ingest plastic debris that is appropriately sized. In oceanic waters, floating or subsurface 

translucent plastic material and sheeting may be mistaken for gelatinous prey items, such as 

105 
jellyfish. Entanglement in debris (such as rope) can result in reduced mobility, drowning, and 

constriction of and subsequent damage to limbs (Lutcavage et al., 1997). 

The discharge or disposal of solid debris into offshore waters from OCS structures and 

vessels is prohibited by BOEM (30 CFR 250.300) and the USCG (MARPOL, Annex V, Public 

Law 100–220 (101 Stat. 1458)). Assuming compliance with these regulations and laws and only 

accidental releases, very little exposure of sea turtles to solid debris associated with Alternative 

A would be anticipated. 

Meteorological Tower and Buoy Decommissioning 

The decommissioning of meteorological towers and buoys is described in Section 3.1.2. This 

section primarily addresses the decommissioning of a meteorological tower, as it is more 

extensive than that of a meteorological buoy in that it involves more than just the potential 

impacts of vessel trips, which are assessed above. 

Upon completion of site characterization, the meteorological tower would be removed and 

transported by barge to shore. During this activity, sea turtles may be affected in the same 

manner as described for meteorological tower construction. Removal of the mooring piles would 

be accomplished by cutting the piles (using mechanical cutting or high-pressure water jet) at a 

depth of 4.6 m (15 ft) below the seabed, and sea turtles in the immediate vicinity could be 

disturbed by sound during the cutting of the pilings. Pile cutting techniques and associated 

sound levels have yet to be tested and evaluated in the Atlantic wind energy context. However, 

cutting sounds are less intense than those associated with pile driving, and any affected animals 

are expected to move away from the immediate vicinity of the site. 

BOEM Mandatory Project Design Criteria 

The following BOEM project design criteria, which are discussed in NMFS’ September 20, 

2011, concurrence letter, are intended to ensure that the potential for adverse impacts to sea 

turtles is minimized, if not eliminated (see Appendix B of this EA). These requirements will be 

included as lease stipulations and/or conditions of SAPs issued or approved under this proposed 

action or alternatives. A more detailed description of these requirements can be found in 

Appendix B. 

Exclusion Zone During HRG Surveys 

Surveys occurring between June and November could expose listed sea turtles to acoustic 

effects of the HRG survey. Potentially disturbing levels of noise (i.e., greater than 160 dB) 

would be experienced only within approximately 400 m of the survey equipment. Therefore, 

BOEM would require that lessees maintain a 500-m exclusion zone during any survey and that 

this exclusion zone be monitored for at least 30 minutes prior to ramp up of the survey 

equipment. The normal duration of sea turtle dives ranges from 5-40 minutes depending on 

species, with a maximum duration of 45-66 minutes depending on species (Spotila, 2004). As 

sea turtles typically surface at least every 60 minutes, it is reasonable to expect that monitoring 

the exclusion zone for at least 60 minutes prior to ramp up and continuing through to full 

operation would allow the endangered species monitors to detect any sea turtles that may be 

submerged in the exclusion zone. 

106 
Exclusion Zone During Boring Activity 

While it is generally expected that the activity of setting up drilling equipment would deter 

sea turtles from entering the work area, there would be nothing that would prevent animals from 

leaving or avoiding areas where drilling would take place. BOEM would require a 200-m 

exclusion zone for sea turtles during deep hole boring activity, ensuring that no sea turtles would 

be exposed to sound levels greater than 120 dB (marine mammal harassment threshold from a 

continuous acoustic source). 

Pile Driving

A 7 km exclusion zone would be monitored by trained endangered species observer for at 

least 30 minutes. While observers from two locations (at source and 3-4km from source) within 

the exclusion zone would monitor out to 7km, it is recognized that it is unlikely that sea turtles 

are able to be observed beyond 500 m. In order to further minimize the potential to affect sea 

turtles, lessees would be required to implement a “soft start” procedure. The soft start would 

require an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40% energy with a one minute 

waiting period between subsequent 3-strike sets. Regarding the shut down of pile driving 

operations, if pile driving stops and then resumes, it would potentially have to occur for a longer 

time and at increased energy levels. This would simply amplify potential impacts sea turtles, as 

they would endure potentially higher sound pressure levels for longer periods of time. Thus, if a 

sea turtle was spotted during hammering operations, the requirements will allow the lessee to 

complete a pile drive segment that has been started, followed by an “all clear” period. 

Conclusion 

The effects to sea turtles, specifically leatherback, loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley, and green sea 

turtles, are expected to be short term and would result in minimal to negligible harassment 

depending on the specific activity. See discussion of NMFS Concurrence, Section 5.2.1 of this 

EA. The impacts are considered minimal due to activity itself in some cases, and the spatialtemporal setting in which the activity associated with Alternative A would take place. 

Specifically, harassment from noise, minor loss/displacement from forage areas, and to a lesser 

degree vessel collisions, are the primary anticipated direct and indirect impacts to ESA-listed sea 

turtles, but these impacts, if any, are anticipated to be minimal. 

4.1.2.5 Birds 

4.1.2.5.1 Description of the Affected Environment 

The Alternative A have the potential to affect waterbirds and pelagic species of various 

types, as well as some shorebirds, songbirds and raptors in the waters offshore New Jersey, 

Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, from the coastline (particularly in harbor areas that would be 

used by survey and construction vessels) out to the seaward extent of the WEAs. Birds may be 

affected by vessel discharges, the presence of meteorological towers and buoys, and accidental 

fuel releases. 

A listing of all birds that can be found in and offshore New Jersey, along with their status, is 

available on the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife’s website 

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/chkbirds.htm. A listing of all birds that can be found in and 

offshore Delaware is available on the Delmarva Ornithological Society’s website at 

http://www.fw.delaware.gov/NHESP/information/Pages/Endangered.aspx. A listing of all birds 

that can be found in and offshore Maryland is available on the Department of Natural Resources 

107 
website at http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/Plants_Wildlife/rte/rteanimals.asp. A listing of all 

birds that can be found in and offshore Virginia is available on the Virginia Department of Game 

and Inland Fisheries website at http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/. 

Bird abundance generally declines in offshore environments as distance from shore increases 

– a pattern that has been observed in Europe (e.g., Petersen et al., 2006) and offshore Rhode 

Island (Paton et al., 2010). In the mid-Atlantic, this pattern was also observed in the New Jersey 

ecological baseline study with bird densities abundance dropping precipitously after few miles 

from shore (NJDEP, Vol. II, 2010). In addition, the number of bird species also declines with 

distance from shore. For example, of the 160 bird species that use the Atlantic flyway, a total of 

55 species use offshore (5-20 km from shore) and pelagic environments and the remaining 105 

species use bays, coastlines, and near shore environments (Watts, 2010). 

Birds in these nearshore areas have historically been and will continue to be subject to 

relatively intense human stressors, such as habitat loss from onshore development, agriculture, 

hunting, existing vessel, ground and air traffic, and beach recreation. 

Migratory Birds 

Despite the level of human development and activity present, the Mid-Atlantic Coast plays 

an important role in the ecology of many bird species. The Atlantic Flyway, which encompasses 

all of the areas that could be potentially affected by Alternative A, is a major route for migratory 

birds, which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), particularly 

during the spring and fall migration periods. Chapter 4.2.9.3 of the Programmatic EIS discusses 

the use of Atlantic Coast habitats by migratory birds. 

The official list of migratory birds protected under the MBTA, and the international treaties 

that the MBTA implements, is found at 50 CFR 10.13. The MBTA makes it illegal to “take” 

migratory birds, their eggs, feathers or nests. Under the MBTA, take is “construed to mean 

pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, kill” or an attempt to undertake such actions. Executive 

Order 13186 directs departments and agencies to take certain actions to further implement the 

MBTA. Under section 3 of the executive order, BOEM and USFWS established a Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU) on June 4, 2009, which identifies specific areas in which cooperation 

between the agencies would substantially contribute to the conservation and management of 

migratory birds and their habitats. For a copy of the MOU, see 

http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/MMS-FWS_MBTA_MOU_6-4-09-pdf.aspx. 

The purpose of the BOEM and USFWS MOU is to strengthen migratory bird conservation 

through enhanced collaboration between the agencies (MOU Section A). One of the underlying 

tenets identified in the MOU is to evaluate potential impacts to migratory birds and design or 

implement measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate such impacts as appropriate (MOU 

Sections C, D, E(1), F(1-3, 5), G(6)). 

Bald and Golden Eagles 

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) 

prohibits the take and trade of bald and golden eagles. Take is defined by the Act as “pursue, 

shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.” Both the bald and 

golden eagle winter in and migrate over land in Delaware and New Jersey (NJDEP, Division of 

Fish and Wildlife, 2009). Bald eagles have historically been associated with forests near the 

Delaware River and Bay, but nest throughout Delaware and New Jersey. Bald eagles are also 

found in Maryland and Virginia all year round. Bald eagles have been documented nesting in 

108 
every county in Maryland, and most are concentrated along the Chesapeake Bay and its 

tributaries (MDDNR, 2011a). 

Golden eagles favor more open areas in western States, and do not typically nest in Delaware 

and New Jersey (USFWS, 2007). The golden eagle is an occasional winter visitor to the coastal 

areas of Maryland, and golden eagles do winter in relevant coastal areas of Virginia. Golden 

eagle migration is strongly associated with the Appalachian ridgelines, and does not fly over the 

ocean. Bald eagles forage and nest along rivers and bays and at times fly along the shore line. 

Therefore, bald and golden eagles are not expected to occur in the WEAs, and with the exception 

of immediate bay or harbor areas, are not expected to occur any areas the where vessels 

associated with Alternative A would be traveling. 

ESA-Listed Birds 

Two species of federally endangered or threatened species of birds occur in coastal and 

marine waters offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia during at least part of the 

year. The northeastern U.S. population of the roseate tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii) is listed as 

endangered, and the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) is listed as threatened. These species 

use coastal habitats including beaches, marshes, and intertidal wetlands. The red knot (Calidris 

canutus rufa) is identified in the Atlantic Coast States as a candidate for listing as threatened or 

endangered under ESA (USFWS, 2006). All three species may pass through the WEAs during 

migration. Finally, the pelagic Bermuda petrel (Pterodroma cahow) or Cahow, is federally listed 

as endangered (35 FR 6069) and endemic to Bermuda. Breeding season extends from late 

October to mid-June (Collar et al., 1992). The Cahow could potentially pass through the 

Virginia WEA during the non-breeding season. 

Piping Plover 

The piping plover (Charadrius melodus) is a small, stocky, sandy-colored bird resembling a 

sandpiper. The piping plover was listed as threatened (USFWS, 1985) in its entire range except 

in the Great Lakes watershed where it is listed as endangered. In 1996, the Revised Recovery 

Plan for the Atlantic Coast Population was completed (USFWS, 1996). Critical wintering 

habitat has been established in each of the Gulf Coast States for all three populations (Atlantic, 

Great Lakes, and Great Plains) of the piping plover (66 FR 36038–36143). The summary below 

was derived from the USFWS species profile (USFWS, 2011a). 

The Atlantic Coast Population of piping plovers nest along beaches in New Brunswick, 

Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, southern Maine, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, 

Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. These 

birds winter primarily on the Atlantic Coast from North Carolina to Florida, although some 

migrate to the Bahamas and West Indies from mid-September to March. Although the precise 

route of migration is not firmly established, it is possible that these birds will fly over the WEAs 

during migration. Piping plovers are known to occur from March to mid-September in several 

counties along the Mid-Atlantic that may provide harbor for vessels associated with Alternative 

A (Table 4.7). 

The Atlantic Coast piping plovers utilize the open, sandy beaches close to the primary dune 

of the barrier islands and Atlantic coastline for breeding. They prefer to nest in sparsely 

vegetated and open areas with sand, gravel, or cobble. They forage along the rack line where the 

tide washes up onto the beach. 

109 
The piping plover nearly disappeared due to excessive hunting for their feathers during the 

19th century. Human disturbance often curtails breeding success. Developments near beaches 

also provide food that attracts increased numbers of predators, such as raccoons, skunks, and 

foxes, and domestic pets. Storm-tides may inundate nests. 

Table 4.7 

Relevant Counties Along the Mid-Atlantic Where Piping Plovers are Known to Occur 

State County 

Delaware Sussex 

Maryland Worcester 

New Jersey Atlantic 

Cape May 

Monmouth 

Ocean 

Virginia Accomack 

Hampton 

Northampton

Portsmouth 

Source: USFWS, 2011a. 

Roseate Tern 

The roseate tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii) is federally listed as endangered (USFWS, 

1987), and its distribution ranges from North Carolina, up to Canada and east to Bermuda. No 

critical habitat has been designated for this species. The recently published 5-year review 

contains a comprehensive review on the roseate terns (USFWS, 2010). The summary below was 

derived from the USFWS species profile (USFWS, 2011b). 

The roseate tern is pale, medium-sized (about 40 centimeters in length), black-capped with 

light-gray wings and back, and during the breeding season, the bird has a rosy tinge on the chest 

and belly. The roseate tern is a fast flier and a specialized plunge-diver, feeding on small marine 

fish in shallow water near shore. 

Terns hide their nests by nesting in dense vegetation, rocks, driftwood, tires or wooden 

boxes. Roseate terns arrive at the breeding grounds in April and begin to lay eggs in May. The 

terns usually lay one or two eggs, and chicks fledge after 3-4 weeks. Roseate terns flock to 

specific areas in August for post-breeding dispersal and depart in mid-September for wintering 

grounds. 

In North America, the roseate tern breeds in two discrete areas: from Nova Scotia to Long 

Island, NY (northeastern population) and around the Caribbean Sea (including the Florida Keys). 

Roseate terns are believed to winter in northern South America and along the Brazilian coast. 

Roseate terns are believed to occur in Mid-Atlantic during migration, primarily between MarchApril and September. In Virginia, Accomack, Northampton, and Virginia Beach are host to nonbreeding terns, and these areas may also provide harbor for vessels associated with Alternative 

110 
A. Although occasionally seen on New Jersey beaches, the county level range for roseate terns 

has not been defined for New Jersey (USFWS, 2011b). In Maryland, there once were colonies 

of breeding roseate terns along Assateague Island in the 1930’s (Stewart and Robbins, 1958). 

Currently, there are no roseate tern breeding colonies in Maryland or Delaware. Roseate terns 

are occasionally seen near or on Maryland beaches (MDOsprey, 2011) and in Delaware (Hess et 

al., 2000; DOS 2011). Although the precise route of migration is not firmly established, it is 

possible that roseate terns will fly over the WEAs during spring and fall migration. 

In the late 19th century, the roseate tern suffered a drastic population decline in the U.S. due 

to hunting for their feathers. In addition, roseate terns have been displaced from their traditional 

colonies by gulls, resulting in fewer nesting colonies and reduced population size (USFWS, 

1987). Given that roseate terns are ground nesters, their eggs and chicks are vulnerable to 

predation by red fox and Norway rat. 

Red Knot 

The red knot is a (Calidris canutus rufa) shorebird that breeds in the central Canadian arctic 

and winters as far south as Tierra del Fuego in South America. Each May, red knots congregate 

in Delaware Bay during their northward migration to feed on horseshoe crab eggs (Limulus 

polyphemus) and refuel for breeding in the Arctic.

The red knot has declined dramatically over the past twenty years from a population 

estimated at 100,000-150,000 to 18,000-33,000 (Niles et al., 2008). The primary threat to the red 

knot population is the reduced availability of horseshoe crabs eggs in Delaware Bay arising from 

elevated harvest of adult crabs for bait in the conch and eel fishing industries (Niles et al. 2008). 

Despite restrictions to the crab harvest, the 2007 horseshoe crab harvest was still greater than the 

1990 harvest, and no recovery of knots was detectable (Niles et al., 2009). Although the precise 

migration route has not been firmly established (Niles et al., 2010), it is possible that these birds 

will fly over the WEAs during spring and fall migrations. 

Bermuda Petrel 

The Bermuda petrel, or Cahow (Pterodroma cahow), is pelagic bird that is endemic to 

Bermuda and is federally listed as endangered (35 FR 6069). From October to June, the Cahow 

nests in burrows among the uninhabited islets of Bermuda. However, an individual was found in 

a burrow in the Azores (Bried and Magalhães, 2003). Since 1960, the Cahow population has 

grown steadily from 18 nesting pairs to 85 in 2008 (Dobson and Madeiros, 2008). Threats to the 

Cahow include the flooding of nesting areas by storms, destruction of nesting areas due to 

collapsing cliffs and erosion, and rats (Dobson and Madeiros, 2008). 

The Bermuda petrels are often solitary, feeding on surface prey at sea and feed on squid at 

night. Outside of the breeding season, it distribution is poorly known, though the species is 

probably widespread in the North Atlantic, following the warm waters on the western edges of 

the Gulf Stream. There are confirmed sightings of the Bermuda petrel offshore of North Carolina 

(Lee, 1987), and there are records of several incidental sightings over the last 10 years east of 

Cape Hatteras but no records off Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, or New Jersey (eBird, 2011). 

Although there is no evidence that the Cahow is present in the mid-Atlantic OCS, the Cahow 

may potentially be present in the southern offshore waters of the Virginia WEA. 

111 
4.1.2.5.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A 

The Programmatic EIS (Chapter 5.2.9.2) discusses the potential impacts of site 

characterization and assessment activities on birds. Migratory birds, including threatened and 

endangered species, could be affected by any of the activities contemplated under Alternative A 

including activities in the WEAs as well as vessel traffic to and from the WEAs. 

Discharge of Liquid Wastes, Hazardous Materials, Solid Wastes, or Fuel 

Marine and coastal birds could be exposed to operational discharges or accidental fuel 

releases from G&G surveys and construction sites in the WEAs and vessels accidentally 

releasing solid debris. Many species of birds (such as gulls) often follow ships and forage in 

their wake on fish and other prey that may be injured or disoriented by the passing vessel. In 

doing so, these birds may be affected by discharges of waste fluids (such as bilge water) 

generated by the vessels. Operational discharges from construction vessels may be released into 

the open ocean (see Sections 3.2.3 and 4.1.1.2.2) but would be rapidly diluted and dispersed, or 

collected and taken to shore for treatment and disposal. Sanitary and domestic wastes would be 

processed through on-site waste treatment facilities before being discharged overboard. Deck 

drainage would also be processed prior to discharge. Thus, potential impacts to marine and 

coastal birds from waste discharges from construction vessels are expected to be negligible. 

Marine and coastal birds may become entangled in or ingest floating, submerged, and 

beached debris (Heneman and the Center for Environmental Education, 1988; Ryan, 1987 and 

1990). Entanglement may result in strangulation, the injury or loss of limbs, entrapment, or the 

prevention or hindrance of the ability to fly or swim, and any of these effects could be lethal. 

Ingestion of debris may irritate, block, or perforate the digestive tract, suppress appetite, impair 

digestion of food, reduce growth, or release toxic chemicals (Dickerman and Goelet, 1987 and 

1988; Derraik, 2002). However, the discharge or disposal of solid debris into offshore waters 

from OCS structures and vessels is prohibited by the USCG (MARPOL, Annex V, Public Law 

100–220 (101 Stat. 1458)). Thus, entanglement in or ingestion of OCS-related trash and debris 

by marine and coastal birds is not expected, and potential impacts to marine and coastal birds 

associated with project debris, if any, would be negligible. Because of the relatively small 

amount of vessel traffic and construction activity associated with the construction and operation 

of a meteorological tower, the placement of a meteorological buoy, or site characterization 

surveys over a 5 1⁄2 year period, the potential release of wastes, debris, hazardous materials, or 

fuels would occur infrequently, and would occur at discrete points very large distance from each 

other in both space and time. Such releases, to the extent that they occur, would cease following 

the completion of the activity at issue, and would disperse rapidly in the open ocean. 

Meteorological Towers 

It has been estimated that hundreds of millions of birds are killed each year in collisions with 

communication towers, windows, electric transmission lines, and other structures (see Klem, 

1989 and 1990; Dunn, 1993; Shire et al., 2000). It is possible that some birds (i.e., gulls, terns, 

shorebird, petrels, shearwaters, sea ducks, and alcids) may collide with the meteorological towers 

out in the open ocean and be injured or killed. 

It is anticipated that the meteorological towers contemplated in this EA would be selfsupported structures and not require guy wires for support and stability. Unlike the 

meteorological towers themselves, guy wires are invisible to birds and may not be seen until it is 

too late to avoid them. 

112 
Because of the small number of meteorological towers proposed and their distance from each 

other and distance from shore, potential impacts to marine and coastal birds populations from 

collisions, should any occur, would be minor. Under good weather conditions, most migratory 

bird species in the vicinity of the proposed lease areas (at least seven miles from shore) would be 

flying at an altitude higher than the anticipated meteorological towers. However, some 

individuals may fly lower (e.g., sea ducks, cormorants, loons, shearwaters, petrels, alcids, and 

gannets). 

Due to the small number of anticipated structures scattered over a large area (one tower per 

averaged-size leasehold of 10 OCS blocks) at distances greater than seven miles from the coast, 

Alternative A itself is not expected to significantly affect terns or other migratory species or 

pelagic species. Terns may perch on tower equipment including handrails, equipment sheds, etc. 

Lattice-type masts (Figure 3.2.a-b) with numerous diagonal and horizontal bars are more likely 

to provide perching opportunities than meteorological tower with a monopole mast (Figure 3.1). 

Perching does not pose a threat to the birds. 

Under poor visibility conditions, all migratory species in the vicinity have the potential to 

collide with one of the anticipated meteorological towers. Also, lighting on tall structures during 

periods of fog and rain can disorient birds flying at night (Huppop, et al., 2006). For instance, 

certain types of nighttime lighting, like steady burning lights, can confuse or attract birds when it 

is raining or foggy. However, red flashing lights are commonly used at land-based wind 

facilities without any observed increase in avian mortality compared to unlit turbine towers 

(Kerlinger et al., 2010). Due to the small number of structures contemplated and their distance 

from shore, migratory birds (including pelagic birds) colliding with the anticipated 

meteorological towers is possible, but would be a rare event. 

Meteorological Buoys 

Meteorological buoys are much closer to the water surface than meteorological towers. Most 

bird species would be flying above the buoy so it is unlikely that birds would collide with a 

buoy. However, it is possible that some individuals and species (e.g., shearwaters) may fly 

lower. Buoys also hold less equipment, so there would be much fewer perching opportunities 

although these opportunities would pose no threat to the birds. Although there could be 

potentially more buoys than towers (Table 3.2), the space between the buoys and between the 

buoys and shore would still be great. As a result, the potential impacts of buoys on birds would 

be negligible. 

Migratory Birds 

Most migratory passerines would be flying well above the buoys and towers during the 

spring and fall migration. Other migratory birds including marine birds, coastal shore birds, and 

non-ESA birds would rarely encounter these structures due to the small footprint of the structures 

themselves and their distance from shore and great distances between buoys and towers. 

Therefore, the towers and buoys, as well as vessel activities within the proposed lease areas 

would not likely affect these birds. 

Bald and Golden Eagles 

Bald and golden eagles migrate and forage over land, inland water bodies, and bays - not the 

open ocean. The anticipated meteorological towers and buoys would be at least seven miles 

offshore, thus the meteorological towers and buoys including activities within the proposed lease 

113 
areas would not affect these eagles. Because Alternative A would not require expansion of 

existing onshore facilities and the vessel trips in coastal waters pose no threat to these animals, 

impacts to bald or golden eagles or their habitat would not be expected. 

Endangered and Threatened Birds 

The ESA-listed roseate tern and piping plover including the non-listed red knot may fly 

through the WEAs during spring and fall migration. Is it possible that the ESA-listed Cahow (or 

Bermuda Petrel) may be present in the Virginia WEA outside of the breeding season. These 

species would rarely encounter the small number of buoys and towers due to the small footprint 

of these structures and the great distances between buoys and towers. Therefore, the towers and 

buoys including activities within the proposed lease areas would not affect migratory birds. 

Conclusion 

While birds may be affected by vessel discharges, the presence of meteorological towers and 

buoys, vessel discharges, and accidental fuel releases pose no threat of significant impacts to 

these animals. The risk of collision with towers would be minor due to the small number of 

meteorological towers proposed, their size, and their distance from shore and each other. The 

impact of meteorological buoys on ESA listed and non-ESA listed migratory birds (including 

pelagic species) is similarly expected to be negligible, because buoys are much smaller and 

closer to the water surface than towers, and would be similarly dispersed over a wide area. 

Proposed Mitigation Measures 

The following proposed mitigation measures are intended to ensure that the potential for 

adverse impacts to birds is minimized, if not eliminated. This section proposes that these 

mitigation measures be incorporated into any future decision to issue a lease or approve a SAP: 

1) To reduce the potential to attract and/or disorientate birds at night during fog and rain, 

the lessee shall use only red flashing strobe-like lights (not steady burning) to meet 

FAA requirements for meteorological towers. Navigational safety lights for towers 

and buoys shall be installed in compliance with USCG requirements. The lessee shall 

leave any additional lights (e.g., work lights) on only when necessary and hooded 

downward and directed when possible, to reduce upward illumination and illumination 

of adjacent waters. These requirements apply to lighting on the meteorological tower 

as well as all support vessels. 

2) Meteorological towers should be designed so as to preclude the necessity for guy 

wires, which present the birds with something difficult to see that they could 

potentially collide with. 

4.1.2.6 Bats 

4.1.2.6.1 Description of the Affected Environment 

Species of bats that currently or historically occur in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and 

Virginia are detailed in Table 4.8. Eight of these species inhabit caves and/or mines during all or 

part of the year and are referred to as cave bats while the remaining six species are referred to as 

tree bats. Three of the bat species are federally listed as endangered, and they are the Indiana 

bat, gray bat and Virginia big-eared bat. None of the other bat species are candidates for listing 

as threatened or endangered (USFWS, 2011c). The silver-haired bat, eastern red bat, and hoary 

114 
bat are considered the migratory tree bats in North America due to their seasonal migrations over 

several degrees of latitude (Cryan, 2003). 

Although the migration patterns of bats are not well-documented, many bats species make 

extensive use of linear features in the landscape, such as ridges of rivers while commuting and 

migrating suggesting a preference for overland migration routes. It is also known that they fly 

along the coast. For instance, on the Mid-Atlantic coast, the eastern red, hoary, and silver-haired 

bats, use Assateague Island National Seashore, a barrier island off the coast of Maryland during 

migration (Johnson et al., 2011). 

Bat migration over the open ocean has also been documented. For example, the hoary bat on 

Southeast Farallon Island, approximately 48 km west of San Francisco, migrates to the mainland 

in fall (Cryan and Brown, 2007) and several bat species in Europe cross the Baltic Sea in 

migration between southern Sweden and Denmark (Ahlén et al., 2009). However, information 

with regard to bat species found in the Mid-Atlantic and the associated migration routes is 

limited. Most information on offshore bat activity in the Mid-Atlantic comes from The New 

Jersey Ecological Baseline Study which includes survey results for bats over the New Jersey 

WEA offshore New Jersey out to 20 nm (NJDEP, 2010a, Vol. I, Appendix B). Shipboard 

surveys were conducted in March, April, May, June, August, September, and October 2009. No 

bats were detected during the 2009 March, April or June surveys, and one was detected in May. 

Over eight nights in August, September, and October, 53 bats were detected. Of the total 54 

recordings, the eastern red bat was the most common bat detected, but they were detected in the 

fall offshore along the Delmarva Peninsula while only a few hoary bats and big brown/silverhaired bats were detected in spring and fall. The mean distance from shore was 5.2 nm, with the 

farthest distance being 10.4 nm (NJDEP, 2010a, Vol. I, Appendix B). Given that no bats were 

detected during the New Jersey surveys at a distance greater than 10.5 nm from shore, it is 

unlikely that bats will be present in the majority of the WEAs, most of which are further offshore 

(e.g., all of the Virginia WEA is greater than 18 nm from shore). However, it is possible that 

some bats may be present in the Delaware and Maryland WEAs, which are 10 nm from shore. 

This study suggests that bats would occur only rarely in the New Jersey WEA, which is located 

more than 7 nm offshore. This would likely be similar for the Delaware and Maryland WEAs, 

which are located 10 or more nm offshore. 

115 
Table 4.8 

Occurrence (“X”) of Bats by State 

Common name Scientific name NJ1 DE2 MD3 VA4

Cave Bats 

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus X X X X 

Eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibii X X X 

Indiana bat E Myotis sodalist X X X 

Gray bat E Myotis grisescens X 

Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus X X X X 

Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis X X X X 

Tri-colored bat Perimyotis subflavous X X X X 

Virginia big-eared bat E Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus X 

Tree Bats 

Eastern red bat Lasiurus borealis X X X X 

Evening bat Nycticeius humeralis X5 X X 

Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus X X X X 

Seminole bat Lasiurus seminolus X 

Silver haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans X X X X 

Southeastern bat Myotis austroriparius X 

E

 = Federally listed as endangered. 

1

 (NJDEP, 2011b) 

2

 (DEDFW, 2011) 

3

 (MDDNR, 2011b) 

4

 (VADCR, 2011) 

5

 (Kelly, personal communication, 2011) 

4.1.2.6.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A 

Only the silver-haired bat, eastern red bat, and hoary bat would possibly migrate or forage 

through the WEAs. While their presence in the proposed lease area would likely be rare, 

potential impacts to these bats include avoidance or attraction responses to the structures due to 

noise, lighting, and the possible presence of insects. 

Routine Activities 

Site Assessment Activities 

Bats would rarely be present in the WEAs. Thus, impacts to bats are not expected during 

construction, operation, or decommissioning within the WEAs, especially in the Virginia WEA. 

In the New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland WEAs, any impacts from tower construction noise, if 

any, on these species would be short-term and temporary during the eight day to ten week 

construction periods of the nine anticipated meteorological towers. It would take 1-2 days to 

install each of the meteorological buoys anticipated in the New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland 

WEAs. Noise effects could include avoidance or attraction responses to structures because of 

noise, but such effects would be difficult to distinguish from similar effects from lighting or the 

visual presence of the structures. Unlike large-scale wind turbines used at commercial wind 

116 
facilities, the small wind turbines (with blades less than 2 m) that may be used for charging 

batteries on the anticipated meteorological towers and buoys are not expected to impact bats, if 

present over 7 miles from shore. 

Because of the anticipated distance between the meteorological towers and buoys and the 

limited occurrence of bats on the OCS, there would be no additive effect of constructing all the 

meteorological towers or placement of buoys on bats. 

In addition to collecting meteorological and oceanographic data, these meteorological towers 

and buoys would provide platforms that would assist in conducting biological studies, including 

monitoring for the presence of bats. 

Site Characterization Activities 

If bats are present, impacts from site characterization would be limited to avoidance or 

attraction responses to the vessels conducting surveys. Though greater than 90% of the surveys 

projected under Alternative A would occur within the WEAs, the presence of bats in the WEAs 

is unlikely during those surveys. While bats are more likely to be present during the surveying 

of a potential cable route to shore for each of the 13 anticipated leaseholds, less than 10% of the 

surveys projected under Alternative A would be associated with surveying of potential cable 

routes. Bats may also be present as vessels, which may trigger attraction or avoidance responses, 

associated with Alternative A are traversing harbor or coastal areas on their way to or from the 

WEAs. These potential avoidance and attraction responses, however, are not anticipated to have 

any effect on the bats. 

Non-Routine Events 

It is rare but possible that migrating bats may be driven to offshore OCS waters by a storm 

and subsequently into a tower. However, the land-based roosting, breeding, and foraging 

behavior of bats, as well as their limited home ranges and echolocation sensory systems, suggest 

that the risk of them being blown so far out of their habitat range, and the unlikelihood that a bat 

so blown off course could return from the open oceans above the WEAs even if it did not strike a 

tower, makes the likelihood of any impact due to the presence of the towers or buoys negligible. 

Conclusion 

While it is rare that bat species would be foraging or migrating through the WEAs, these 

mammals may on occasion be driven to the project area by prevailing winds and weather. In the 

event bats are present, impacts would be limited to avoidance or attraction responses. Because 

of the anticipated distance between the meteorological towers and buoys, there would be no 

additive effect of constructing all the anticipated meteorological towers or placement of buoys on 

bats. In fact, the anticipated data collection activities (e.g., biological surveys) may assist in 

future environmental analyses of impacts of OCS activities on bats. To the extent that there 

would be any impacts to individuals, the overall impact of Alternative A on bats would be 

negligible. 

The proposed mitigation measures for birds, Section 4.1.2.5, including lighting restrictions 

and prohibition on guy wires, may also reduce or eliminate any potential impacts to bats. 

117 
4.1.2.7 Fish and Essential Fish Habitat 

4.1.2.7.1 Description of the Affected Environment 

4.1.2.7.1.1 Fish 

The Mid-Atlantic continental shelf has very diverse and abundant fishery resources due, in 

part, to its overlapping species ranges from New England and the south Atlantic. The New 

Jersey Baseline Study cites over 250 fish species in the Mid-Atlantic with 15% as temperate 

species and 75% as tropical-subtropical species (NJDEP, 2010a). Table 4.9 characterizes the 

major demersal finfish assemblages of the Mid-Atlantic Bight (MAB) which is also applicable to 

the Mid-Atlantic WEAs. Many of the fish species found in the Mid-Atlantic WEAs are of 

importance due to their value as commercial and/or recreational fisheries. However, some of the 

species are of special concern due to their depleted population status. All of the species present 

play a role in the ecosystem of the MAB as predator, prey, or in some other ecosystem function. 

A description of fishing activities and the economic value of fisheries is detailed in Section 

4.1.3.6, Commercial and Recreational Fishing Activities, of this EA. More information 

regarding fish habitat can be found at on the NMFS website (http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/). 

Fisheries 

Table 4.9 gives a general guide to the demersal finfish assemblages in the Mid-Atlantic. 

However, in addition to the demersal finfish; there are also important shellfish and pelagic 

finfish that may be found in the area of the Mid-Atlantic WEAs. Although Table 4.9 was first 

developed in 1984, it provides a very good overview of demersal fish assemblages in the midAtlantic. This conclusion is supported by the NMFS (2004), which compared the findings to 

broadscale studies conducted in 1998 and 1992. 

Important managed shellfish on the Mid-Atlantic continental shelf include scallops, 

horseshoe crabs, surfclams, and ocean quahogs. Pelagic species include herring, menhaden, 

bluefin tuna, sandbar sharks, and scalloped hammerhead sharks. A complete list of the species 

present in the Mid-Atlantic WEAs that have EFH designated through the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act is included in Section 4.1.2.7.1.2 of this EA. 

Additional information on mid-Atlantic fishery management plans can be found on the MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council website (http://www.mafmc.org/). 

Species of Concern 

Marine fish species of concern include the shortnose sturgeon, which is federally-listed as 

endangered, and can be found off the coasts of New Jersey and Delaware. It is also possible, 

although unlikely, that adult Atlantic salmon may occur off the Mid-Atlantic coast while 

migrating to New England Rivers, to spawn; certain Gulf of Maine populations of Atlantic 

salmon are listed as endangered. Both the shortnose sturgeon and the Atlantic salmon are 

anadromous, meaning they spawn in rivers and spend their adult lives in the open ocean. The 

shortnose sturgeon is found in nearshore estuaries and rivers, including the Delaware River and 

Delaware Bay. Approximate age of females at first spawning is 11 years in the Hudson and 

Delaware Rivers. Females generally spawn every three years, although males may spawn every 

year. Threats to the species have included pollution, loss of access to spawning habitats and 

overfishing, both directly and incidentally (USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 2010d). 

Other fish species of concern that are found in the Mid-Atlantic include one ESA candidate 

species, the Atlantic sturgeon (listing currently in proposed rulemaking), and several Federal 

118 
Species of Concern. The Species of Concern include three shark species: the dusky shark, the 

porbeagle shark, and the sand tiger shark; two herring: the alewife and blueback herring: Atlantic 

bluefin tuna, and the rainbow smelt (USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 2010e). An additional fish 

species whose status is under review is the American eel, for which USFWS is the lead Federal 

agency responsible for conservation. 

Regarding Atlantic sturgeon, on October 6, 2010, NMFS published two rules proposing to 

list 5 Distinct Population Segments (DPS) of the species (75 FR 61872). Of these 5 DPSs, four 

are proposed to be listed as endangered, including those which may be found in the area 

potentially affected by Alternative A. The Atlantic sturgeon, an anadromous species, may be 

found in rivers and nearshore habitats throughout the Mid-Atlantic with reproductive/spawning 

populations identified in the Delaware River (New Jersey and Delaware) and the James River 

(Virginia). Primary threats to Atlantic sturgeon include habitat degradation and loss, ship strikes, 

and general depletion from historical fishing. Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) is a highly 

migratory, pelagic species that is found from the Gulf of Mexico to Newfoundland in coastal and 

open ocean environments. Spawning is principally in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Florida 

Straits (USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 2011). The dusky shark may be found in the Mid-Atlantic, 

occurring from the surf zone to well offshore, and from surface waters to depths of 39.6 m (1300 

ft). The dusky shark is not commonly found in estuaries due to a lack of tolerance for low 

salinities. The species migrates northward in summer and southward in fall. Sand tiger sharks 

may also be found in the Mid-Atlantic. They are generally a coastal species, usually found from 

the surf zone to depths of about 22.9 m (75 ft). They are, however, sometimes found at depths of 

182.9 m (600 ft). Porbeagle sharks are pelagic and rarely enter shallow coastal waters. They are 

distributed in the water column from the surface down to depths of up to 1,000 ft. On the 

Atlantic OCS the species range from Maine to New Jersey with the primary concentration the 

Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank. However, NMFS has designated EFH for porbeagle sharks on 

the continental shelf offshore Virginia, including the WEA offshore Virginia. 

Herrings and smelts are generally found throughout the Mid-Atlantic in nearshore waters, 

coastal bays and estuaries up to spawning grounds in upstream riverine habitats. Their decline 

has generally been attributed to loss of upstream habitat due to man-made impediments (i.e., 

dams) and fishing pressure. 

American eel (Anguilla rostrata) are found in fresh, brackish, and coastal waters from the 

southern tip of Greenland to northeastern South America. American eels begin their lives as 

eggs hatching in the Sargasso Sea. They take years to reach freshwater streams where they 

mature, and then they return to their Sargasso Sea birth waters to spawn and die. They are the 

only species of freshwater eels in the Western Hemisphere. Threats to American eel include 

habitat loss, including riverine impediments, pollution and nearshore habitat destruction; and 

fishing pressure (Greene et al., 2009). 

119 
Table 4.9 

Major Recurrent Demersal Finfish Assemblages of the Mid-Atlantic Bight 

During Spring and Fall 

Species Assemblage 

Season Boreal Warm 

Temperate Inner Shelf Outer Shelf Slope 

Spring Atlantic cod 

Little skate 

Sea raven 

Monkfish 

Winter 

flounder 

Longhorn 

sculpin 

Ocean pout 

Silver hake 

(Whiting) 

Red hake 

White hake 

Spiny dogfish 

Black sea 

bass 

Summer 

flounder 

Butterfish 

Scup 

Spotted hake 

Northern 

searobin 

Windowpane 

flounder 

Fourspot 

flounder 

Shortnose 

greeneye 

Offshore hake 

Blackbelly 

rosefish 

White hake 

Fall White hake 

Silver hake 

(whiting) 

Red hake 

Monkfish 

Longhorn 

sculpin 

Winter 

flounder 

Yellowtail 

flounder 

Witch 

flounder 

Little skate 

Spiny dogfish 

Black sea 

bass 

Summer 

flounder 

Butterfish 

Scup 

Spotted hake 

Northern 

searobin 

Smooth 

dogfish 

Windowpane 

flounder 

Fourspot 

flounder 

Cusk eel 

Gulf stream 

flounder 

Shortnose 

greeneye 

Offshore hake 

Blackbelly 

rosefish 

White hake 

Witch 

flounder 

Source: Colvocoresses and Musick (1984). 

4.1.2.7.1.2 Essential Fish Habitat 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) 

requires fishery management councils to: (1) describe and identify EFH in their respective 

regions; (2) specify actions to conserve and enhance that EFH; and (3) minimize the adverse 

effects of fishing on EFH. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires Federal agencies to consult on 

activities that may adversely affect EFH designated in fishery management plans. Chapter 

4.2.11.3 of the Programmatic EIS also provides a broad overview on EFH in the Atlantic. 

120 
Additionally, fishery management councils identify habitat areas of particular concern 

(HAPCs) within fishery management plans. HAPCs are discrete subsets of EFH that provide 

extremely important ecological functions or are especially vulnerable to degradation. None of 

the individual Mid-Atlantic WEAs overlaps with a designated HAPC. However, sandbar shark 

and summer flounder HAPCs are located inshore of the New Jersey, Delaware, and Virginia 

WEAs which may be transited by vessels and/or surveyed for site characterization of possible 

cable routes to shore. Specifically, the summer flounder HAPC overlaps with native species of 

macroalgae, seagrasses, and freshwater and tidal macrophytes within their defined EFH. 

BOEM has determined that EFH has been designated for the following species for one or 

more life stages in one or more of the Mid-Atlantic WEAs: 

New England Fishery Management Plan Species 

Atlantic herring 

Atlantic sea scallops 

Atlantic cod 

Barndoor skate 

Clearnose skate 

Haddock 

Little skate 

Monkfish 

Ocean pout 

Offshore hake 

Red hake 

Rosette skate 

Silver hake 

Winter skate 

Smooth skate 

Thorny skate 

Witch flounder 

Yellowtail flounder 

Winter flounder 

Windowpane flounder 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Plan Species 

Atlantic mackerel 

Black sea bass 

Bluefish 

Butterfish 

Surfclam 

Monkfish 

Ocean quahog 

Scup 

Spiny dogfish 

Summer flounder 

Illex squid 

Loligo squid 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Plan Species 

Cobia King mackerel Spanish mackerel

121 
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan Species 

Albacore tuna 

Atlantic angel shark 

Atlantic bigeye tuna 

Atlantic bluefin tuna 

Atlantic sharpnose 

Atlantic skipjack 

Atlantic swordfish 

Atlantic yellowfin tuna 

Basking shark 

Blue marlin 

Blue shark 

Dusky shark 

Longfin mako

Porbeagle 

Sand tiger shark 

Sandbar shark 

Scalloped hammerhead 

Shortfin mako 

Silky shark 

Thresher shark 

Tiger shark 

White marlin 

White shark 

Bigeye sand tiger 

Shark 

Bigeye sixgill shark

Caribbean sharpnose 

Shark 

Galapagos shark 

Narrowtooth shark 

Sevengill shark 

Sixgill shark 

Smooth hammerhead 

Shark 

Smalltail shark 

Smooth dogfish 

Longbill spearfish 

Blacktip shark

In a letter dated August 11, 2011, NMFS responded to the assessment of impacts to EFH 

contained in the Draft EA (see Section 5.3.2). In that letter NMFS identified four conservation 

recommendations that BOEM will consider applying in the future if and when a lessee submits a 

COP for a full scale wind energy development. See Appendix C of this EA.. 

4.1.2.7.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A 

Acoustic Effects 

This section on acoustic effects is a brief summary of what is known about sound sensitivity 

in marine fish and the impacts of sound that could be produced as a result of site characterization 

and assessment activity in the Mid-Atlantic WEAs. 

The auditory thresholds of marine fish that could occur in the Mid-Atlantic WEAs are not 

well studied. A fishes’ inner ear and the lateral line overlap in the frequency range to which they 

respond. The lateral line appears to be most responsive to signals ranging from below one Hz to 

between 150 and 200 Hz (Coombs et al., 1992), while the ear responds to frequencies from about 

20 Hz to several thousand Hz in some species (Popper and Fay, 1993; Popper et al., 2003). The 

specific frequency response characteristics of the ear and lateral line varies among different 

species and is probably related, at least in part, to the life styles of the particular species. 

As for sound production in fish, Myrberg (1980) states that members of more than 50 fish 

families produce some kind of sound using special muscles or other structures that have evolved 

for this role, or by grinding teeth, rasping spines and fin rays, burping, expelling gas, or gulping 

air. Sounds are often produced by fish when they are alarmed or presented with noxious stimuli 

(Myrberg, 1981; Zelick et al., 1999). Some of these sounds may involve the use of the swim 

bladder as an underwater resonator. Sounds produced by vibrating the swim bladder may be at a 

higher frequency (400 Hz) than the sounds produced by moving body parts against one another. 

The swim bladder drumming muscles are correspondingly specialized for rapid contractions 

(Zelick et al., 1999). 

Myrberg (1981) has identified various categories of acoustic communication that are used by 

fishes. These are startle or warning sounds that may help protect individuals and groups from 

predation; courting sounds used as part of the usual mating behaviors including advertisement; 

swimming sounds used in schooling and aggregation; aggressive sounds used when competing 

for mates; sounds used in other aggressive interactions (e.g., in territorial defense); sounds used 

by interceptor species to avoid predation or to locate prey; and sounds overheard and used to 

122 
competitive advantage by competitors. Sounds are known to be used in reproductive behavior 

by a number of fish species, and the current data lead to the suggestion that males are the most 

active producers. Sound activity often accompanies aggressive behavior in fish, usually peaking 

during the reproductive season. Those benthic fish species that are territorial in nature 

throughout the year often produce sounds regardless of season, particularly during periods of 

high-level aggression (Myrberg 1981). In addition to the behaviors classified by Myrberg (1981) 

as communication, it is also likely that hearing is used to help form a general image of the 

auditory scene that may include both other fishes and abiotic sound sources and scatterers.

High Resolution Geological Survey Acoustic Effects 

Sections 3.1.1 and 4.1.2.3 detail a proposed action scenario for HRG surveys, which is not 

repeated herein. 

The impact of HRG survey noise on marine fish that could occur in the Mid-Atlantic WEAs 

is not well understood. Generally, noise generated by HRG surveys may have physical and/or 

behavioral effects on fish. Hastings et al. (1996) suggested that sounds 90 to 140 dB above a 

fish’s hearing threshold may potentially injure the inner ear of a fish. This suggestion was 

supported in the findings of Enger (1981) in which injury occurred only when the stimulus was 

100 to 110 dB above threshold at 200 to 250 Hz for the cod. Hastings et al. (1996) derived the 

values of 90 to 140 dB above threshold by examining the degree of masking and how similar the 

masking signal and test signal are. The data on other species are much less extensive. Chapman 

and Hawkins (1973) found that ambient noise at higher sea states in the ocean have masking 

effects in cod, haddock, and pollock. Additionally, sound could also produce generalized stress 

(Wysocki et al., 2006). Thus, based on limited data, it appears that for fish communication, 

masking and stress may occur in fish exposed to this level of sound. 

Effects on fish are generally expected to be limited to avoidance of the area around the HRG 

survey activities and short-term changes in behavior. The region of best hearing in the majority 

of fish for which there are data available is from 100 to 200 Hz up to 800 Hz. Adult fish are 

highly mobile and may be expected to quickly leave an area when disturbed. While an HRG 

survey may disturb more than one individual, surveys associated with Alternative A are not 

expected to result in population-level effects. Individuals disturbed by a survey would likely 

return to normal behavioral patterns after the survey has ceased or after the animal has left the 

survey area. 

Fish are not expected to be exposed to sound pressure levels that could cause hearing 

damage. Side-scan sonar, which uses a low-energy, high-frequency signal, is not expected to 

affect fish, based on fish hearing data. Because of the limited immediate area of ensonification 

and duration of individual HRG surveys that may be conducted during site assessment, few fish 

may be expected in most cases to be present within the survey areas. Thus, potential populationlevel impacts on fish from HRG surveys are expected to be negligible. 

Sub-bottom Reconnaissance Acoustic Effects 

Acoustic impacts from borehole drilling are expected to be below 120 dB. Previous 

estimates submitted to BOEM for geotechnical drilling have source sound levels not exceeding 

145dB at a frequency of 120Hz (USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 2009). Previous submissions to 

BOEM also indicated that boring sound should attenuate to below 120 dB by the 150m isopleth. 

Therefore, fish are expected to able to sense the sound, but the impacts are anticipated to be 

123 
negligible due to short duration, low sound levels, and the ability of the fish to leave the 

immediate area of the drilling. 

Meteorological Tower Pile-Driving Acoustic Effects 

Section 3.1.2 and 4.1.2.3 detail a proposed action scenario and acoustic effects for pile 

driving, which is not repeated herein. 

Meteorological tower construction noise could disturb normal behaviors (e.g., feeding) of 

marine fish. Depending upon the several factors, including the sound source and physical 

oceanographic features, behavioral effects may be incurred at ranges of many miles, and hearing 

impairment may occur at close range (Madsen et al., 2006). As discussed in the impacts from 

HRG survey, behavioral reactions may include avoidance of, or flight from, the sound source 

and its immediate surroundings, disruption of feeding behavior, and generalized stress (Wysocki 

et al., 2006). 

The project design criteria required by BOEM are intended to reduce or eliminate the 

potential for adverse impacts to marine mammals and sea turtles will also benefit fish including 

the implementation of a “soft start” procedure (see Appendix B and Section 5.3.1 of this EA). 

This measure will be included as a condition on any leases and/or SAPs issued or approved 

under this proposed action. Due to the “soft start” procedure, it is anticipated that the majority of 

fish would flee the area during the period of disturbance and return to normal activity in the area 

post-construction. Those fish that do not flee the immediate action area during the pile driving 

procedure could be exposed to lethal sound pressure levels. However, significant effects to fish 

populations are not anticipated. 

Benthic Effects 

Section 4.1.2.2 of this EA discusses the benthic resources and impacts from Alternative A 

upon those resources. This section only discusses those impacts in relation to fish and their 

habitat. Benthic effects from Alternative A that would impact fish and fish habitat is anticipated 

to be temporary and limited to the immediate area surrounding the activity. Therefore, it is not 

anticipated that benthic fish habitat would experience significant negative impacts that could 

then impact fish populations. 

Sub-bottom Sampling 

As stated in Section 4.1.2.2 of this EA, the sub-bottom sampling would result in a negligible 

temporary loss of some benthic organisms (i.e., less than one ft diameter would be disturbed in 

the areas where cores are sampled), and a localized increase in disturbance due to vessel activity, 

including noise and anchor cable placement and retrieval. This activity could impact marine fish 

by removing a small amount of forage items for these species. However, due to the small 

footprint, the temporary nature of the action, and likely availability of similar benthic habitat 

around the sampling location, it is expected that this activity would have negligible benthic 

effects that could impact federally-managed fish species that occur in the Mid-Atlantic WEAs. 

Meteorological Tower/Buoy Installation 

The installation of a meteorological buoy and/or the construction of a meteorological tower 

would have benthic effects that are temporary in nature. It is anticipated that there would be 

some sediment that would become suspended around deployed anchoring systems and around 

monopoles resulting from the installation activity. This sediment would be dispersed and settle 

124 
on the surrounding seafloor. Depending upon the currents this could potentially smother some 

benthic organisms. However, as mentioned previously the Mid-Atlantic Bight is considered a 

high energy environment that sees much sediment transport in its natural state. It is expected 

that any sedimentation that would occur around an installed tower or buoy would have only 

minor temporary effects that could impact the habitat and food availability for federally-managed 

fish species. The loss of benthic habitat as a result of scour and/or scour control systems around 

foundations and moorings is discussed in Section 4.1.2.2 of this EA. Sessile marine 

invertebrates, including molluscan shellfish, would be lost in the footprint of the 

foundation/mooring and any scour control system. However, a single meteorological tower or 

buoy within a lease area is not expected to result in significant changes to the availability of 

habitat and forage items in the action area. 

Meteorological Tower/Buoy Operation 

It is expected that the installation of meteorological towers and large anchoring systems, that 

if introduced to soft sediments would introduce an artificial hard substrate that opportunistic 

benthic species that prefer such substrate could colonize. In addition, minor changes in species 

associated with softer sediments could occur due to scouring around the pilings (Hiscock et al., 

2002). Certain fish species (e.g., tautog, black sea bass, Atlantic striped bass) would likely be 

attracted to the newly formed habitat complex, and fish population numbers in the immediate 

vicinity of the anchors and monopoles are likely to be higher than in surrounding waters away 

from the structures. However, a single meteorological tower or buoy within a lease area is not 

expected to result in significant changes in local community assemblage and diversity, nor the 

availability of habitat and forage items in the action area. 

Discharge of Waste Materials and Accidental Fuel Leaks 

Collisions between vessels and allisions between vessels and meteorological towers and 

buoys is considered unlikely (see Section 3.2.2 of this EA). However in the unlikely event that a 

vessel allision or collision were to occur, and in the unlikely event that such an allision or 

collision results in a discharge, the most likely pollutant to be discharged would be diesel fuel. If 

a diesel spill were to occur, it would be expected to dissipate very rapidly in the water column, 

then evaporate and biodegrade within a few days (see Section 3.2.3 of this EA). It is expected 

that pelagic fish and larval fish that can be found high in the water column would be negatively 

impacted by such a spill. These impacts are not expected to be significant to the populations 

they represent due to the temporary nature of a spill limited area over where a spill effect. 

Overall impacts to fish resources from diesel spills resulting from collisions, should they occur, 

are expected to be minimal. 

Fish could be exposed to operational discharges or accidental fuel releases from construction 

sites and construction vessels and to accidentally released solid debris. Operational discharges 

from construction vessels would be released into the open ocean where they would be rapidly 

diluted and dispersed, or collected and taken to shore for treatment and disposal. Sanitary and 

domestic wastes would be processed through on-site waste treatment facilities before being 

discharged overboard. Deck drainage would also be processed prior to discharge. Thus, waste 

discharges from construction vessels would not be expected to directly affect fish or their habitat. 

Fish can be adversely impacted by the ingestion of, or entanglement with, solid debris. Fish 

that have ingested debris, such as plastic, may experience intestinal blockage, which in turn may 

lead to starvation, while toxic substances present in the ingested materials (especially in plastics) 

125 
could lead to a variety of lethal and sub-lethal toxic effects. Entanglement in plastic debris can 

result in reduced mobility, starvation, exhaustion, drowning, and constriction of, and subsequent 

damage to, limbs caused by tightening of the entangling material. The discharge or disposal of 

solid debris into offshore waters from OCS structures and vessels is prohibited by BOEM (30 

CFR 250.300) and the USCG (MARPOL, Annex V, Pub. L. 100−220 (101 Stat. 1458)). Thus, 

entanglement in or ingestion of OCS-related trash and debris by fish would not be expected 

during normal operations. Because of the limited duration and area of vessel traffic and 

construction activity that might occur with construction, operation, and decommissioning of a 

meteorological tower and/or met buoy, the release of liquid wastes would occur infrequently. 

Accidental fuel release during site characterization activities is expected to be minimal. Thus, 

overall impacts to fish and their habitat from the discharge of waste materials or the accidental 

release of fuels during site assessment and site characterization activities are expected to be 

minor. 

Meteorological Tower and Buoy Decommissioning 

The decommissioning of meteorological towers and buoys is described in Chapter 3 of this 

EA. Upon completion of site assessment activities, the meteorological tower would be removed 

and transported by barge to shore. During this activity, fish may be affected by noise and 

operational discharges as described for meteorological tower construction. Removal of the piles 

would be accomplished by cutting the piles (using mechanical cutting or high-pressure water jet) 

at a depth of 4.6 m (15 ft) below the seabed. Fish could be affected by noise produced by pile 

cutting equipment, although cutting produces less intense noise than pile driving. Only fish in 

the immediate vicinity of the site (those that had not moved away from the area upon arrival of 

decommissioning vessels) would be expected to be affected during tower removal and transport, 

and pile cutting. Disturbance of fish during decommissioning is expected to be minor resulting 

in negligible impacts to fish. 

Natural and Unanticipated Events 

A vessel allision with the meteorological structures or collision with other vessels may result 

in the spillage of diesel fuel. Vessels are expected to comply with USCG requirements relating 

to prevention and control of oil spills. Spills are not projected to have significant impacts due to 

the small size of a projected spill. A could occur while enroute to and from the WEAs but this is 

considered unlikely. If a spill were to occur, either inside or outside of a WEA, the estimated 

spill size would be small. From 2000 to 2009, the average spill size for vessels similar to those 

anticipated to be used for Alternative A was 88.36 gallons (U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security, USCG, 2011). Vessel allision with a meteorological buoy containing diesel powered 

generator may also occur. It is estimated that a buoy generator could contain 240 gallons of 

diesel fuel (FERN 2011). If a diesel spill of this size were to occur, it would be expected to 

dissipate very rapidly in the water column of the open ocean, then evaporate and biodegrade 

within a few days (see Section 3.2.3 of this EA). 

The meteorological towers and buoys could also serve as attractants for fish, which in turn 

attracts recreational fishermen to the area. Therefore, there is some potential for collisions with 

recreational fishing boats and accidental release of diesel fuel. 

Storms may also cause allisions and collisions that could result in a spill, yet the storm 

conditions would cause the spill to dissipate faster. As a result, the impacts to fish populations 

126 
that could result from an oil spill, should one occur, associated with Alternative A are expected 

to be both minor and temporary. 

It is also possible that larger vessels, such as tankers or container ships, could collide with 

meteorological structures within the WEAs. Such a collision is considered unlikely, as these 

structures would be sparsely placed on the OCS offshore New Jersey to Virginia, and will be lit 

and marked for navigational purposes (see Section 3.1.3.1 of this EA). If a larger vessel should 

collide with a meteorological facility, a large spill would be extremely unlikely (see Section 

3.2.2 of this EA). Thus, the largest spill that could result in the unlikely event that a larger ship 

were to collide with a meteorological facility is on the order of 240 gallons – the estimated 

amount of generator fuel that could be present on the meteorological facility itself (assuming that 

a generator is present on the facility). 

Conclusion 

Alternative A and the potential effects of HRG survey noise on marine fish are generally 

expected to be limited to avoidance around the HRG survey activities and short-term changes in 

behavior. Thus, potential population-level impacts, if any, on fish resulting from HRG surveys 

are expected to be negligible. 

Meteorological tower construction noise could disturb normal behaviors. As discussed in the 

analysis of HRG surveys, behavioral reaction may include avoidance of, or flight from, the 

sound source. Fish that do not flee the immediate action area during pile driving procedure 

could be exposed to lethal sound pressure levels. However, the project designs criteria, 

including the implementation of a “soft start” procedure will minimize the possibility of 

exposure to lethal sound levels. 

As a result of the small sub-bottom sampling footprint, it is expected this activity would have 

negligible benthic effects that could impact federally-managed fish species that may occur in the 

Mid-Atlantic WEAs. Impacts related to meteorological towers/buoys installation, operation and 

decommissioning is expected to be minor and not expected to result in changes in local 

community assemblage and diversity. 

Fish could be exposed to operational discharges or accidental fuel releases from construction 

sites and construction vessels and to accidentally released solid debris. The entanglement in or 

ingestion of OCS-related trash and debris by fish would not be expected during normal 

operations. Impacts to fish and their habitat from the discharge of waste materials or the 

accidental release of fuels are expected to be minor due to the limited number of structures and 

vessels involved with their construction, operation, and decommissioning. 

4.1.3 Socioeconomic Conditions and Impacts 

4.1.3.1 Archaeological Resources 

Bottom disturbing activities associated with Alternative A offshore New Jersey, Delaware, 

Maryland and Virginia to the seaward extent of the WEAs have the potential to affect historic 

and pre-contact archaeological resources on the seabed. While indistinguishable from existing 

traffic on the ocean, vessel traffic associated with Alternative A would be visible from coastal 

areas of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. While indistinguishable from other 

lighted structures on the OCS, some meteorological towers and buoys may be visible from 

coastal areas of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. 

127 
4.1.3.1.1 Description of the Affected Environment 

A general overview of archaeological resources in the Atlantic OCS can be found in Chapter 

4.2.19 of the Programmatic EIS. The WEAs and potential cable corridors offshore New Jersey, 

Delaware, Maryland and Virginia (see Figure 4.6 for an example), where bottom disturbing 

activities associated with Alternative A may occur, have the potential to contain both historic and 

pre-contact archaeological resources. Historic properties also are located on shorelines adjacent 

to the proposed area that may be within line-of-site of vessel traffic and some of the proposed 

site assessment structures. 

Offshore historic period archaeological resources in these general areas include shipwrecks, 

which may date from as early as the 16th century to the present (Koski-Karell, 1995; USDOI, 

BOEMRE, 2011b). The potential for finding shipwrecks increases in areas, such as historic 

shipping routes, approaches to sea ports, reefs, straits, and shoals. The greatest concentration of 

known or reported shipwrecks per-linear mile of coastline in the Atlantic Region is found 

offshore the Mid-Atlantic States, based on information compiled from primary sources, 

secondary sources, and existing database entries (USDOI, BOEMRE, 2011b). However, many 

of the WEAs are in regions that have not been previously surveyed for the presence of 

archaeological resources. Offshore Maryland has the highest ratio of known or reported 

shipwrecks to miles of coastline, with over 19 shipwrecks per linear mile of coastline. Despite a 

relatively long coast of 112 miles, Virginia’s 2,306 known or reported shipwrecks place it second 

with about 15 sites per mile of coastline. Offshore Delaware and New Jersey also have a very 

high ratio of known or reported shipwrecks per linear mile of coastline (USDOI, BOEMRE, 

2011b, Section 12.6.3, Table 12-2). The distribution of shipwrecks offshore New Jersey, 

Delaware, Maryland and Virginia appear to closely correlate to vessel traffic, especially in the 

vicinity of port approaches and navigational hazards (Crothers, 2004; French, 1987; Matson, 

1998; Morgan, 1989; Smith, 2003; USDOI, BOEMRE, 2011b). According to entries in the 

BOEM Atlantic OCS Shipwreck Database, all four Mid-Atlantic WEAs and potential cable 

routes to shore are characterized as having a high probability for containing shipwrecks. 

Offshore archaeological resources also include submerged pre-contact sites (Nordfjord, 

2006). The WEAs and potential cable corridors are located within regions of the OCS that 

formerly may have been exposed above sea level and available to human occupation during the 

last ice age (Garrison et al., 2011). Sea level data provides a guide to where drowned 

archaeological sites may be present on the OCS. The highest rate of sea level rise occurred 

during a period of known occupation along the Middle Atlantic, which archaeologists currently 

place at approximately 11,600–11,100 years before present day (B.P.). This period was followed 

by a much slower rate of sea level rise (approximately 0.8 cm per year) until ca. 7000 B.P., after 

which the rate of sea level rise slowed even further (0.2 cm per year or less). After 7,000 B.P., 

archaeological sites would have been subject to a higher frequency of erosion or destruction by 

the process of marine transgression (USDOI, BOEMRE, 2011b, Section 6.3). 

4.1.3.1.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A 

Chapter 5.2.19 of the Programmatic EIS discusses potential impacts to potential 

archaeological resources that could occur from site assessment activities, construction activities, 

operation activities, and decommissioning of offshore structures. Impacts to potential 

archaeological resources offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia to the seaward 

extent of the WEAs that could occur from bottom disturbance and spills associated with site 

128 
characterization surveys and site assessment activities (the installation of meteorological 

towers/buoys) associated with proposed action are discussed below. 

Reasonably foreseeable viewshed impacts from vessels and potential structures associated 

with Alternative A also are discussed below. 

Routine Activities 

Site Characterization Activities

Site characterization activities; which include HRG surveys and geotechnical surveys; (core 

sampling/testing) are not expected to impact offshore archaeological resources. Due to the cost 

associated with geotechnical surveys (i.e., core sampling) of the WEAs and potential cable 

corridors, it is assumed that these bottom disturbing geotechnical surveys would occur after HRG 

surveys are conducted. The HRG surveys, which would not disturb the bottom, should be 

designed to identify archaeological resources and enable geotechnical surveys to avoid these 

resources (see GGARCH guidelines). The data collected during HRG surveys and interpreted by 

trained archaeologists and geologists would identify potential archaeological resources, so that 

the lessee, in coordination with BOEM, can develop and implement appropriate avoidance 

measures prior to each geologic sampling, avoiding the cost of unnecessary or additional 

sampling. Additionally, the information from HRG surveys also can lead to improved sampling 

strategies for the testing of potential relic paleolandforms to assist in determining whether these 

areas would have been suitable for human habitation when the OCS was exposed during the last 

ice age. See Section 3.1.2 of this EA. 

As discussed in Chapter 3, BOEM is assuming that lessees will not undertake expensive 

ground-disturbing activities (i.e., core sampling) until after they have undertaken the less 

expensive HRG surveys to characterize the seafloor of the lease. These HRG surveys will 

provide indications of the potential presence and location of archaeological resources in the 

seabed. It is assumed that lessees would not undertake to place structures on archaeological 

resources (and therefore, will not invest the capital and time in sampling locations for which the 

HRG surveys have indicated the presence of a potential archaeological resource). However, due 

to the fact that little is known about the presence and location of potential archaeological 

resources on the Mid-Atlantic OCS, and due to the fact that the greatest concentration of known 

or reported shipwrecks per-linear mile of coastline in the Atlantic Region is found offshore the 

Mid-Atlantic States, BOEM will require that lessees observe the unanticipated finds 

requirements at 30 CFR 585.802 whenever engaging in ground-disturbing activities (such as core 

sampling). Under these lease requirements, if a lessee discovers a potential archaeological 

resource while conducting ground disturbing activities, it will be required to follow the process 

specified in 30 CFR 585.802, which is described below. 

Any visual impacts of vessel traffic associated with survey activity to onshore cultural 

resources would be limited and temporary in nature, and would be indistinguishable from 

existing vessel traffic. Visual impacts of lighting of site assessment structures on coastal historic 

properties likewise would be indistinguishable from existing vessel traffic and other lighted 

structures on the OCS and would be limited and temporary in nature. 

Site Assessment Activities

Archaeological resources are protected under the existing renewable energy regulations. In 

general, the lessee’s SAP must contain information that would assist BOEM in complying with 

the NHPA (see Section 5.2.4) and other relevant laws (30 CFR 585.611(a),(b)(6)). The lessee 

129 
must also describe the archaeological resources that could be affected by the activities proposed 

in the plan, or that could affect the activities proposed in the plan. 

Meteorological towers installed under Alternative A would be virtually invisible from shore 

based on the narrow profile of the structure, distance from shore; earth curvature, waves, and 

atmosphere (see Section 3.1.3.1, Visual Aesthetics, of this EA). Existing ports and other onshore 

infrastructure are capable of supporting site assessment activities with no expansion (see

Sections 3.1.3.1 and 3.1.3.2). Any visual impacts to onshore cultural resources would be limited 

and temporary in nature and would consist predominately of vessel traffic, which most likely 

would not be distinguishable from existing vessel traffic. 

It is anticipated that bottom disturbance associated with the installation of meteorological 

towers and buoys would disturb the seafloor in a maximum radius of 1,500 ft (~450 m) or 162 

acres around each bottom-founded structure. This includes all anchorages and appurtenances of 

the support vessels. This would result in almost 6,000 acres of impacted seafloor, less than one 

of the WEAs, if all 12 anticipated meteorological towers were constructed and 25% 

meteorological buoys were installed. Direct impacts to archaeological resources within 1,500 ft 

of each meteorological tower and buoy would be the result of direct destruction or removal of 

archaeological resources from their primary context. Although this would be extremely unlikely 

given that the bottom-disturbing surveys described above would be conducted prior to the 

installation of any structure (see e.g., 30 CFR 585.610 and 585.611), should contact between the 

activities associated with Alternative A and a historic or pre-contact site occur, there may be 

damage or loss to archaeological resources. 

Should the surveys reveal the possible presence of an archaeological resource in an area that 

may be affected by its planned activities, the applicant would have the option to demonstrate 

through additional investigations that an archaeological resource either does not exist or would 

not be adversely affected by the seafloor/bottom-disturbing activities (30 CFR 585.802(b)). 

If the lessee, while conducting activities, discovers a potential archaeological resource such 

as the presence of a shipwreck (e.g., a sonar image or visual confirmation of an iron, steel, or 

wooden hull, wooden timbers, anchors, concentrations of historic objects, piles of ballast rock), 

pre-contact artifacts, and/or relict landforms, etc. within the project area the lessee must: 

1) Immediately halt seafloor/bottom-disturbing activities within the area of discovery; 

2) Notify BOEM within 72 hours of its discovery; 

3) Keep the location of the discovery confidential and take no action that may adversely 

affect the archaeological resource until BOEM has made an evaluation and instructs the 

applicant on how to proceed (30 CFR 585.802(a)(1)-(3) and 585.902(e)). 

BOEM may require the lessee to conduct additional investigations to determine if the 

resource is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (30 CFR 

585.802(b)). If further investigations indicate the archaeological resource is potentially eligible 

for the NRHP, BOEM would inform the lessee as to how to protect the resource, or how to 

mitigate any adverse effect to the resource. 

Non-Routine Events 

Diesel spills could occur due to vessel collisions or during generator refueling (see Section 

4.1.1.2 of this EA discussing oil spills and impacts). If a diesel spill were to occur, it would be 

expected to dissipate very rapidly and not reach the seafloor or the coast (see Section 3.2.3 of 

this EA). 

130 
It is possible that an anchorage (from either a meteorological buoy or support vessel) may be 

unintentionally dragged across the seafloor in a storm event. Survey activities would not take 

place in periods of rough weather. Furthermore, in reviewing a SAP, BOEM would ensure that 

appropriately-weighted anchorages will be used for a buoy (30 CFR 585.606, 585.610 and 

585.801) and that if archaeological resources are nearby, post-storm resurvey to confirm the 

location of anchorages would be conducted. The likelihood that archaeological resources could 

be impacted by a non-routine event, such as a spill or storm, is minimal. In addition, the results 

of HRG surveys required before SAP approvals should provide the information needed for 

BOEM to further assess the likelihood of damage to known sites from these unanticipated drag 

events. If a site is determined to have been potentially damaged, then BOEM would require the 

lessee to mitigate the adverse effect to the resources (30 CFR 585.802(b)). 

Conclusion 

Offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia to the seaward extent of the WEAs, 

where bottom disturbing activities associated with Alternative A would occur, has the potential 

to contain historic and pre-contact archaeological resources. However, the information 

generated from the lessee’s initial site characterization activities, the unanticipated discoveries 

requirement, and existing regulatory measures would make the potential for seafloor/bottomdisturbing activities (e.g. core samples, anchorages and installation of meteorological towers and 

buoys) to cause damage or significant impacts to archaeological or historic resources very low. 

Visual impacts of meteorological facilities and project-associated vessel traffic to onshore 

cultural resources would be limited and temporary in nature, if noticeable, and consist 

predominately of vessel traffic which most likely would not be distinguishable from existing 

vessel traffic.

Proposed Mitigation Measures 

The following proposed mitigation measures are intended to reduce or eliminate the potential 

for adverse impacts to archeological resources by ensuring sufficient survey coverage, so that 

these resources can be identified and avoided. This section proposes that these mitigation 

measures be incorporated into the terms of a lease or SAP approval: 

 Compliance with the latest BOEM guidelines for geological, geophysical, hazards, and 

archaeological surveys. On April 21, 2011 BOEM posted “Guidelines for Providing 

Geological and Geophysical, Hazards, and Archaeological Information Pursuant to 30 

CFR Part 285,” which provides recommended strategies, techniques, and elements for 

collecting the data necessary to readily determine the absence or presence of sites, 

structures, or objects of cultural or archaeological significance. See

http://www.boemre.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/RegulatoryInformation.htm. This 

measure ensures that the data presented would be sufficient to ascertain the presence or 

absence of resources in the leasehold that would be affected by the activities proposed in 

the plan, including all seafloor/bottom-disturbing activities. 

 Resurvey anchorages of semi-permanent meteorological buoys after storm events when 

archaeological resources are located within 150 ft. severe storm events could cause 

anchorages that are not appropriately weighted to be unintentionally dragged across the 

seafloor and therefore, could impact nearby archaeological resources. This measure 

would require that, in cases where archaeological resources are nearby, anchorages will 

be resurveyed after each severe storm event to ensure that they have remained in place. In 

131 
the unlikely event that a nearby archaeological resource had been impacted by a 

displaced anchor, additional mitigation measures deemed appropriate by BOEM will be 

communicated to and implemented by the lessee with oversight and approval by BOEM. 

4.1.3.2 Recreational Resources 

4.1.3.2.1 Description of the Affected Environment 

The coastal beaches, barrier islands, estuarine bays and sounds, river deltas, and tidal 

marshes of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia are used for recreational activity by 

residents of the local areas and tourists. Beaches are a major recreational resource that attracts 

tourists and residents to the coastal counties for fishing, swimming, shelling, beachcombing, 

camping, picnicking, bird watching, and other activities. The scenic and aesthetic values of 

beaches play an important role in attracting visitors. Recreation and tourism provide 

employment and wages in the coastal counties. The coastal waters of these areas would be 

transited by vessels associated with Alternative A. Recreational fishing is discussed in Section 

4.1.3.6 of this EA. 

New Jersey 

The coastal counties of New Jersey are host to substantial recreation, particularly in 

connection with marine fishing and beach-related activities. The shorefronts along these 

counties in New Jersey contain a diversity of natural and developed landscapes and seascapes. 

Table 4-12 presents employment in tourism-related industries in 2004 (National Ocean 

Economics Program, 2008). This source defines tourism related employment and wages as 

those from the following travel-related industries: amusement and recreation services, boat 

dealers, eating and drinking places, hotels and lodging places, marinas, recreational vehicle parks 

and campsites, scenic water tours, sporting goods retailers, zoos, and aquaria. The USEPA 

reports 263 beaches in the 5 coastal counties (Atlantic, Cape May, Middlesex, Monmouth, and 

Ocean) in New Jersey, which is summarized in Table 4-11 (USEPA, 2008b). 

Maryland 

Maryland’s coastline and beach recreation areas attract many local citizens, as well as out-ofstate visitors. Popular recreational activities include swimming, boating, fishing and sunbathing. 

There are a total of 68 beaches along the coast in the following counties, which is summarized in 

Table 4-11 (Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Calvert, Cecil, Kent, Queen Anne’s, Somerset, St Mary’s 

and Worcester) USEPA, 2008. Table 4-12 presents employment in tourism-related industries in 

2004 (National Ocean Economic Program, 2008). 

Virginia

Virginia’s coastline accommodates recreational activities, such as swimming, fishing, 

boating, jogging, camping, hiking and sunbathing. Virginia has a total of 47 beaches in the 

following coastal counties which is summarized in Table 4-11 (Accomack, Gloucester, 

Hampton, King George, Mathews, Newport News, Norfolk, Northampton, Virginia Beach and 

York) USEPA, 2008b. Table 4-12 presents employment in tourism-related industries in 2004 

(National Ocean Economic Program, 2008). 

132 
Delaware 

Sussex County is the coastal county of Delaware and is host to substantial recreation, 

particularly in connection with marine fishing and beach-related activities. The shorefronts 

along Sussex County offer a diversity of natural and developed landscapes and seascapes. 

Delaware has 26 miles of Atlantic Ocean coastline in Sussex County. The USEPA reports 21 

beaches in the coastal county of Sussex, which is summarized in Table 4-11 (USEPA, 2008b). 

Table 4-12 presents Delaware’s ocean tourism and recreation economy by county in 2004. 

133 
Table 4.10 

Number of Coastal Beaches in New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware and Virginia by County 

Coastal Counties Number 

Middlesex – NJ 4 

Monmouth – NJ 58 

Ocean – NJ 84 

Atlantic – NJ 48 

Cape May – NJ 69 

Sussex – DE 21 

Anne Arundel – MD 27 

Baltimore – MD 3 

Calvert – MD 9 

Cecil – MD 6 

Kent – MD 8 

Queen Anne’s – MD 1 

Somerset – MD 2 

St, Mary’s – MD 2 

Worcester – MD 10 

Accomack – VA 2 

Gloucester – VA 1 

Hampton – VA 2 

King George – VA 1 

Mathews – VA 1 

Newport News – VA 4 

Norfolk – VA 9 

Northampton – VA 2 

Virginia Beach – VA 24 

York - VA 1 

Total 399 

Source: USEPA, 2008b. 

134 
Table 4.11 

Related Tourism and Recreation Economy by County, 2004 

New Jersey Counties Employment Wages 

Atlantic 7,304 $126,533,089 

Cape May 7,451 $140,660,261 

Middlesex 1,510 $25,334,877 

Monmouth 7,226 $120,926,902 

Ocean 9,530 $148,370,859 

Total 33,021 $561,825,988 

Maryland Counties Employment Wages 

Anne Arundel 11,917 $234,873,811 

Baltimore 2,415 $33,447,117 

Calvert 1,327 $14,709,539 

Cecil 2,009 $27,550,770 

Queen Anne’s 1,682 $31,417,192 

Somerset 442 $4,462,424 

St. Mary’s 2,175 $24,267,003 

Worcester 977 $12,282,840 

Total 22,944 $383,010,696 

Delaware Counties Employment Wages 

Sussex 6,102 $96,770,541 

Total 6,102 $96,770,541 

Virginia Counties Employment Wages 

Accomack 422 $4,814,147 

Gloucester 1,061 $12,418,216 

Hampton 1,425 $16,426,950 

King George 270 $2,808,593 

Mathews 87 $708,437 

Newport News 3,615 $43,621,282 

Norfolk 6,303 $89,217,010 

Northampton 424 $4,285,660 

Virginia Beach 12,460 $168,069,426 

York 1,282 $16,355,606 

Total 27,349 $358,725,327 

Source: National Ocean Economic Program, 2008. 

4.1.3.2.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A 

Routine Activities 

Impacts on recreational resources are not anticipated in connection with Alternative A. As 

discussed in Section 4.1.3.5, existing ports or industrial areas are expected to be used by vessels 

associated with Alternative A. Expansion of these existing facilities is not anticipated. Due to 

135 
the distance to shore of the WEAs, it is estimated that most of the anticipated meteorological 

towers would not be visible from shore (see Section 3.1.3, Visual Aesthetics). The few 

meteorological towers located nearer to shore would be virtually invisible from shore due to the 

anticipated widths of these structures, and to the nominal atmospheric conditions offshore of the 

Atlantic coast. It is most likely that vessel traffic associated with Alternative A would use 

established nearshore traffic lanes. Chapter 5.2.22 of the Programmatic EIS concluded that, as 

tourism and recreation exists in its current state in the context of existing military, commercial, 

and recreational water and air vessels that currently traverse these coastal areas, it is unlikely that 

there would be any detrimental impact on tourism and recreation from the additional vessels 

associated with Alternative A. No information has been presented that would tend to invalidate 

the analysis in the Programmatic EIS. 

Non-Routine Events 

The potential impacts of non-routine events on water quality are discussed in Section 4.1.1.2 

of this EA. Spills could occur during refueling or as the result of a collision. Since the 

anticipated meteorological towers would be located 7 or more miles offshore, if a diesel spill 

occurred in the WEAs, it is unlikely a diesel spill would reach the shore. If a diesel spill were to 

occur, it would be expected to dissipate very rapidly and biodegrade within a few days. From 

2000 to 2009, the average spill size for vessels other than tanker ships and tank barges was 88.36 

gallons (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, USCG, 2011). 

Litter on recreational beaches adversely affects the ambience of the beach environment, 

detracts from the enjoyment of beach activities, and increase administrative costs to maintain 

beaches. Due to the limited nature of the activities associated with Alternative A and their 

distance from shore, it is unlikely that recreational beaches in New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware 

and Virginia would be impacted by waterborne trash that may result from Alternative A. Any 

beached litter and debris which may result from Alternative A is unlikely to be perceptible to 

beach users or administrators given the amount of vessel traffic and debris currently traversing 

the coastal areas of these states. 

Conclusion 

Due to the distance of the proposed lease areas from shore, the fact that no new coastal 

infrastructure would be necessary, and the small amount of vessel traffic associated with 

Alternative A that would be present in any given recreational area (particularly given the existing 

amount of vessel traffic in these areas), no impacts to coastal recreational resources from routine 

activities or potential spills are expected. While impacts could occur from marine trash and 

debris, it is unlikely that any additional trash that could be associated with Alternative A would 

be perceptible. Potential impacts to recreational fishing are discussed in Section 4.1.3.6 of this 

EA. 

Proposed Mitigation Measure 

The following proposed mitigation measures are intended to reduce or eliminate the potential 

for adverse impacts to recreational resources from the accidental release of trash and debris. 

This section proposes that these mitigation measures be incorporated into the terms of a lease or 

SAP approval: 

To reduce or eliminate the risk of intentional and/or accidental introduction of debris into the 

marine environment all vessel operators, employees and contractors actively engaged in offshore 

136 
operations would be required to be briefed on marine trash and debris awareness and elimination. 

The lessee would also be required to ensure that its employees and contractors are made aware of 

the environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with marine trash and debris and their 

responsibilities for ensuring that trash and debris are not intentionally or accidentally discharged 

into the marine environment. 

4.1.3.3 Demographics and Employment 

4.1.3.3.1 Description of the Affected Environment 

Chapter 4.2.18 of the Programmatic EIS describes the heterogeneity of the Atlantic region’s 

sociocultural systems, which is reflected by a variety of demographic, employment, income, 

land-use, and infrastructure patterns in the coastal communities of the affected states. The 

Atlantic region consists of a number of contrasting types of economic areas, which include 

metropolitan areas and large urban areas with highly complex economic structures; urban areas 

that serve a smaller number of more specialized economic functions; and a large number of local 

and regional market areas with relatively simple economic structures and smaller, lessdiversified labor markets. Population and economic data for the shore adjacent counties of New 

Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia that would host onshore activities associated with 

Alternative A is presented in Table 4.12 below. 

Table 4.12 

Population and Economic Data for Shore Adjacent Counties 

of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia 

State Population Establishments Employment Wages 

New Jersey 4,603,659 134,919 1,988,958 $106,274,699,102

Delaware 873,092 28,417 412,760 $19,651,828,841

Maryland 2,770,774 72,708 1,254,334 $59,066,786,132

Virginia 2,164,775 60,172 1,107,847 $53,526,184,202

Sources: National Ocean Economics Program, 2011a and 2011b. 

4.1.3.3.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A 

Alternative A would require various support services primarily within the coastal counties of 

Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey. Due to the short duration of survey, 

construction, and decommissioning activities, any benefit to the population and economy would 

be short-term. Survey, construction, and decommissioning activities are not expected to employ 

many workers relative to the existing employment numbers (Table 4.12 above). Little activity 

would be associated with the maintenance and operation of the meteorological towers and buoys. 

Conclusion 

Alternative A is expected to have negligible but positive impacts on the population and 

employment of coastal counties of Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey that would 

provide support services for Alternative A. 

137 
4.1.3.4 Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629 (February 11, 1994)), requires Federal 

agencies to incorporate environmental justice as part of their missions. Specifically, it directs 

them to address, as appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their actions, programs, or policies on minority and low-income 

populations. See the Final Alternative Energy Programmatic EIS for a complete description of 

method of analysis (USDOI, MMS, 2007a, pp. 4-114 to 4-115,). 

Impact Analysis 

The anticipated leases would be located seven or more nm from the nearest shoreline. 

Therefore, the data gathering activities or construction occurring within the proposed lease areas 

would not have disproportionately high or adverse environmental or health effects on minority or 

low-income populations. Only the use of existing coastal facilities has the potential to impact 

minority or low-income populations. However, existing fabrication sites, staging areas, and 

ports would support survey, construction, operation and decommissioning activities as discussed 

in Section 4.1.3.5 of this EA. No expansion of these existing onshore areas is anticipated to 

support Alternative A. 

Conclusion 

Due to the distance from shore and the use of existing facilities, Alternative A is not expected 

to have disproportionately high or adverse environmental or health effects on minority or lowincome populations. 

4.1.3.5 Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure 

4.1.3.5.1 Description of the Affected Environment 

As described in Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of this EA, and discussed further below, existing 

ports or industrial areas in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia are expected to be used 

in support of Alternative A. Existing sites would be used for fabrication, as staging areas, and 

crew/cargo launch sites for the installation, operation, and decommissioning of meteorological 

towers and buoys, and to conduct surveys. Expansion of these existing facilities is not 

anticipated in support of the proposed survey, construction, operation, or decommissioning 

activities. Based on prior site assessment proposals, proximity to the lease blocks, capacity to 

handle the activities associated with Alterative A, and/or established business relationships 

between port facilities and potential lessees would be the key determinants of where a lessee 

would chose to stage its operations. Of the 149 largest ports (measured by annual cargo tonnage) 

in the United States, 35 are located along the East Coast (ERG, 2010). Because site 

characterization work is generally smaller in scale, infrastructure requirements are also likely to 

be smaller. Due to their proximity to the WEAs, the majority of the onshore activities associated 

with Alternative A would take place at nine major ports and 28 smaller ports in New Jersey, 

Delaware, Maryland and Virginia as described in the following section. 

138 
4.1.3.5.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A 

Site Characterization Surveys 

To survey the WEAs and potential cable routes, site characterization surveys would have to 

be conducted by multiple vessels and likely over several years per leasehold due to the number 

of survey miles projected. The Atlantic survey industry is not as established as the Gulf of 

Mexico industry, which primarily serves the oil and gas exploration and production industry. 

Survey ships in the Gulf of Mexico are generally 170 to 200 ft long and require a diesel refueling 

station. Because there is a smaller number of East Coast survey companies, lessees may be 

limited to where survey operations can launch from. For Atlantic surveys, vessels only 65 to 100 

ft long would be necessary. Vessels must be able to accommodate a crew for several days and 

large enough to mount enough cable to tow survey instruments. Construction vessels may 

require facilities with large cranes to load and unload large pieces of equipment, which would 

require a commercial port (Irion, personal communication, 2011). 

Vessels conducting HRG surveys and sub-bottom sampling work can either depart from one 

of the 35 large commercial ports or 129 smaller commercial ports (if those ports meet the 

requirements of the expedition) along the Eastern Seaboard. Because the research vessels that 

are used for HRG surveys and bottom sampling are smaller than most commercial vessels and 

require a smaller navigation channel depth, expeditions can depart out of most commercial ports. 

The proximity of a survey contractor to the lease blocks and/or established business relationships 

between ports and contractors would likely be the key determinants of where survey work would 

originate. 

Site Assessment Activities 

A meteorological tower platform would be constructed or fabricated onshore at a facility 

called a platform fabrication yard. Production operations at fabrication yards would include 

cutting, welding, and assembling of steel components. The yards occupy large areas with 

equipment including lifts and cranes, welding equipment, rolling mills, and sandblasting 

machinery. The location of these fabrication yards is directly tied to the availability of a large 

enough channel that would allow the towing of these bulky and long structures. The average 

bulkhead depth needed for water access to fabrications yards is 15-20 ft. A fabricator must also 

consider other physical limitations, such as the ability to clear bridges and navigate tight corners 

within channels. Thus, platform fabrication yards must be located at deep-draft seaports or along 

wider and deeper inland channels. The meteorological tower would likely be manufactured at a 

commercial facility in sections, and then shipped by truck, rail, or sea to the onshore staging 

area. The meteorological tower would be partially assembled and loaded onto a barge for 

transport to the installation site. Final assembly of the tower would be completed offshore. 

Therefore, BOEM assumes that the staging areas for meteorological towers would be the 35 

larger commercial ports in the Mid-Atlantic States. 

A meteorological buoy can vary in height, breadth hull type and anchoring method. There 

are several meteorological buoy manufacturers located domestically with headquarters in 

Colorado, California and Florida (JCOMMOPS, 2011). International meteorological buoy 

manufacturers and designers are also likely competitors with domestic firms. Deepwater Wind, 

LLC is currently assembling a buoy that was manufactured in Norway and then trucked into the 

Rhode Island facility. Once constructed, the 15-ton buoy would be barged to a testing location 

(Kuffner, 2010). Whether the buoys originate domestically or internationally, it is likely that for 

future assessment work, buoys would arrive from manufacturers to lessee’s staging areas by 

139 
truck, rail or sea, then be assembled and fitted with instrumentation and tested before deployment 

via a vessel with enough deck space to accommodate a structure potentially up to 12 m as well as 

a crane to lower the buoy into the sea (USDOC, NOAA, 2007). Therefore, BOEM assumes that 

the staging areas for meteorological buoys would be the same 35 larger commercial ports in the 

Mid-Atlantic States that would accommodate staging for meteorological towers. 

Currently there are four proposed OCS wind energy-related projects in various states of 

planning for the installation of meteorological towers and/or buoys off the coasts of New Jersey 

and Delaware, including Bluewater Wind New Jersey, LLC; Fishermen’s Energy of New Jersey, 

LLC; and Deepwater Wind, LLC. Fishermen’s Energy has proposed using Barney’s Dock in the 

smaller Atlantic City Port. Bluewater has proposed the Port of Wilmington, Delaware as the 

fabrication site and staging area for construction and installation for its proposals off of Delaware 

and New Jersey. Bluewater would also use the Delaware Bay Launch located in the town of 

Milford, Delaware and the Indian River Marina located in the town of Rehoboth Beach, 

Delaware as crew boat and/or small cargo barge launch sites to support construction and 

operation activities. Deepwater Wind, on the other hand demonstrates that an established 

relationship with a particular port or area may be a stronger determinant of where companies 

would centralize their operations. Deepwater has proposed using a site in Rhode Island to 

manufacture its 105-ft-tall floating “spar buoy” and plans on deploying the buoy by barge to 

Block Island, RI for testing purposes, then finally shipped to its New Jersey lease area (Kuffner, 

2010). 

Vessel Traffic

Over 12,000 round trips are anticipated from site characterization and assessment activities 

associated with Alternative A over a five and half year period, if the entire area of each WEA 

were to be leased and the maximum amount of site characterization surveys were to be 

conducted in the leased areas of the WEAs. These trips would be divided among nine major and 

28 smaller existing ports in Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia. Due to proximity, it 

is assumed the majority of traffic associated with site characterization and assessment of the 

Virginia WEA (about 2,800 round trips) would be supported by the 3 major and 9 smaller ports 

in Virginia (see Sections 3.1.2.6 and 3.1.3.4 of this EA). If all ports are used equally, this would 

average about 43 round trips per year to each of the Virginia ports. Based simply on the number 

of ports in each state, traffic associated with site characterization and assessment of the WEAs 

offshore New Jersey (about 6,400 round trips), Delaware (about 1,100 round trips) and 

Maryland (about 1,700 round trips) would be divided as follows: over half of the traffic 

supported by 3 major and 11 smaller ports in New Jersey; and the remainder of the traffic split 

between 3 major and 8 smaller ports in Delaware and Maryland. If all ports are used equally, 

this would average about 67 round trips per year to each of the ports in New Jersey, Delaware 

and Maryland (see Sections 3.1.2.6 and 3.1.3.4 of this EA). 

140 
New Jersey 

Of the 35 largest ports (measured by annual cargo tonnage) along the East Coast, New Jersey 

is home to three of these ports: Camden, Paulsboro and Trenton. With a 40-ft main channel 

depth, four terminals with eight berths between them, 1 multipurpose bulk/container crane with a 

capacity of 95 tons, and direct access to highways I-676, I-76, Rte. 130 and I-295, and rail access 

via Rail Connections CP Rail System, CSX, and Norfolk Southern, the Port of Camden is wellpositioned to provide a link within the OCS wind supply chain (ERG, 2010). New Jersey is also 

home to the joint New York/New Jersey Port which maintains a 45-ft main channel depth and 0-

24, 25-49, 50-100, 100+ Ton Lifts as well as fixed, mobile and floating cranes (World Port 

Source, 2011). Several major ports, both within the state of New Jersey and in surrounding 

states, exist near the WEA offshore New Jersey that are suitable to support the fabrication and 

staging of meteorological towers or buoys. Some of these ports include the Port of New York 

and industrial ports accessible via the Delaware Bay and Delaware River in Delaware and 

Pennsylvania (Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation and AWS Scientific, Inc., 2004). For 

HRG surveys and bottom sampling, New Jersey has eleven smaller ports with varying capacities 

including Atlantic City that may be used (ERG, 2010). 

Maryland 

Of the 35 largest ports (measured by annual cargo tonnage) along the East Coast, Baltimore, 

Maryland is one of these ports. With 16 cargo terminals and facilities, 13 berths, a 50-ft main 

channel depth, as well as access to I-95, I-395, I-695, and intermodal connections to CSX 

Intermodal and Norfolk Southern, Baltimore is well positioned to provide a link within the OCS 

wind supply chain (ERG, 2010). There are several major ports in surrounding states near the 

WEA offshore Maryland that are suitable to support the fabrication and staging of 

meteorological towers or buoys. Some of these ports include the Port of New York and New 

Jersey and industrial ports accessibly via the Delaware Bay and Delaware River in New Jersey, 

Delaware, and Pennsylvania (Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation and AWS Scientific, Inc., 

2004). For HRG surveys and bottom sampling, Maryland has five smaller ports with varying 

capacities that includes Annapolis (World Port Source, 2011) that may be used. 

 

Delaware 

Of the 35 largest ports (measured by annual cargo tonnage) in the United States, located 

along the East Coast, Delaware is home to two of these ports: New Castle and Wilmington. The 

Port of Wilmington is an existing 308-acre onshore industrial site with access to port 

infrastructure including seven deepwater general cargo berths, a tanker berth, and a floating berth 

for roll-on roll-off (Ro-Ro) container vessels on the Christina River, and an automobile and RoRo berth on the Delaware River. The Port of Wilmington is the busiest terminal on the Delaware 

River handling over 400 vessels per year (Port of Wilmington, 2011). The Port of Wilmington 

also has truck access via I-95 and rail via CSX and Norfolk Southern (ERG, 2010). “The 

Delaware Bay is home to the world’s largest freshwater port and a strategic national port. The 

port receives over 3,000 commercial vessel arrivals annually carrying over 78 million metric tons 

of cargo worth over $47 billion. This steadily increasing trend in vessel traffic is projected to 

double by 2020” (Marriott and Frantz, 2007). 

Several major ports in surrounding states exist near the WEA offshore Delaware that are 

suitable to support the fabrication and staging of meteorological towers or buoys. Some of these 

ports include the Port of New York and New Jersey and industrial ports accessibly via the 

141 
Delaware Bay and Delaware River in New Jersey and Pennsylvania (Atlantic Renewable Energy 

Corporation and AWS Scientific, Inc., 2004). For HRG surveys and bottom sampling, Delaware 

has three smaller ports that may be used. 

 

Virginia 

Of the 35 largest ports located along the East Coast, three of these ports are located in 

Virginia: Hampton Roads, Hopewell and Richmond. With a 50-ft main channel depth, 4 cargo 

terminals, 18 berths, a Ro-Ro berth, and several post-Panamax cranes, access to several interstate 

systems and railways, as well as an initiative to use more environmentally-friendly equipment, 

the Port of Virginia (which is comprised of the three marine terminals in the Hampton Roads 

area) is well-positioned to provide a link within OCS wind supply chain (Rondof, 2009; ERG, 

2010). For HRG surveys and bottom sampling, Virginia has nine smaller ports including several 

located within the Hampton Roads area that may be used (World Port Source, 2011). 

Conclusion 

Existing ports or industrial areas are expected to be used, and expansion of these existing 

facilities is not anticipated to support Alternative A. No significant impact on land use or coastal 

infrastructure is expected. 

4.1.3.6 Commercial and Recreational Fishing Activities 

4.1.3.6.1 Description of the Affected Environment 

The area encompassed by the Mid-Atlantic WEAs is used actively for both commercial and 

recreational fishing. The following section discusses these activities in the context proposed 

action in the WEAs. An overview of commercial and recreational fishing for the entire Atlantic 

region is discussed in Chapters 4.2.23.1 and 4.2.23.2 of the Programmatic EIS, respectively. 

Section 4.1.2.7 of this EA discusses fish and fish habitat present in the Mid-Atlantic WEAs. 

More information regarding fish habitat can be found at on the NMFS website 

(http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/) and information on mid-Atlantic fishery management plans can 

be found on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council website (http://www.mafmc.org/). 

Recreational Fishing 

The Mid-Atlantic region boasts an active recreational fishing sector in coastal waters and in 

waters over the WEAs. Between 2008 and 2010, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia 

averaged 550,000, 24,000, 67,500, and 54,250 recreational fishing trips in Federal waters 

respectively (USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, Office of Science and Technology, 2011). The top 

recreational fish species by weight in the Mid-Atlantic for the same time period were bluefish, 

black sea bass, Atlantic striped bass, and dolphin (USDOC, NOAA, NMFS Office of Science 

and Technology, 2011). Figures 4.3 and 4.4 below show recreational fishing effort density in 

and around the Mid-Atlantic WEAs; using NMFS vessel trip report data for chartered fishing 

vessels and recreational fishing party vessels. The data is a sum of the total days fished for the 

calendar year period 2004 – 2008. Spatial angling data from private fishing vessels is not 

available. 

142 
Figure 4.2. Recreational charter boat fishing effort 2004-2008. 

143 
Figure 4.3. Recreational party boat fishing effort 2004-2008. 

Commercial Fishing 

The most important species by dollar value present in and around the Mid-Atlantic WEAs are 

sea scallops, surfclams, ocean quahogs, menhaden, striped bass, and blue crab (USDOC, NOAA, 

NMFS, Office of Science and Technology, 2011). The total landed commercial fishery weight 

and value for each state in 2009 is presented in Table 4.13. However, it should be noted that that 

state of landing may not reflect the area from which the fishery is prosecuted. For instance, 

Federal regulations prohibit striped bass fishing beyond 3 miles from shore (50 CFR 697.7(b)), 

blue crab is primarily an estuarine species, and ocean quahogs are generally harvested in deeper 

and/or colder waters than those directly adjacent to New Jersey where they are landed. Figure 

4.4 shows commercial fishing effort for all gear types in the Mid-Atlantic WEAs. The data is a 

sum of the total days fished from NMFS’ vessel trip reports in each 10 minute (approximately 10 

nm) square block for the calendar year period, 2004 – 2008. 

144 
Table 4.13 

Total Commercial Fishery Landed Weight and Value in 2009 

State Metric Tons Pounds $ 

Delaware 2,272.60 5,010,175 7,535,780 

New Jersey 73,300.80 161,598,836 149,032,131 

Maryland 30,986.60 68,312,955 76,057,117 

Virginia 193,346.80 426,252,313 152,729,830 

Total 299,906.80 661,174,279.00 385,354,858.00 

 Source: USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, Office of Science and Technology, 2011. 

Fishing Ports 

The Mid-Atlantic is home to some of the top national commercial fishing ports by value and 

landed weight. Table 4.14 shows the National ranking top ports by value adjacent to the MidAtlantic WEAs. 

Table 4.14 

Top Ports by National Value Rank Adjacent to WEAs 

Rank Port(s) State Millions of Pounds Millions of Dollars 

5 Cape May-Wildwood NJ 63.9 73.4 

6 Hampton Roads Area VA 18 68.1 

34 Reedville VA 349.4 25.9 

39 Point Pleasant NJ 18.4 20.2 

Source: USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, Office of Science and Technology, 2011. 

145 
Figure 4.4. Annual Commercial Fishing – All Gear. 

4.1.3.6.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A 

The following section discusses the reasonably foreseeable impacts associated with 

Alternative A on commercial and recreational fishing activities in the Mid-Atlantic WEAs. 

Alternative A has two primary activities that could impact commercial and recreational fishing 

activities. These activities are: Routine activities (e.g., deployment and operation of a 

meteorological buoy or construction of a meteorological tower, and vessel traffic from surveys); 

and non-routine activities (e.g., allision with structures and accidental fuel discharge). The 

potential effects to commercial and recreational fishing activities can be grouped into two broad 

categories: (1) displacement; and (2) target species availability. Chapter 5.2.23.2 of the 

Programmatic EIS discusses impacts of typical site characterization and assessment activities on 

commercial and recreational species, while Section 4.1.2.7.2 of this EA discusses impacts 

specific to Alternative A on fish species and their habitat. 

Routine Activities 

Fishing Displacement 

During site characterization and the installation of meteorological buoys and towers, fishing 

vessels (primarily recreational party and recreational charter vessels) could be excluded from 

fishing grounds for short durations in order to avoid conflicts with survey vessels and/or 

146 
construction vessels. It is anticipated that during installation and decommissioning of a 

meteorological tower or buoy, a radius of about 1,500 ft around the site would be needed for the 

movement and anchoring of support vessels. It is estimated to take 1 to 3 days to install a 

meteorological buoy and 1 to 10 weeks to install a meteorological tower (see Section 3.1.3 

regarding meteorological tower construction scenario). Displacement during site 

characterization surveys is estimated to be on the order of hours versus days. Site 

characterization surveys, and construction and decommissioning activities would likely occur 

during spring and summer months, which overlaps with both recreational and commercial 

fishing seasons (see Section 3.1.2 regarding site characterization scenario). 

Sections 3.1.3.1 and 3.1.3.2 describe Alternative A and the estimated footprint of a 

meteorological tower and buoy. The area of ocean bottom affected by a meteorological tower or 

buoy would range from about two hundred square ft if supported by a monopole to a couple 

thousand square ft if supported by a jacket foundation. Fishing activities would be precluded 

from the footprint of the meteorological observation platform. However, it is not anticipated that 

recreational and commercial fishing activities would be precluded from the immediate area 

outside the footprint. Since there is no electricity transmitted from met observation platforms, 

there are no electrical cables connecting the structures to shore or to other structures. It is likely 

that tying up to the structure by a vessel would be prohibited by the project developer as it is 

private property. If a vessel were to tie up to a meteorological buoy it could result in: (1) the 

movement of the buoy from its mooring location, resulting in further benthic impacts; (2) loss of 

some of the data if measuring or transmitting devices are damaged. Additionally, unauthorized 

tie-ups to buoys or towers could result in harm to the vessel and its occupants if it becomes 

damaged through hard impacts with the structure. The temporary displacement from projectrelated vessel traffic avoidance and construction activity is not anticipated to result in any 

measurable economic loss due to decreased fish catches or from reduced access to fishery 

resources. 

It is very unlikely that activities associated with Alternative A would affect commercial 

fishing, as the majority of commercial fishing effort is outside the WEAs (see Figure 4.4). 

Although commercial fishing vessels could transit the WEAs, it is unlikely that survey activities 

or construction activities (projected to temporarily occupy less than one percent of the WEAs) 

would unreasonably interfere with access to the active fisheries beyond the WEAs. 

Any of the anticipated meteorological towers would be removed to at least 5 m (15 ft) below 

the mudline to ensure that nothing would be exposed that could interfere with future lessees and 

other activities in the area (30 CFR 585.910). Once the meteorological towers are removed, the 

proposed sites would pose no obstacle to commercial or recreational fishing. 

There are numerous port and marina locations shoreward of the Mid-Atlantic WEAs that 

may be utilized by commercial fishing vessels, recreational vessels, and project vessels. The 

projected number of vessel trips at any of these ports or marinas would be negligible (see

Sections 3.1.2.6 and 3.1.3.4 of this EA). 

Disturbances to Fish Resources 

Fish resources could be temporarily affected by acoustic surveys associated with site 

characterization activities and by pile-driving activities associated with the installation of 

meteorological towers. The most substantial would be the acute acoustics associated with pile 

driving. It is anticipated that any fish in the immediate area of pile driving would flee upon 

commencement of activities. Moreover, soft-start pile driving is industry practice, and would 

147 
likely be required by NMFS to ensure that marine mammals are not affected by the activity. 

However, if fish do not flee the area during the soft start pile driving procedure there could be 

limited mortality. Also during platform installation there would be increased turbidity resulting 

in temporary habitat loss. Post construction, it is expected that there would be both positive and 

negative impacts to fish habitat which would be negated in any case after decommissioning (see

Sections 4.1.2.2 and 4.1.2.7 for a full discussion of benthic habitat and fish impacts, 

respectively). These impacts are not expected to have population-levels effect that would impact 

fisheries and the availability of fish to catch within or between fishing seasons. 

Non-Routine Events 

The potential impacts of non-routine events on water quality are discussed in Section 

4.1.1.1.2 of this EA. During the various phases of Alternative A, multiple sources of diesel fuel 

would be present in vessels, generators, and pile driving hammers. Spills could occur during 

refueling or as the result of a collision. These would disperse, evaporate and biodegrade within a 

few days (see Section 3.2.3 of this EA). From 2000 – 2009, the average spill size for vessels 

other than tank ships and tank barges were 88.6 gallons (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

USCG, 2011), and, should Alternative A result in a spill in any given area, BOEM anticipates 

that the average volume would be the same. If such a diesel spill were to occur, it would be 

expected to dissipate very rapidly, and would evaporate and biodegrade within a few days, 

resulting in negligible impact. 

Conclusion 

The increase in vessel traffic, and activities related to the installation/operation of the 

meteorological towers and buoys would not measurably impact commercial or recreational 

fishing activities, total catch of fish and shellfish, or navigation over any substantial period of 

time. Any impacts, such as localized fishing displacement and/or target species availability 

within the immediate area of activities associated with Alternative A, would be of short duration, 

limited area, and temporary, and result in negligible, if detectible, impact to fishing. 

Proposed Mitigation Measures 

The following proposed mitigation measure is intended to reduce or eliminate the potential 

for adverse impacts to commercial and recreational fishing. This section proposes that this 

mitigation measure be incorporated into any future decision to issue a lease or approve a SAP: 

Notification of Fishermen: To reduce potential economic impacts on commercial fishermen, 

lessees would be required to notify fishermen of construction and decommissioning activities via 

the USCG Local Notice to Mariners and daily broadcasts on Marine Channel 16. The 

notification would allow commercial and recreational fishermen to plan fishing trips to avoid the 

area where the activity would be taking place. This measure would save both time, fuel, and 

reduce the potential of any site use conflicts. 

148 
4.1.3.7 Other Uses of the OCS 

4.1.3.7.1 Description of the Affected Environment 

The vessel traffic and structures associated with Alternative A could pose a conflict with 

other existing and future uses of the OCS, including military activities, NASA activities, marine 

transportation, radar, other renewable energy activities, and the Marine Minerals Program 

(MMP). These activities are discussed below. Commercial and recreational fishing and 

recreational boating are discussed in Sections 4.1.3.6 and 4.1.3.2 of this EA, respectively. 

Military Activities 

Chapter 4.2.16 of the Programmatic EIS discusses the numerous military use areas off the 

Atlantic Coast where the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Special Operations Forces 

conduct various testing, training and operational missions. The WEAs are located in naval 

operating areas (OPAREAs), which are offshore areas where the Navy conducts training 

exercises, military warning areas and restricted areas. Navy fleet and Marine Corps amphibious 

warfare training occurs nearly every day all along the east coast in these areas, as well as open 

ocean areas (USDOI, MMS, 2007a). The level of activity varies from unit-level training to fullscale Carrier/Expeditionary Strike Group pre-deployment certification exercises. Military 

aircraft test and train within special use airspace overlying the coast and in offshore warning 

areas (USDOI, MMS, 2007a). The U.S. Navy, USCG, Air Force and Air National Guard are 

responsible for various search and rescue missions that may be conducted anywhere on the 

Atlantic coast, including the areas in and near the WEAs. This may include the use of low flying 

aircraft and helicopters offshore. 

The Atlantic City OPAREA is an area used for surface, sub-surface and air warfare training 

exercises located off the coast of New Jersey (Global Security, 2011). Approximately 40 OCS 

blocks in the New Jersey WEA are located in Warning Area 107A (W-107A) and roughly 1 1⁄2 

OCS blocks are located in Warning Area 107C (W-107C). The W-107A and W-107C areas are 

designated special use airspace over the Atlantic City OPAREA and are used for surface-to-air 

gunnery exercises using conventional ordnance and exercises (Global Security, 2011). The 

Virginia Capes OPAREA (VACAPES) is located off the Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and 

North Carolina coasts (see Figure 4.5 of this EA). The north boundary of the VACAPES 

OPAREA is located 37 nm off the entrance to Delaware Bay at latitude 38o45’ N, the farthest 

eastern boundary is 184 nm east of Chesapeake Bay at longitude 72o41’ W, and the western 

boundary lies approximately 3nm off the coastline (Dept of Navy, 2008). The entire Delaware 

and Maryland WEAs, and approximately half of the Virginia WEA are located within the 

VACAPES OPAREA. Additionally, roughly half of the Delaware WEA and the entire 

Maryland WEA are located in Warning Area 386 (W-386). The W-386 air, surface, and subsurface areas are utilized extensively to conduct air-to-air, air-to-surface, surface-to-air, and 

surface-to-surface missile exercises, gunnery exercises, and rocket exercises using conventional 

ordnance. Additional naval activities include supersonic flight operations, mine warfare training, 

and laser operations. When W-386 airspace is not in use for military activities it may be released 

to the FAA (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2008). The Virginia WEA also includes part of the 

W-387 surface transit corridor. 

149 
NASA Activities and Wallops Flight Facility 

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center’s Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) is located on Virginia’s 

Eastern Shore between the Virginia and Maryland WEAs (see Figure 4.5 of this EA). Portions 

of the Maryland WEA are located within the range of a U.S. Navy radar facility located at WFF 

and used to track launch and flight activities conducted by NASA and its partners. The radar 

may be used to track air-to-air, air-to-surface, surface-to-air, and surface-to-surface missile 

exercises, gunnery exercises, aircraft flights and rocket launches. When the Wallops Island radar 

is not in use for range support activities it may be released to the FAA (U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 2008). 

150 
Figure 4.5. Military Activity Areas and Uses. 

Marine Transportation 

The general description of vessel traffic along the North Atlantic coast is incorporated here 

by reference and can be found in Chapter 4.2.17 of the Programmatic EIS (USDOI, MMS, 

2007a). There are many major ports in the vicinity of the WEAs (see Section 4.1.3.5, Land Use 

151 
and Coastal Ports Infrastructure of this EA). Vessels using these ports include military, 

commercial, recreational, and research vessels. Additionally, offshore waterways or shipping 

lanes are often not designated on navigational charts; and instead vessels follow routes 

determined by their destination, depth requirements, and weather conditions (Dept of Navy, 

2008). Section 4.1.3.6 of this EA has information on recreational and commercial fishing vessel 

activity. 

Shipping densities and vessel types vary along the Atlantic seaboard, with the highest vessel 

density levels associated with access routes to the major Atlantic ports. Commercial vessel 

traffic typically concentrates at the entrances of large bays, such as the Chesapeake and 

Delaware Bays. These two bays provide access to several major U.S. east coast ports, including 

Baltimore, Maryland; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Wilmington, Delaware; and the Hampton 

Roads area of Virginia. The Virginia WEA, near the entrance to Chesapeake Bay, has higher 

shipping densities and greater concentrations of commercial vessel traffic than the New Jersey 

WEA. Additionally, the Delaware and Maryland WEAs, adjacent to the entrance of Delaware 

Bay, also have similarly higher levels of shipping density and traffic concentrations than the 

New Jersey WEA (see Figure 4.6). 

To facilitate organized, safe access to major ports, a non-mandatory TSS has been defined by 

the USCG near the mouths of both the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. Commercial shipping in 

the area of major ports and bays is managed by TSSs and precautionary areas designated by 33 

CFR 167 (see Figure 4.6). While not mandatory, insurance and ship owner requirements often 

mandate the use of TSS routes, due to collision avoidance and other safety issues (U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security, USCG, personal communication, 2011). 

The Delaware Bay TSS consists of two approaches (SE and NE), a two-way traffic route, and 

a precautionary area located shoreward of the approaches (see Figure 2). Each approach consists 

of an inbound and outbound lane, the exact coordinates of which are defined in 33 CFR 167.170 

– 167.172. A two-way traffic route is located along the north side of the TSS and is 

recommended by the USCG for use by tug and tow traffic entering or leaving the bay (33 CFR 

167.173). A precautionary area is located on the shoreward side of the TSS (Dept of Navy, 

2008). None of the Mid-Atlantic WEAs overlap with an existing TSS (see Figure 4.6). 

The Maryland WEA is located at its nearest point approximately 1 nm from the southern 

approach (SE) TSS to Delaware Bay. The Delaware WEA is located adjacent to both TSS 

approaches (SE and NE), to Delaware Bay. At the nearest point, the Delaware WEA is 500 m 

from the TSS boundary line for the SE and NE approaches. See Figure 4.6. 

The Virginia WEA is located approximately 10 nm seaward of the Chesapeake Bay TSS. 

See Figure 4.6. The Chesapeake Bay TSS consists of two approaches (southern and eastern) and 

a two-mile radius precautionary area located shoreward of the approaches. The southern 

approach also consists of an inbound and outbound lane; however, between the lanes is a deepwater route to be used by ships both inbound and outbound with drafts 42 ft. or greater in 

freshwater, and for naval aircraft carriers. Ships drawing less than 42 ft. may use the deep-water 

route when, in their master’s judgment, the effect of ship characteristics, its speed and prevailing 

environment conditions may cause the draft of the ship to exceed or equal 42 feet (see Figure 

4.6; International Maritime Organization (IMO) ships’ Routeing Guide, 2010 edition). The 

eastern approach has an inbound and an outbound lane, the exact coordinates of which are 

defined in 33 CFR 167.200 – 167.203, with a no-transit area between each lane designated to 

keep the opposing traffic lanes separate. Ships frequently anchor in the vicinity of TSSs, in 

unofficial anchorage areas, while waiting to go to port. This occurs particularly offshore of 

152 
Delaware Bay (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, USCG, personal communication, 2008). 

Authority to create official anchorage grounds in the territorial sea, out to 12 nm, was received 

by the USCG under the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-281; U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security, USCG, personal communication, 2011). In June 2010 the USCG notified 

BOEM of its intention to establish an anchorage ground east of and adjacent to the SE approach 

to Delaware Bay (see Figure 2.1) (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, USCG, 2011). As 

discussed in Chapter 1 of this EA, this area has been removed from the Delaware WEA. There 

are currently no proposed anchorage areas in the vicinity of the Virginia WEA. 

Maritime commercial shipping vessel traffic is an important component of United States 

commerce, and both the Delaware and Chesapeake Bays experience large amounts of maritime 

vessel traffic annually. In 2010, the top ten U.S. ports accounted for 58% of all oceangoing 

vessel calls; three of those ports are accessed through the Delaware and Chesapeake Bays. 

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration, 7,559 oceangoing 

vessels made 62,747 calls at U.S. ports in 2010 (USDOT, MARAD, 2011a). Of these calls, 35% 

were by tankers, 31% were by containerships, 17% were by dry bulk vessels, 9% were by roll 

on – roll off vessels carrying vehicles for import and export, and 6% were by general cargo ships 

(USDOT, MARAD, 2011a). The Virginia Ports, VA, which includes all Hampton Roads area 

ports (e.g., Norfolk, Newport News, and Portsmouth), is ranked the third largest port in the U.S. 

for both dry bulk and container vessel calls; Philadelphia, PA is the sixth largest port for tanker 

calls; and Baltimore, Maryland is the nation’s largest port for roll on – roll off vessel calls. 

Currently, the Virginia Ports is the fifth busiest port in the U.S with 3,021 vessel calls; and 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Baltimore, Maryland are ranked ninth and tenth with 2,022 and 

2,011 vessel calls each, respectively (USDOT, MARAD, 2011a). 

The United States freight tonnage of all types, including exports, imports, and domestic 

shipments, is expected to grow 73% by 2035 from 2008 levels (USDOT, MARAD, 2011b). 

Traffic density and commercial vessel sizes are also expected to increase in the future to reflect 

this estimated increase in shipments. Completion of the Panama Canal widening project in 2014 

will double the Canal’s tonnage volume by 2025 and allow larger vessels access to the east coast 

ports of the United States (Panama Canal Authority, 2006). Additionally, the establishment of 

the U.S. Maritime Administration America’s Marine Highway program in 2008 created a 

program to transfer commercial transportation from land routes to coastal waterways in an effort 

to reduce greenhouse gases and traffic congestion along the east coast (USDOT, MARAD, 

2011b). In August, 2010 the Secretary of Transportation identified a Marine Highway Corridor 

extending from Miami, Florida to Portland, Maine (USDOT, MARAD, 2011b). 

Increased vessel traffic associated with site characterization surveys, and the construction, 

operation, and decommissioning of meteorological towers/buoys could occur simultaneously, 

and possibly overlap, with these projected increases in current vessel traffic levels from both the 

widening of the Panama Canal and the designation of the M-95 Marine Highway Corridor. 

Offshore waterways or shipping lanes are often not designated on navigational charts; instead 

vessels follow routes determined by their destination, depth requirements, and weather 

conditions (Dept of Navy, 2008). Commercial shipping traffic is often located outside USCG 

recommended routes and traffic schemes out in the open sea (U.S. Department of Navy, 2008). 

BOEM and the USCG jointly identified heavily used marine vessel traffic routes (see Figures 

4.7(a), (b) and(c)) from known vessel routing measures and analysis of existing Automatic 

Information System (AIS) data for the Mid-Atlantic WEAs, concentrating on areas near the 

entrances to the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. AIS is a maritime safety communications 

153 
system standardized by the International Telecommunications Union and adopted by the 

International Maritime Organization (IMO) that provides vessel information, including, type, 

position, course, speed and other safety-related information authomatically to appropriately 

equipped shore stations, other ships, and aircraft (U.S Department of Homeland Security, USCG, 

Navigation Center, 2011). It is required equipment on all vessels greater than 300 gross tons. 

Since AIA transponders are not required on vessels < 300 gross tons, its usefulness in analysis is 

limited and reflects only a portion of total vessel traffic. These areas are identified in Figures 

4.7(a) and (c). 

Additionally, tug and towboat routes are also often not designated on navigational charts; 

instead tug/ towboats follow routes determined by their destination, depth requirements, and 

weather. These vessels are smaller than commercial shipping vessel traffic, slower than 

commercial vessels when towing, and often avoid areas with larger vessels for safety and 

navigational reasons. Unofficial tug/towboat routes were identified through discussions between 

BOEM and maritime stakeholders at the following meetings: Baltimore Harbor Safety and 

Coordination Committee meeting December 8, 2010; Mariners’ Advisory Committee for the Bay 

and River Delaware (MAC) meeting December 9, 2010; MAC Wind Energy Working Group 

meeting April 27, 2011; and the Virginia Maritime Stakeholder meeting June 10, 2011. In 

addition, public comments received in response to the Maryland Request for Interest (November, 

2010); the Delaware Call for Information (June, 2010) in the Federal Register; and the NOI for 

this EA in the Federal Register (February, 2011) provided information on traditional vessel 

usage of tug/towboat routes along the Mid-Atlantic coastline that confirmed the locations of 

unofficial routes previously identified in meetings between BOEM and maritime stakeholders 

(see Figures 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, and 2.3). An unofficial but heavily used tug/towboat route exists along 

the Mid-Atlantic coast connecting New York to Norfolk, Virginia near the coastline and adjacent 

to all four WEAs. This route is used to reduce vessel congestion along other navigation routes, 

and reduce fuel consumption, air emissions and journey time (AWO, 2010). The American 

Waterways Operators (AWO), a national trade association for the tugboat, towboat, and barge 

industry, identified two important unofficial heavily used tug/towboat routes occur near the 

Virginia WEA: (1) a route 6 – 8 nm offshore Virginia used by tugs/towboats when approaching 

or exiting the Chesapeake Bay; and (2) another route 35 nm off the Virginia shore near the 

Chesapeake Bay for traffic operating north and south bound connecting ports of New York to 

ports of Florida (AWO (b), 2011). Traffic using these routes often must alter course in periods 

of adverse weather or rough seas that could conflict with Alternative A. The Virginia WEA is 

located as near as ~10nm and as far as ~40 nm offshore Chesapeake Bay and is close to these 

unofficial tug/towboat routes. Another unofficial tug/towboat route exists through a portion of 

the Maryland WEA bisecting at roughly a 45-degree angle from the SW corner towards the NE 

side (Broadley, 2010). 

The USCG anticipates providing BOEM with additional navigational safety 

recommendations upon completion of the Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study (ACPARS) in 

May 2012. The goal of the ACPARS (see 76 FR 27788 (May 11, 2011)) is to enhance 

navigational safety by examining existing shipping routes and waterway uses, and, to the extent 

practicable, reconcile the paramount right of navigation within designated port access routes with 

other reasonable waterway uses, such as the leasing of OCS blocks for construction and 

operation of offshore renewable energy facilities. The ACPARS will focus on the coastwise 

shipping routes and near coastal users between Western Atlantic coastal ports, approaches to 

coastal ports, and future uses of those ports (including impacts of the widening of the Panama 

154 
Canal in 2012). The ACPARS will include analysis of current vessel traffic density, fishing 

vessel information, and agency and stakeholder experience in vessel traffic management, 

navigation, ship handling, and effects of weather. The data gathered during the ACPARS may 

result in the establishment of new vessel routing measures, modification of existing routing 

measures, or disestablishment of some existing routing measures of the Atlantic coast from 

Maine to Florida. More specifically, the ACPARS study results may recommend that the USCG 

modify the existing TSSs, create one or more precautionary areas, and/or identify area(s) to be 

avoided. 

Radar 

There are numerous military and civilian radar systems that provide radar coverage along the 

U.S. coastline. Radar can experience signal interference from tower-like structures and the 

radar’s ability can be degraded by this interference; meteorological towers could affect nearby 

radar usage and abilities. BOEM consulted with the FAA on Alternative A of this EA. On April 

22, 2011 the FAA responded that interference would be negligible from meteorological towers to 

radar systems unless the towers are situated within a quarter mile of active radar, which is not 

anticipated (Edgett-Baron, personal communication, 2011). 

Other Renewable Energy Projects 

There are other reasonably foreseeable renewable energy activities offshore the Mid-Atlantic 

coast that could occur in the same timeframe as Alternative A in both state waters and on the 

OCS. Figure 4.6 denotes the locations of these proposed projects. 

State Waters 

In state waters, the USACE is currently reviewing an application for a proposed project to 

install six wind turbine generators approximately 2.8 miles east of Atlantic City, New Jersey 

(ACOE, 2010). 

155 
Figure 4.6. Interim Policy leases, traffic separation schemes and the proposed Atlantic 

Wind Connect project. 

156 
Interim Policy Leases on the OCS 

BOEM issued four Interim Policy leases on the OCS offshore New Jersey and Delaware in 

November 2009 for wind resource data collection facilities (meteorological towers/buoys). 

Under these Interim Policy leases, the lessee has the right to install a meteorological tower or 

buoys for the purposes of assessing the wind and ocean resources on the lease. The 

environmental impacts associated with these leases were discussed in the Interim Policy EA. If 

the holder of an Interim Policy lease wishes to propose a commercial wind energy project, it 

must first acquire a commercial lease of an appropriate size (Interim Policy leases do not 

contemplate development, and are issued for single OCS blocks to support meteorological 

towers and buoys). 

Three Interim Policy leases were issued offshore New Jersey in the following lease blocks: 

Wilmington NJ 18-02 Blocks 6931, 6836 and 7033. One Interim Policy lease was issued 

offshore Delaware in lease block Salisbury NJ 18-05 Block 6325. On July 11, 2011, 

Fishermen’s Energy of New Jersey, LLC submitted their final project plan to BOEM for their 

Interim Lease on OCS block 6931 to begin meteorological and oceanographic data collection. 

BOEM is awaiting submittal of final meteorological tower/buoy project plans for the remaining 

three leases, and no construction has taken place at this point in time. Increased vessel traffic 

associated with construction and remaining survey activities for the four Interim Policy leases 

could occur simultaneously, and possibly overlap, with Alternative A. 

Electrical Transmission Lines 

In March 2011, BOEM received an unsolicited right-of-way (ROW) grant application from 

Atlantic Grid Holdings, LLC (AGH) for a subsea backbone transmission system (referred to as 

the Atlantic Wind Connection (AWC) project) in state waters and on the OCS offshore the states 

of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia (see Figure 4.6). The purpose of 

the project is to transmit electricity generated by future offshore commercial wind facilities to 

onshore markets. The project would include nine offshore electrical converter platforms and 756 

miles of cabling, with 650 miles on the OCS, 38 miles in state waters and 67 miles on shore 

(AGH, 2011). The project is proposed to be built in five distinct phases: the first phase would 

connect southern New Jersey and Delaware with up to 2,000 MW capacity; the second phase 

would connect southern New Jersey to the northern New Jersey/New York metropolitan area; the 

third phase would connect Maryland to New Jersey/New York metropolitan area; the fourth 

phase would connect Maryland to Virginia; and the final phase would connect Delaware to 

Virginia (AGH, 2011). The AGH estimates construction would occur over approximately 10 

years and the entire system could be operational by 2021. This EA only considers increased 

vessel traffic associated with survey activities during site characterization for the potential cable 

route which could occur simultaneously, and possibly overlap, with Alternative A (see Section 

4.6 of this EA). 

Marine Minerals Program 

Loss of sand from the Mid-Atlantic beaches, dunes and barrier islands is a serious problem 

that affects both the coastal environment and the economy. Rising sea levels due primarily to 

climate change are likely to accelerate beach erosion and coastal inundation, and will make 

storms and associated floods more intense, exacerbating erosion (NJ DEP, 2010). The artificial 

replacement of lost sand through renourishment cycles for beaches or coastal areas require 

157 
quantities of sand that are not currently available from state sources. For example, it is estimated 

for the period 2014 to 2044 at least 7.6 million cubic meters of sand will be required to maintain 

Ocean City, Maryland beaches and new sand sources are needed outside state waters to meet 

increased demand (Maryland Geological Survey, 2011). Submerged shoals located offshore 

New Jersey, Maryland and Virginia between the WEAs and the shore have been identified as 

long-term sources of sand (sand burrow sites) for coastal erosion management (USDOI, MMS, 

2007a); however, none of these sites are located within the boundaries of the WEAs. These 

offshore sites could provide compatible sand for immediate/emergency repair of beach and 

coastal damage from severe coastal storms (USDOI, MMS, 2007a) and are an environmentally 

preferred resource because they generally lie beyond the local wave base and the influence of the 

nearshore physical regime where long-term dredging can result in adverse changes to local wave 

climate and the beach (USDOI, MMS, 2007a). 

4.1.3.7.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A 

Chapter 5.2.17 of the Programmatic EIS discusses the impacts that site characterization and 

assessment could have on marine traffic. The proposed leases would be located 7 or more miles 

from the nearest shoreline. Increased vessel traffic from survey activities and construction, 

operations and decommissioning of meteorological towers/buoys would increase vessel traffic 

within the WEAs and between the WEAs and shore. This increase in traffic could pose conflict 

with other uses of the OCS and associated activities. Therefore, site characterization surveys, 

and the construction, operation and decommissioning activities of meteorological towers/buoys 

occurring within the proposed lease areas have the potential to directly impact coastal and 

offshore vessel traffic and other uses of the OCS as discussed below. Non-routine activities 

could include collision between vessels, an allision between a vessel and a meteorological 

tower/buoy, and/or accidental spills of diesel or oil. 

BOEM consulted with the DOD on Alternative A of this EA. On May 2, 2011, the DOD 

responded that the impact to the Navy's training areas and other DOD activities from site 

characterization surveys and installation, operation and decommissioning of meteorological 

towers/buoys offshore Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia could be mitigated given 

site specific stipulations in consultation with the DOD (Engle, personal communication, 2011). 

BOEM also consulted with NASA on Alternative A. On 21 April, 2011, NASA responded that 

the impact from Alternative A to the WFF facilities and other NASA activities from survey 

vessels and the installation, operation and decommissioning of meteorological towers/buoys 

offshore Maryland and Virginia would be negligible (Mitchell, personal communication, 2011). 

Routine Activities 

Vessel Traffic 

Direct impacts from routine activities may occur as a result of increased vessel traffic in 

support of Alternative A. It is anticipated that additional vessel activity would occur during site 

characterization surveys (see Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 this EA) and during the period that 

meteorological tower/buoy construction, operations, and decommissioning take place (see

Section 3.1.3.4 of this EA). This additional vessel activity would likely occur within the WEAs, 

between the WEAs and shore, and in harbor and coastal areas. It is reasonably foreseeable that 

some vessel trips would occur through or near heavily trafficked areas, such as the entrances to 

the Delaware and Chesapeake Bays. These heavily trafficked areas are already expecting 

additional increases in traffic density and the addition of larger classes of commercial vessels 

158 
associated with the completion of the Panama Canal widening in 2014 and identification of a 

Marine Highway Corridor extending from Miami, Florida to Portland, Maine) during the time 

period of Alternative A. Tug/towboat traffic associated with the marine highway corridor may 

occur within the WEAs and has the potential to overlap, or occur simultaneously with the vessel 

traffic associated with Alternative A. 

Because the additional vessel activity associated with Alternative A is anticipated to be 

relatively small (see Sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of this EA) when compared with existing and 

projected future vessel traffic in the area, it is not reasonably foreseeable that the number of 

vessels transiting the WEAs for these activities would significantly increase vessel density levels 

or alter known shipping patterns. 

Meteorological Towers and Buoys 

The New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia WEAs located in areas of higher vessel 

traffic densities where large commercial shipping vessels often transit (see Figure 4.7(a-c)). 

Although the WEA are not located within designated TSSs, meteorological towers/buoys may 

still pose an obstruction to navigation if placed in areas with high vessel traffic. Placement of 

meteorological tower/buoys in an area that did not have a stationary object prior could pose a 

hazard to navigation and possibly increase the likelihood of a collision or allision between a 

vessel and a meteorological tower/buoy or between vessels attempting to avoid a meteorological 

tower/buoy. The Maryland WEA is within roughly 1 nm of the heavily trafficked entrance to the 

Delaware SE TSS. The placement of any meteorological tower within a TSS is prohibited (see 

33 U.S.C. Section 1223). BOEM assumes for Alternative A that lessees would comply with 

USCG required marking, lighting, and avoid placement of a meteorological tower/buoy within a 

TSS or any of the highly trafficked areas identified in the WEAs (see Figure 4.7(a-c)). Any 

placement of meteorological towers/buoys would have USCG-required marking and lighting. 

BOEM also assumes that any meteorological tower or buoy installed on the OCS would also be 

considered a Private Aid to Navigation, which are regulated by the USCG under 33 CFR Part 66. 

A Private Aid to Navigation is a buoy, light or day beacon owned and maintained by any 

individual or organization other than the USCG. These aids are designed to allow individuals or 

organizations to mark privately owned marine obstructions or other similar hazards to 

navigation. 

BOEM assumes that lessees would also follow previous USCG recommendations for 

marking and lighting of meteorological towers and buoys including: 

 Lessees would operate any visual, audible and electronic aids to navigation (such as 

lights, fog signal, radar beacon (RACON)) with sufficient backup power and redundancy 

to assure a minimum availability rate of 99.7%; 

 For a meteorological tower, two lights should be installed, 180-degrees apart, at an 

elevation specified by the USCG at mean high water, each with an operational range of 3 

nm, 90% of the nights; 

 Any navigation lights located on a meteorological tower or buoy should be seen in a 360-

degress arc, display a quick red characteristic and flash synchronously; 

 If a structural component prevents an uninterrupted arch of visibility, then two or more 

lights could be installed at an elevation specified by the USCG at mean high water, each 

with an operational range of 3 nm, 90% of the nights. The lights would display slow 

flashing amber light and should flash synchronously; 

159 
 If required, a fog signal should have a range of 0.5 nm and activate whenever the 

visibility decreases below 3 nm; and, 

 The structure would be color-coded a standard yellow, such as Munsell Chip number 

2.5Y 8/12, from the water line to the base of the tower. 

In addition to the above, any meteorological tower or buoy greater than 199 ft tall and within 

12 nm of shore would require an Obstruction Evaluation and a Determination of Hazard/No 

Hazard by the FAA and each lessee would be required to file a “Notice of Proposed Construction 

or Alteration” with the FAA in accordance with federal aviation regulations (14 CFR 77.13). 

According to the FAA, specific lighting requirements or recommendations would be applied on a 

case by case basis (Edgett-Baron, personal communication, 2011). Additionally, the FAA 

published guidance in the Federal Register on June 24, 2011 regarding the marking and lighting 

of meteorological towers less than 199 ft tall that could apply to shorter meteorological towers in 

the portions of the WEAs located within the FAA’s jurisdictional authority (76 FR 36983). 

It is reasonably foreseeable that, under routine circumstances, vessels would not strike a 

meteorological tower or buoy that is marked and lighted as described above in accordance with 

USCG and FAA recommendations and requirements. As discussed previously, even should a 

vessel strike occur, the environmental impacts and impacts to vessel traffic in the area would be 

minor, if noticeable. No significant impacts are anticipated to vessel traffic in the WEAs from 

the installation of meteorological towers/buoys as a result of Alternative A. 

160 
Figure 4.7a. Delaware and Maryland AIS Vessel Count Data 2009. 

161 
Figure 4.7b. New Jersey AIS Vessel Count Data 2009. 

162 
Figure 4.7c. Virginia AIS Vessel Count Data 2009. 

Non-Routine Events 

The vessel traffic associated with site characterization surveys, and the construction, 

operation and decommissioning of meteorological towers/buoys in very close proximity to the 

major shipping lanes and ports serving the Delaware and Chesapeake Bays would insubstantially 

increase the probability of a vessel collision(s) and/or allision(s). 

The AIS data (see Figure 4.7(a-c)) indicates that the majority of large commercial vessels, 

which include cargo vessels, container vessels, and oil tankers, operate within and near the TSS 

lanes, and follow distinct patterns in order to approach/depart these lanes, often concentrating in 

heavily-used unofficial approach/departure areas near the entrances and exits of the TSS lanes. 

The WEAs were designed to exclude TSS lanes and avoid the heavier trafficked 

approach/departure areas associated with those TSSs. Lessees are expected to comply with all 

USCG-required marking and lighting of meteorological towers/buoys and applicable FAA 

requirements. 

When BOEM considers any individual SAP, it will further consider local vessel traffic to 

ensure tower placement would reduce the already small likelihood of commercial or recreational 

vessel collision or allision with structures associated with Alternative A. 

163 
Spills of oil or diesel could occur as a result of collisions, accidents or natural events, such as 

during refueling of equipment on a tower or buoy (see Section 3.2.3 of this EA). Vessels are 

expected to comply with USCG requirements relating to prevention and control of diesel fuel 

and oil spills. In 2010, 97% of the oil and gas tanker calls in the U.S. were by double-hulled 

vessels, up from 78% five years earlier (USDOT, MARAD, 2011). Double-hulled tankers are 

much less likely to release oil from collision and/or allision than single-hulled tankers. A 

multitude of government studies and independent reviews recommend double hulls as the single 

most effective technology to prevent future oil spills from tankers (DF Dickens Associates, Ltd., 

1995). 

Therefore, it is very unlikely that a collision or allision, or an oil or diesel spill resulting from 

such, would occur because of the presence of multiple routing measures, the fact that the WEAs 

avoid the highest traffic areas, the use of USCG-required marking and lighting of meteorological 

towers/buoys, and the increased use of double-hulled oil and gas tankers calling at U.S. ports 

(see Section 3.2.2 of this EA). The impacts to water quality if a spill would occur from these 

types of collisions are discussed in Section 4.1.1.2.2 of this EA. 

Tug Rerouting 

Tug and towboat routes may overlap portions of the Virginia WEA during periods of adverse 

weather conditions (AWO, 2011). These adverse weather periods would not coincide survey 

activities or with constructing or decommissioning meteorological towers/buoys. Survey 

activities require relatively calm sea conditions in order to successfully collect the necessary data 

and information. Similarly, the construction, installation, and decommissioning of 

meteorological towers/ buoys also require calm sea conditions. Therefore, it is unlikely that the 

vessel activities associated with Alternative A would occur during periods of adverse weather 

when tug/towboat routes may move into or close to the Virginia WEA. Therefore, it is not 

reasonably foreseeable that vessel traffic associated with Alternative A would conflict with 

tug/towboat vessels utilizing the areas within the Virginia WEA during adverse weather 

conditions. 

Conclusion 

The increase in vessel traffic, and activities associated with the installation/operation of the 

meteorological towers and buoys would not measurably impact current or projected future 

shipping or navigation. It is unlikely that vessels would collide with meteorological towers or 

buoys due to USCG requirements relating to marking and lighting of meteorological towers or 

buoys, the fact that the WEAs avoid the highest traffic areas, and the fact that the few anticipated 

structures are small and dispersed over such a wide area of ocean. An oil spill resulting from a 

collision or allision between a cargo vessel/tanker and a meteorological tower/buoy is not 

reasonably foreseeable due to the small footprint of these facilities, the fact that they will be lit 

and marked on navigational charts, their distance from each other and from shore, and the strong 

likelihood that a meteorological tower would collapse without serious damage to an oil tanker or 

large ship. In addition, survey activities related to Alternative A require relatively calm seas; 

therefore, it is unlikely that the vessel activities associated with Alternative A would occur 

during periods of adverse weather when tug/towboat routes may alter course and move into or 

close to the New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia WEAs. 

164 
Proposed Mitigation Measures 

The following proposed mitigation measures are intended to reduce or eliminate potential the 

impacts of site characterization surveys and the installation, operation, and decommissioning of 

meteorological towers/buoys on military activities, shipping, and navigational safety. This 

section proposes that these mitigation measures be incorporated into any future decision to issue 

a lease or approve a SAP. 

The following proposed mitigation measures were developed in consultation with the DOD 

to eliminate or reduce the potential impacts of Alternative A on military activities: 

 Lessees would be required to consult with the appropriate command headquarters prior to 

any construction or decommissioning activity, regarding the location, density, and 

planned periods of operation, to minimize potential conflicts with DOD activities. 

 Lessees would be require to control their own electromagnetic emissions and those of its 

agents, employees, invitees, independent contractors, and subcontractors emanating from 

individual designated defense warning areas in accordance with requirements specified 

by the appropriate command headquarters to the degree necessary to prevent issues with 

DOD flight, testing, or operational activities conducted within individual designated 

warning areas. 

The following proposed mitigation was developed in consultation with the USCG to reduce 

the potential impacts of Alternative A on shipping and navigational safety. This section includes 

USCG precautionary recommendations pending completion of the ACPARS in 2012: 

Notification of Mariners: To reduce potential economic impacts on shipping and navigation, 

lessees would be required to notify mariners of construction and decommissioning activities via 

the USCG Local Notice to Mariners and daily broadcasts on Marine Channel 16. The 

notification would advise mariners to plan vessel routes to avoid the area where the activity 

would be taking place. This measure would save both time, fuel, and reduce the potential of any 

vessel conflicts. 

Location of Meteorological Towers and Buoys: To reduce any potential conflict with existing 

vessel traffic and the possibility of vessel collision or allision, no meteorological towers or buoys 

would be located within 1 nm of any TSS boundary until further analysis and the ACPARS is 

completed by the USCG (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, USCG, personal 

communication, 2011). This would not preclude site characterization activities within 1 nm of a 

TSS boundary. 

4.2 Alternative B – Removal of Anchorage Ground Offshore Delaware 

Description of the Alternative 

Ships frequently anchor in the vicinity of TSSs, in unofficial anchorage areas, while waiting 

to go to port. There is such an anchorage area within the Delaware WEA offshore of Delaware 

Bay (see Figure 2.1). The USCG requested that BOEM exclude from consideration an existing 

unofficial anchorage ground offshore Delaware, which it is considering designating officially 

due to navigational safety concerns. The anchorage ground under consideration by the USCG is 

bounded on its southern border by the southeast TSS approach to Delaware Bay, on its northern 

border by the charted ordnance dumping ground, and on its eastern border by the 12 nm 

territorial sea line, and is equivalent to about half of an OCS block in size (see Figure. 2.1). The 

USCG is scheduled to initiate rulemaking for establishing this and other anchorage grounds 

165 
offshore of the Mid-Atlantic States by the end of 2011 (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

USCG, 2011). 

Alternative B differs from Alternative A in that the anchorage ground (equivalent to about a 

half of an OCS block) would be excluded from leasing decisions under this action. An area 

slightly smaller (equivalent to about a half of an OCS block less) than the area described under 

Alternative A would be considered for lease issuance and site characterization and assessment 

activities. 

All of the environmental consequences associated with selecting Alternative B would be the 

same as associated with Alternative A except for the level of impacts associated with site 

characterization activities. Since the anchorage ground would not be leased, Alternative B 

would result in a slight reduction (two percent), in site characterization surveys associated with 

the Delaware WEA compared to Alternative A (reduction of about 220 nm or 50 hours of HRG 

surveys and about 6-18 bottom samples). Like Alternative A, up to one meteorological buoy is 

projected in the Delaware WEA (Section 3.1.3 of this EA). However, under Alternative B, that 

buoy could not be located within the anchorage ground, and therefore could not conflict with use 

of the anchorage ground. 

 

Table 4.15 

 Projected Site Characterization and Assessment Activities for Alternative B 

(Removal of Anchorage Ground Offshore Delaware) 

Site Characterization 

Activities Site Assessment Activities 

Wind 

Energy 

Area 

(WEA) 

Leaseholds 

High 

Resolution 

Geophysical 

(HRG) Surveys 

(max 

nm/hours) 

Sub-bottom 

Sampling 

(min-max) 

Meteorological 

Towers 

(max) 

Meteorological 

Buoys 

(max) 

New Jersey 7 31,100/6,900 900-2,500 7 14

Delaware 1 9,100/2,000 300-700 0 1 

Maryland 2 7,100/1,600 200-600 2 4 

Virginia 3 12,600/2,800 400-1,000 3 6 

Total 13 59,800/13,300 1,800-4,800 12 25 

Effects of the Alternative 

Physical Resources 

Air Quality: Section 4.1.1.1, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of Alternative 

A on air quality, concluded that, due to the distance from shore, and the negligible increase in 

emissions associated with Alternative A when compared to baseline emissions and existing air 

quality, neither routine activities nor non-routine events would significantly impact onshore air 

quality. The reduced level of survey and construction activities under Alternative B would 

produce slightly fewer emissions within the vicinity of the Delaware WEA than would 

166 
Alternative A. Due to the short duration and relatively low level of emissions associated with 

routine activities within and associated with the Delaware WEA, potential impacts on ambient 

air quality from either Alternative A or Alternative B would be negligible to minor. 

Water Quality: Section 4.1.1.2, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on water quality, concluded that impacts to coastal and marine waters from routine 

activities associated with Alternative A should be of short duration and remain minimal. Should 

an oil spill occur in the WEA, minimal impacts would result since a spill from the types of 

vessels associated with site characterization and assessment activities would be small (see

Section 4.1.1.2). If a diesel spill were to occur, it would be expected to dissipate very rapidly in 

the water column, then evaporate and biodegrade within a few days (see Section 3.2.3 of this 

EA). 

Moreover, collisions that could cause such a spill occur infrequently. Under Alternative B, 

there would be slightly less vessel traffic associated with survey activities, and hence, slightly 

less chance of a spill. Similarly, under Alternative B, there would be slightly fewer potential 

discharges of bilge or waste water or solid waste due to slightly less vessel traffic. 

Since the potential impacts to water quality under Alternative A are anticipated to 

insignificant, the potential water quality impacts associated with Alternative B are anticipated to 

be marginally less so. 

Biological Resources 

Coastal Habitats: Section 4.1.2.1, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on coastal habitats, concluded that no significant impacts on coastal habitats would 

occur from routine activities as a result of Alternative A due to the distance of the WEAs from 

shore, the use of existing coastal facilities, and the amount of vessel traffic currently and 

historically traversing coastal areas. Under Alternative B, fewer survey vessel trips would 

slightly reduce the potential increase of wake-induced erosion (if detectible) and risk of diesel 

spills, primarily in Delaware coastal waters associated with Alternative A. 

Benthic Resources: Section 4.1.2.2, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on benthic resources, concluded that the impacts of site characterization surveys, 

on benthic communities in and around the Delaware WEA would be short-term in duration and 

negligible in extent. The potential impacts from routine activities on benthic communities would 

be direct contact by anchors, driven piles, and scour protection that could cause crushing or 

smothering. Under Alternative B, there would be no potential for bottom-disturbing activities to 

impact benthic habitats located within the anchorage ground. 

Marine Mammals: Section 4.1.2.3, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on marine mammals, concluded that Alternative A would minimally or negligibly 

effect marine mammals and that the proposed alternative may impact marine mammals in an 

episodic fashion. Specifically, harassment from sound (sonar during surveys and short-duration 

pile driving) and slight increases in the risk of vessel collisions associated with surveys and 

construction are the primary activities that could impact marine mammals. 

167 
Under Alternative B, the lower level of survey activity would slightly reduce the exposure of 

marine mammals to noise from surveys and vessel traffic offshore Delaware. The reduced vessel 

traffic would also slightly lower the risk of vessel collisions with marine mammals. 

Sea Turtles: Section 4.1.2.4, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of Alternative 

A on sea turtles. These impacts are expected to be short-term and would result in minimal to 

negligible harassment depending on the specific activity. Specifically, harassment from noise, 

minor loss/displacement from forage areas, and to a lesser degree, vessel collisions are the 

primary anticipated impacts to ESA-listed sea turtles. 

Under Alternative B, the lower level of survey activity (due to exclusion of the anchorage 

area) would slightly reduce the potential exposure of sea turtles to noise from surveys and vessel 

traffic offshore Delaware. The reduced vessel traffic would slightly lower the risk of vessel 

collisions with sea turtles and reduce the potential for displacement from forage areas. There 

would be no change in impacts associated with pile driving or construction activities because, 

like Alternative A, Alternative B contemplates the installation of one meteorological tower or 

two meteorological buoys. 

Birds: Section 4.1.2.5, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of Alternative A on 

birds, concluded that, while birds may be affected by vessel discharges and the presence of 

meteorological towers and buoys, accidental fuel release is unlikely and the risk of collision 

would be minor due to the small number of meteorological towers proposed, and their distance 

from shore and each other. Since one meteorological tower or two meteorological buoys are 

projected within the Delaware WEA under Alternatives A and B, Alternative B would not 

increase or decrease the potential impacts to birds resulting from these structures. Under 

Alternative B, the slight reduction in vessel traffic would slightly reduce the number of potential 

vessel discharges, which would slightly reduce potential impacts to birds in and around the 

Delaware WEA. 

Bats: Section 4.1.2.6, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of Alternative A on 

bats, concluded that, while it is unlikely that bat species would be foraging or migrating through 

the WEAs, these mammals may on occasion be driven to the project area by prevailing winds 

and weather. The only potential impact to bats presented by Alternative A would be the 

possibility that bats blown into the project area could possibly collide with a meteorological 

tower or buoy. Because of the anticipated distance between the anticipated meteorological 

towers and buoys, there would be no additive effect of constructing all the anticipated 

meteorological towers or placement of buoys on bats. It is not expected that Alternative A 

would have any measurable impact on bats. Both Alternatives A and B anticipate that one 

meteorological tower or two meteorological buoys would be constructed within the Delaware 

WEA although the current holder of the Interim Policy lease in the area could install these 

structures even if the No Action alternative were selected (see Interim Policy EA (USDOI, 

MMS, 2009a)). Alternative B would not increase or decrease the potential impacts to bats as 

described for Alternative A. 

Fish and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH): Section 4.1.2.7, which describes the reasonably 

foreseeable impacts of Alternative A on fish and EFH, concluded that the activities associated 

with Alternative A and the potential effects of HRG survey noise on marine fish are generally 

168 
expected to be limited to avoidance around the HRG survey activities, short-term changes in 

behavior, and limited and temporary loss of habitat from during the installation of meteorological 

towers and buoys. Thus, potential population-level impact on fish for HRG surveys is not 

anticipated. 

Sub-bottom sampling, construction of meteorological towers, and the installation of 

meteorological buoys could affect local benthic habitats. The seabed disturbance footprint of 

sub-bottom sampling would be small; it is expected that this activity would have negligible 

effects on benthic habitat, and that this disturbance would have a negligible, if detectible, impact 

on federally-managed fish species that may occur in the Delaware WEA. Impacts related to 

meteorological towers/buoys installation and decommissioning is expected to be minor and not 

expected to result in changes in local community assemblage and diversity. 

Fish could be exposed to operational discharges or accidental fuel releases from construction 

sites and construction vessels and to accidentally released solid debris. The entanglement in or 

ingestion of OCS-related trash and debris by fish would not be expected during normal 

operations. Impacts to fish and their habitat from the discharge of waste materials or the 

accidental release of fuels are expected to be minor. 

Under Alternative B, the lower level of activity would slightly reduce the exposure of fish to 

noise from surveys and vessel traffic offshore Delaware. Under Alternative B, there would be no 

potential for bottom-disturbing or survey activities to impact EFH located within the anchorage 

ground. 

Socioeconomic Conditions 

Offshore Archaeological Resources: Section 4.1.3.1, which describes the reasonably foreseeable 

impacts of Alternative A on offshore archaeological resources, concluded that the information 

generated from the lessee’s initial site characterization activities and should provide an adequate 

picture of the presence of significant and/or unique archaeological resources within the WEAs 

and along potential cable routes to shore. As a result, the potential for seafloor/bottomdisturbing activities (e.g. anchorages and installation of meteorological towers and buoys) to 

could cause damage to or loss of significant and/or unique archaeological information would be 

avoided. Under Alternative B, there would be no potential for bottom-disturbing activities to 

impact archeological resources located within the anchorage ground. 

Recreation: Section 4.1.3.2, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of Alternative 

A on recreation resources, concluded that, due to the distance of the proposed lease areas from 

shore and that no new coastal infrastructure is proposed, no impacts to coastal recreational 

resources from meteorological towers or buoys and spills are expected. Section 4.1.3.2 also 

concluded that the increase in vessel traffic associated with Alternative A would not significantly 

affect recreation in the coastal areas or oceans outside any of the potentially affected states. 

While impacts could occur from marine trash and debris associated with Alternative A, they 

would unlikely be perceptible to beach users or administrators. Due to slightly less anticipated 

vessel traffic, Alternative B would slightly decrease the potential impacts to recreational 

resources as described for Alternative A. 

Demographics: Section 4.1.3.3, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on demographics, concluded that, due to the magnitude, dispersed nature and short 

169 
duration of survey, construction, and decommissioning activities, any benefit to local economies 

or employment would be minor and short-term. Also these activities are not expected to employ 

many workers relative to the existing employment numbers. Since the reduction in the level of 

site characterization surveys associated with Alternative B would be so slight when compared 

with Alternative A, Alternative B is expected to produce slightly less benefit to the economies of 

or employment within coastal counties of Delaware, New Jersey and/ or Maryland (see Section 

4.1.3.5.2). 

Environmental Justice: Section 4.1.3.4, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A related to environmental justice issues, concluded that Alternative A would have 

no impacts on the environmental or health-related conditions of minority or low-income people. 

Only the use of coastal facilities has the potential to impact minority or low-income people. 

However, no expansion of these existing onshore areas is anticipated to support Alternative A or 

Alternative B, and significant increases in activity at these existing facilities is not anticipated as 

a result of either Alternative A or Alternative B. As a result, neither Alternative A nor 

Alternative B is expected to have disproportionately high or adverse environmental or health 

effects on minority or low-income people. 

Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure: Section 4.1.3.5, which describes the reasonably 

foreseeable impacts of Alternative A on land use and coastal infrastructure, concluded that 

existing ports or industrial areas are expected to be used, and expansion of these existing 

facilities is not anticipated to support Alternative A. Since this remains true under Alternative B, 

no significant impact on land use or coastal infrastructure is expected. 

Commercial and Recreational Fishing Activities: Section 4.1.4.6, which describes the 

reasonably foreseeable impacts of Alternative A on commercial and recreational fishing 

activities, concluded that the increase in vessel traffic, and activities from the 

installation/operation of the meteorological towers and buoys would not measurably impact 

commercial or recreational fishing activities, total catch of fish and shellfish, or navigation. Any 

impacts, such fishing displacement and target species availability, would be of short duration, 

limited area, and temporary. Under Alternative B, there would be no potential for site 

characterization surveys and site assessment activities to conflict with commercial and 

recreational fishing within the anchorage ground, although the anchorage ground is currently 

highly trafficked by other anchoring vessels. 

Other Uses of the OCS: Section 4.1.3.7, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on other uses of the OCS, concluded that minor direct impacts on vessel traffic 

density and patterns would occur from routine activities associated with Alternative A. 

Under Alternative B, survey and construction activities that would impact vessel traffic 

density and patterns would not occur in the anchorage ground. It is assumed the risk of 

collisions and allisions would be greater in this area, because it already contains a relatively high 

concentration of vessels. Therefore, Alternative B would provide a slight reduction in the risk of 

collisions and allisions than would Alternative A. 

170 
Summary/Conclusion 

Alternative B differs from Alternative A (Alternative A) by not offering the anchorage 

ground identified by the USCG located at the western tip of the Delaware WEA for lease. An 

area equivalent to about 18 OCS blocks in the Delaware WEA would be considered for leasing 

and subsequent site assessment activities under Alternative B. A slight reduction (two percent), 

in site characterization surveys is projected to take place in the Delaware WEA under Alternative 

B as compared to Alternative A. 

The potential impacts of Alternative B would differ from Alternative A only within the 

Delaware WEA. Under Alternative B, there would be no potential for bottom-disturbing 

activities to impact benthic habitats or archeological resources located within the anchorage 

ground. While there is still the potential for some minor conflicts with other uses of the OCS, 

including commercial and recreational fishing. There would be no potential for site 

characterization surveys (although there still may be site characterization for potential subsea 

cable routes) and site assessment activities to conflict within the anchorage ground. 

Compared to Alternative A, the reduced level of survey activities under Alternative B would 

slightly reduce the potential impacts on air and water quality within the vicinity of the Delaware 

WEA. Reduced vessel traffic would slightly reduce the risk of vessel collisions, therefore 

slightly reducing the risk of a diesel spill. The lower level of activity would slightly reduce the 

exposure of marine mammals, sea turtles, and fish to noise from surveys and vessel traffic 

offshore Delaware. The reduced vessel traffic would also lower the risk of vessel collisions with 

marine mammals and sea turtles. There would be slightly less potential for the loss or 

displacement of sea turtles from forage areas. While the same existing onshore facilities would 

likely be used in support of the site characterization surveys and site assessment activities in the 

remainder of the WEAs, about 20 less survey trips would slightly reduce the potential for wakeinduced erosion and risk of diesel spills in coastal waters, mainly in Delaware, Maryland and/or 

New Jersey. 

Under Alternative B, on-lease survey and construction activities that could impact vessel 

traffic density and patterns would not occur in the anchorage ground. It is assumed that the risk 

of collisions and allisions would be greater in this area, because it has higher concentrations of 

vessels. Therefore, Alternative B would provide a slight reduction in the risk of collisions and 

allisions than would result from selecting Alternative A. 

4.3 Alternative C – Removal of Category B Areas Offshore Maryland 

Description of the Alternative 

Until its completion of the Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study (ACPARS) in 2012 (see

76 FR 27788 (May 11, 2011)), the USCG has classified areas in the Maryland WEA into three 

categories (see Figure 1.3): 

4. Category A – areas that USCG believes should not be leased because, should these 

leases be ultimately developed in the future, they would pose navigational risks due to 

existing and anticipated future increase in vessel traffic density (equivalent to about 

18.5 OCS blocks); 

5. Category B – areas which, if ultimately developed, USCG is uncertain whether 

navigational risks will be presented. USCG has informed BOEM that USCG needs to 

study these areas further before determining whether structures in these areas will 

pose a risk to navigational safety. (equivalent to almost 10 OCS blocks); and 

171 
6. Category C – areas in which potential future wind energy development currently 

appears to pose minimal or no detrimental impact on navigational safety (equivalent 

to about 2.5 whole OCS blocks). 

 The USCG’s classification of these areas is based on its review of: available information 

including AIS data and user input; existing traffic patterns; existing literature, the consideration 

of opinions and advice of USCG subject matter experts on waterways management and the 

ACPARS Workgroup; applied concepts from the United Kingdom Maritime Guidance Note 

MGN 371 (guidance for determining risk levels based on proposed OREI distances from 

shipping routes); and opinions of senior Coast Guard leadership. 

As referenced above, the USCG is conducting an ACPARS to determine how to best route 

traffic on the Atlantic coast. The goal of the ACPARS (see 76 FR 27788 (May 11, 2011)) is to 

enhance navigational safety by examining existing shipping routes and waterway uses, and, to 

the extent practicable, reconcile the right of navigation within designated port access routes with 

other reasonable waterway uses, such as the leasing of OCS blocks for potential construction and 

operation of offshore wind energy facilities. 

Although BOEM is not currently considering approving any COPs for wind energy 

generation facilities in any area offshore the Mid-Atlantic States, BOEM may not want to give 

priority to issuing leases in areas that the USCG currently believes would not be suitable for 

development in the future. Based on the USCG’s recommendation and BOEM’s own 

preliminary analysis of vessel traffic data, BOEM has removed the Category A blocks from the 

Maryland WEA in all alternatives because the potential future placement of any wind energy 

generation facilities in these areas would pose a navigation risk to vessel traffic (see Section 1.5). 

The USCG will provide BOEM with additional navigational safety recommendations once it has 

completed the ACPARS. While the USCG did not recommend that the Category B areas be 

removed from leasing consideration, BOEM elected to consider this as an alternative. Selection 

of the alternative would exclude the Category B areas from the present leasing action and allow 

the decision maker to make future leasing decisions for these areas after the ACPARS is 

complete. 

Alternative C differs from Alternative A (Alternative A) by excluding Category B Areas 

from leasing decisions under this action. Portions of nine OCS blocks (equivalent to about 2.5 

whole OCS blocks) in the Maryland WEA would be considered for leasing and subsequent site 

assessment activities under Alternative C. Based simply on the reduced area, there would be 

about an 82% reduction in site characterization surveys offshore Maryland, and a 10% reduction 

to overall site characterization surveys associated with all WEAs contemplated in Alternative A. 

Due to the reduction in area, one less leasehold is anticipated, so it is likely one fewer 

meteorological tower or two fewer meteorological buoys would be constructed under Alternative 

C (see Section 3.1.3 for a reasonably foreseeable scenario for meteorological towers and buoys). 

Table 4.16 

Projected Site Characterization and Assessment Activities for Alternative C 

(Removal of Category B Areas Offshore Maryland) 

Site Characterization 

Activities Site Assessment Activities Wind 

Energy 

Area 

(WEA) 

Leaseholds High 

Resolution 

Sub-bottom 

Sampling 

Meteorological 

Towers 

Meteorological 

Buoys 

172 
Geophysical 

(HRG) Surveys 

(max 

nm/hours) 

(min-max) (max) (max) 

New Jersey 7 31,100/6,900 900-2,500 7 14

Delaware 1 9,300/2,100 300-700 0 1 

Maryland 1 1,300/300 100 1 2 

Virginia 3 12,600/2,800 400-1,000 3 6 

Total 12 54,200/12,100 1,600-4,400 11 23 

Effects of the Alternative

Physical Resources 

Air Quality: Section 4.1.1.1, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of Alternative 

A on air quality, concluded that due to the distance from shore, neither routine activities nor nonroutine events within the WEAs would impact onshore air quality. Similarly, Section 4.1.1.1, 

concludes that the amount of additional vessel traffic associated with Alternative A would not 

significantly affect onshore air quality in any of the potentially affected state. The reduced level 

of survey and construction activities under Alternative C would reduce emissions associated with 

surveys and site assessment in and around the Maryland WEA below the already negligible (if 

detectable) level associated with Alternative A. 

Water Quality: Section 4.1.1.2, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on water quality, concluded that impacts to coastal and marine waters from routine 

activities associated with Alternative A, if detectible, would be of short duration and remain 

minimal. If a diesel spill were to occur, it would be expected to dissipate very rapidly in the 

water column, then evaporate and biodegrade within a few days (see Section 3.2.3). Since 

collisions occur infrequently, the potential impacts to water quality associated with Alternative A 

are not expected to be significant. Under Alternative C, there would be a substantial decrease of 

vessel activity associated with the Maryland WEA, and as a result, there would be reduced risk 

of a collision or oil spill, primarily in and around Maryland, associated with surveys and site 

assessment activities. Similarly, discharges of bilge, wastewater, and waste from vessels 

associated with the Maryland WEA would be reduced. 

Under Alternative C, the reduced level of bottom-disturbing activities associated with 

surveys and construction would reduce the reasonably foreseeable impacts to water quality 

within the vicinity of the Maryland WEA below that which is anticipated under Alternative A. 

Biological Resources 

Coastal Habitats: Section 4.1.2.1, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on coastal habitats, concluded that no direct impacts on coastal habitats would 

occur from routine activities as a result of Alternative A due to the distance of the WEAs from 

shore and the use of heavily-trafficked vessel routes and existing port facilities. Indirect impacts 

from routine activities may occur from wake erosion and associated added sediment caused by 

increased vessel traffic in support of Alternative A, but in light of the amount of existing vessel 

173 
traffic in waterways and in light of the minimal increase in traffic in any single waterway 

associated with Alternative A, these impacts would be negligible if detectible. Under Alternative 

C, fewer survey, construction, and support vessel trips would occur in and around the Maryland 

WEA than contemplated in Alternative A. This would reduce whatever increase of wakeinduced erosion and risk of diesel spills in coastal waters, and reduce the amount of potential 

vessel discharge in and around the Maryland WEA. As a result, Alternative C would likely lead 

to fewer impacts to the Coastal habitat, primarily in Maryland, than would Alternative A. 

Benthic Resources: Section 4.1.2.2, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on benthic resources, concluded that impacts of site characterization, and the 

construction, operation, and removal of meteorological towers and buoys on benthic 

communities would be short-term in duration and negligible in extent. The primary potential 

impacts of Alternative A on benthic communities would be associated with the construction, 

operation, and decommissioning of meteorological towers, or the installation of meteorological 

buoys. Impacts would be caused by contact via anchors, driven piles, and scour protection that 

could cause crushing or smothering. 

Potential impacts from non-routine events, such as a diesel spill, are also anticipated to be 

negligible, because a diesel spill is unlikely and would likely be restricted to the sea surface and 

would dissipate rapidly if a spill were to occur. 

Under Alternative C, there would be no potential for bottom-disturbing activities within the 

excluded blocks, and therefore, no potential to impact benthic habitats located there. 

Marine Mammals: Section 4.1.2.3, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on marine mammals, concluded that Alternative A would minimally or negligibly 

effect marine mammals and that the proposed alternative may impact marine mammals in an 

episodic fashion. Specifically, harassment from sound (sonar during surveys and short-duration 

pile driving) and slight increases in the risk of vessel collisions associated with surveys and 

construction are the primary activities that could impact marine mammals. 

Under Alternative C, the lower level of site characterization and site assessment activity would 

reduce the potential exposure of marine mammals to noise from surveys, vessel traffic, and pile 

driving offshore Maryland. The reduced vessel traffic would also lower the risk of vessel 

collisions with marine mammals to the same proportion that vessel traffic would be reduced from 

that anticipated in connection with Alternative A. 

Sea Turtles: Section 4.1.2.4, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of Alternative 

A on sea turtles. These impacts are expected to be short-term and would result in minimal to 

negligible harassment depending on the specific activity at issue. Specifically, harassment from 

noise associated with pile driving and sonar surveys, minor displacement from forage areas 

during construction, decommissioning, and survey activities, and to a lesser degree, vessel 

collisions, are the primary anticipated impacts to ESA-listed sea turtles. 

Under Alternative C, the lower level of activity would substantially reduce potential 

exposure of sea turtles in the area of the Maryland WEA to noise from surveys, vessel traffic, 

and pile driving offshore Maryland. The reduced vessel traffic would lower the risk of vessel 

collisions with sea turtles and reduce potential displacement from forage areas. 

174 
Birds: Section 4.1.2.5, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of Alternative A on 

birds, concludes that, while birds may be affected by vessel discharges and the presence of 

meteorological towers and buoys, accidental fuel release is unlikely and the risk of collision with 

structures would be minor due to the size of the structures, the small number of meteorological 

towers proposed, and their distance from shore and each other. 

Since Alternative C contemplates one meteorological tower or two meteorological buoys 

within the WEA as opposed to the two meteorological towers or four meteorological buoys 

contemplated by Alternative A, Alternative C presents half the risk that birds will collide with 

structures within the Maryland WEA. 

Bats: Section 4.1.2.6, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of Alternative A on 

bats, concluded that, while it is unlikely that bat species would be foraging or migrating through 

the WEAs, these mammals may on occasion be driven to the project area by prevailing winds 

and weather. The only potential impact to bats presented by Alternative A would be the 

possibility that bats blown into the project area could possibly collide with a meteorological 

tower or buoy. Because of the anticipated distance between the anticipated meteorological 

towers and buoys, there would be no additive effect of constructing all the anticipated 

meteorological towers or placement of buoys on bats. It is not expected that Alternative A 

would have any measurable impact on bats. The current holder of the Interim Policy lease in the 

area could install a meteorological tower structure even if the No Action alternative were 

selected (see Interim Policy EA (USDOI, MMS, 2009a)). Since Alternative C contemplates one 

meteorological tower and two meteorological buoys within the WEA as opposed to the two 

meteorological towers and four meteorological buoys contemplated by Alternative A, 

Alternative C presents half the risk that birds would collide with structures within the Maryland 

WEA than Alternative A. 

Fish and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH): Section 4.1.2.7, which describes the reasonably 

foreseeable impacts of Alternative A on fish and EFH, concluded that the proposed associated 

with Alternative A and the potential effects of HRG survey noise on marine fish are generally 

expected to be limited to avoidance around the HRG survey activities, short-term changes in 

behavior, and limited and temporary loss of habitat from during the installation of meteorological 

towers and buoys. Thus, potential population-level impact on fish for HRG surveys is not 

anticipated. 

Sub-bottom sampling, construction of meteorological towers, and the installation of 

meteorological buoys could affect local benthic habitats. The seabed disturbance footprint of 

sub-bottom sampling would be small; it is expected that this activity would have negligible 

effects on benthic habitat, and that this disturbance would have a negligible, if detectible, impact 

on federally-managed fish species that may occur in the Delaware WEA. Impacts related to 

meteorological towers/buoys installation and decommissioning is expected to be minor and not 

expected to result in changes in local community assemblage and diversity. 

Fish could be exposed to operational discharges or accidental fuel releases from construction 

sites and construction vessels and to accidentally released solid debris. The entanglement in or 

ingestion of OCS-related trash and debris by fish would not be expected during normal 

operations. Impacts to fish and their habitat from the discharge of waste materials or the 

accidental release of fuels are expected to be minor. 

175 
Under Alternative C, the lower level of activity would reduce the exposure of fish to noise 

from surveys and vessel traffic by approximately 82%. There would be no potential for bottom 

disturbing activities to impact EFH located within the excluded blocks under Alternative C, 

although the current holder of the Interim Policy lease in the area could install a meteorological 

tower structure even if the No Action alternative were selected (see Interim Policy EA (USDOI, 

MMS, 2009a)). 

Socioeconomic Conditions 

Offshore Archaeological Resources: Section 4.1.3.1, which describes the reasonably foreseeable 

impacts of Alternative A on offshore archaeological resources, concluded that the information 

generated from the lessee’s initial site characterization activities and should provide an adequate 

picture of the presence of significant and/or unique archaeological resources within the WEAs 

and along potential cable routes to shore. As a result, the potential for seafloor/bottomdisturbing activities (e.g. anchorages and installation of meteorological towers and buoys) to 

cause damage to or loss of significant and/or unique archaeological information would be 

avoided. Under Alternative C, there would be no potential for bottom-disturbing activities to 

impact archeological resources located within the excluded blocks. 

Recreational Activities: Section 4.1.3.2, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on recreational resources, concluded that, due to the distance of the proposed lease 

areas from shore and the fact that that no new coastal infrastructure is proposed, no impacts to 

coastal recreational resources from meteorological towers or buoys and spills within the WEAs 

are expected. Section 4.1.3.2 also concluded that the increase in vessel traffic associated with 

Alternative A would not significantly affect recreation in the coastal areas or oceans outside any 

of the potentially affected states. While impacts could occur from marine trash and debris 

associated with Alternative A, they would unlikely be perceptible to beach users or 

administrators. 

The excluded blocks under Alternative C are located so far offshore that a meteorological 

tower located within those blocks would not be visible from shore in any case (see Section 

3.1.3.1, Visual Aesthetics). Not leasing in this area would present no different impact, insofar as 

structures are concerned, than does Alternative A on recreational resources. However, under 

Alternative C, vessel traffic and survey activities would be reduced by approximately 82%. As a 

result, assuming that vessel traffic associated with the Maryland WEA would traverse Maryland, 

Delaware and New Jersey coastal and harbor-related waters, Alternative C would reduce the risk 

that vessel traffic and discharges could impact recreational resources within Maryland, Delaware 

and New Jersey. 

Demographics: Section 4.1.3.3, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on demographics, concluded that, due to the magnitude, dispersed nature, and 

short duration of survey, construction, and decommissioning activities, any benefit to local 

economies or employment would be minor and short-term. Also these activities are not expected 

to employ many workers relative to the existing employment numbers. Due to the reduced level 

of site characterization surveys and site assessment activities offshore Maryland as compared 

with Alternative A, Alternative C is expected to produce about 82% fewer positive impacts on 

the population and employment of coastal counties of Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey, 

176 
assuming that the activities in the Maryland WEA would be supported by facilities in those 

counties (see Section 4.1.3.5.2). 

Environmental Justice: Section 4.1.3.4, which describes the reasonably foreseeable of 

Alternative A related to environmental justice issues, concluded that Alternative A would have 

no impacts on the environmental or health-related conditions of minority or low-income 

populations. Only the use of existing coastal facilities has the potential to impact minority or 

low-income populations. However, no expansion of these existing onshore areas is anticipated 

to support Alternative A or Alternative C, and significant increases in activity at these existing 

facilities is not anticipated as a result of either Alternative A or Alternative C. As a result, 

neither Alternative A nor Alternative C is expected to have disproportionately high or adverse 

environmental or health effects on minority or low-income populations. 

Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure: Section 4.1.3.5.2, which describes the reasonably 

foreseeable impacts of Alternative A on land use and coastal infrastructure, concluded that 

existing ports or industrial areas are expected to be used, and that expansion of these existing 

facilities is not anticipated to support Alternative A. This assumption also applies to Alternative 

C. Assuming that Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey coastal infrastructure would be used to 

support activities in the WEA offshore Maryland, the selection of Alternative C would reduce 

the need for coastal infrastructure in those states for survey vessels by approximately 82%. As a 

result, Alternative C would have even less impact on land use or coastal infrastructure in 

Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey than would Alternative A. 

Commercial and Recreational Fishing Activities: Section 4.1.4.6, which describes the 

reasonably foreseeable impacts of Alternative A on commercial and recreational fishing 

activities, concluded that the increase in vessel traffic, and activities from the 

installation/operation of the meteorological towers and buoys would not measurably impact 

commercial or recreational fishing activities, total catch of fish and shellfish, or navigation. Any 

impacts, such fishing displacement and target species availability, would be of short duration, 

limited in area, and temporary. Proposed mitigation measures (notifying fisherman of 

construction and decommissioning activities, and verification and evidence of site clearance) 

would further reduce or eliminate any potential minor impacts on fisheries. 

Under Alterative C, there would be no potential for site characterization surveys and site 

assessment activities to conflict with commercial or recreational fishing within the excluded 

blocks. Compared to Alternative A, Alternative C would reduce the potential for fishing-use 

conflict within and around the WEA offshore Maryland by approximately 82%. 

Other Uses of the OCS: Section 4.1.3.7, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on other uses of the OCS, concluded that minor direct impacts on vessel traffic 

density and patterns would occur from routine activities associated with Alternative A. 

Under Alternative C, survey and construction activities that would impact vessel traffic 

density and patterns would not occur in the anchorage ground. It is assumed the risk of 

collisions and allisions would be greater in this area, because it already contains a relatively high 

concentration of vessels. Therefore, Alternative C would provide a slight reduction in the risk of 

collisions and allisions than would Alternative A. 

177 
Under Alternative C, survey and construction activities that would impact vessel traffic 

density and patterns would not occur in the excluded blocks, which comprise approximately 82% 

of the WEA offshore Maryland. The reduced level of vessel traffic would proportionately 

reduce the risk of collisions, while one less meteorological tower would reduce the risk of 

allision within the Maryland WEA. Since there is not a substantial difference in vessel counts 

between the Category B areas proposed for exclusion under Alternative C and most of the 

remainder of the Maryland WEA, Alternative C would provide a slight reduction in the overall 

risk of collisions and allisions from that anticipated under Alternative A (see Figure 4.7a of this 

EA). 

Summary/Conclusion 

The potential impacts of Alternative C would only differ from Alternative A within and 

around the Maryland WEA. Existing and proposed mitigation measures would still reduce or 

eliminate potential impacts to resources located in the remainder of the Maryland WEA. There 

would be no potential for bottom-disturbing activities to impact benthic habitats or archeological 

resources located within the excluded blocks. While there is still the potential for conflicts with 

other uses of the OCS, including commercial and recreational fishing, there would be no 

potential for site characterization surveys and site assessment activities to conflict within the 

excluded blocks, and the reduction in overall vessel traffic (approximately 82%) associated with 

the Maryland WEA under Alternative C would commensurately reduce the potential for vesselrelated conflicts in Maryland harbor and coastal areas. 

Compared to Alternative A, the reduced level of survey and construction activities under 

Alternative C would similarly reduce the impacts on air and water quality in Maryland, Delaware 

and New Jersey port and coastal areas and within the vicinity of the Maryland WEA. Reduced 

vessel traffic and one less structure would reduce the risk of vessel collisions and allisions, 

reducing the risk of a diesel spill. The lower level of activity would reduce the exposure of 

marine mammals, sea turtles and fish to noise from surveys, vessel traffic, and pile driving 

offshore Maryland. The reduced vessel traffic would also lower the risk of vessel collisions with 

marine mammals and sea turtles. There would be less potential loss/displacement of sea turtles 

from forage areas. 

Under Alternative C, one less meteorological tower is projected to be constructed than is 

projected in Alternative A, which would reduce the already small risk of bird or bat collisions. 

While the same existing onshore facilities would be used in support of the site characterization 

surveys and site assessment in the remainder of the WEAs, fewer survey, construction, and 

support vessel trips would reduce the potential for the increase of wake-induced erosion and risk 

of diesel spills in coastal waters in Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey. Accordingly, 

Alternative C is expected to produce slightly fewer positive impacts on the population and 

employment of coastal counties of Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey. 

Under Alternative C, survey and construction activities that would impact vessel traffic 

density and patterns would not occur in the excluded blocks. 

The reduced level of vessel traffic would reduce the risk of collisions, while one less 

meteorological tower would reduce the risk of allision within the Maryland WEA by half. 

Therefore, Alternative C would provide a slightly lower risk of collisions and allisions than 

would Alternative A. 

178 
4.4 Alternative D – Seasonal Prohibition to Protect the North Atlantic 

Right Whale 

 Description of the Alternative 

The North Atlantic right whale is among the most endangered whales in the world. Current 

estimates of the North Atlantic right whale population are between 350-400 individuals (Waring 

et al., 2010). Two primary human-induced threats have been identified – collisions with vessels 

(ship strikes), and entanglement with fishing gear. To reduce the risk of ship strikes from vessels 

engaged in site characterization and site assessment activities, Alternative D would limit on-lease 

vessel activity by excluding HRG surveys and the construction and decommissioning of 

meteorological towers and buoys during peak migration periods of right whales to and from the 

summer feeding grounds in New England and winter calving grounds offshore Georgia and 

Florida. The period of exclusion would be between November and April, when the whales 

would be potentially present in the largest numbers, and would apply to all four Mid-Atlantic 

WEAs. Vessel-based and aerial biological surveys not utilizing active sonar would not be 

affected by the prohibition defined in this alternative. 

Effects of the Alternative

Although the site characterization surveys and site assessment activities would still occur, 

Alternative D may slightly increase total potential impacts to air quality, water quality, coastal 

habitats, and benthic habitats from that described in Alternative A. Specifically, where a lessee 

may have previously coupled vessel-based biological surveys with some high-resolution 

geologic survey work, the prohibition on the sonar surveys during the winter and the need to 

collect winter biological data may result in additional vessel survey effort. Socioeconomic 

impacts would also be similar to those described in Alternative A. Migratory marine mammals 

other than right whales would likely benefit from an exclusion period. Impacts to other 

resources are discussed below. 

Air Quality: Section 4.1.1.1, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of Alternative 

A on air quality, concluded that due to the distance from shore, neither routine activities nor nonroutine events within the WEAs would impact onshore air quality. Similarly, Section 4.1.1.1, 

concludes that the amount of additional vessel traffic associated with Alternative A would not 

significantly affect onshore air quality in any of the potentially affected state. 

Under Alternative D, the total annual impacts to air quality would be unchanged from 

that described under Alternative A. However, Alternative D would be narrowing the window of 

time to complete construction and site characterization activities. The work window would only 

be restricted by a few months as normal operations under Alternative A have existing restrictions 

from poor working conditions that occur in the winter months and during active portions of the 

Atlantic hurricane season. Also, where a lessee may have previously coupled vessel-based 

biological surveys with some high-resolution geologic survey work, the prohibition on the sonar 

surveys during the winter and the need to collect winter biological data may result in additional 

vessel survey effort. Thus, it is anticipated Alternative D would have slightly greater impacts on 

air quality than would Alternative A. 

Water Quality: Section 4.1.1.2, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on water quality, concluded that impacts to coastal and marine waters from routine 

activities associated with Alternative A, if detectible, would be of short duration and remain 

179 
minimal. Should an oil spill occur, the localized impact on water quality would be negligible, 

diesel is light and would become dispersed, evaporate, and biodegrade within a few days. Since 

collisions occur infrequently, the potential impacts to water quality associated with Alternative A 

are not expected to be significant. Similar to impacts to air quality, under Alternative D the total 

annual impacts to water quality would be unchanged from that described under Alternative A. 

However, Alternative D would be narrowing the window of time to complete construction and 

site characterization activities. The work window would only be restricted by a few months as 

normal operations under Alternative A have existing restrictions from poor working conditions 

that occur in the winter months and during active portions of the Atlantic hurricane season. 

Also, where a lessee may have previously coupled vessel-based biological surveys with some 

high-resolution geologic survey work, the prohibition on the sonar surveys during the winter and 

the need to collect winter biological data may result in additional vessel survey effort. Thus, it is 

anticipated that Alternative D would have slightly greater impacts on water quality than would 

Alternative A. 

Coastal Habitats: Section 4.1.2.1, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on coastal habitats, concluded that no direct impacts on coastal habitats would 

occur from routine activities as a result of Alternative A due to the distance of the WEAs from 

shore and the use of heavily-trafficked vessel routes and existing port facilities. Indirect impacts 

from routine activities may occur from wake erosion and associated added sediment caused by 

increased vessel traffic in support of Alternative A, but in light of the amount of existing vessel 

traffic in waterways and in light of the minimal increase in traffic in any single waterway 

associated with Alternative A, these impacts would be negligible, if detectible. 

Under Alternative D, the total traffic to and from coastal areas (i.e. ports) would remain 

unchanged from that described in Alternative A. However, BOEM would be restricting the 

period during which certain activities would take place. In the case of coastal habitats, 

restricting activities to the summer could have a positive effect in that one would expect wakeeffect erosion to be less in the growing season for wetland habitats near ports. However, as 

previously mentioned, winter activity is generally expected to be negligible due to unfavorable 

weather conditions. Thus, overall one could expect a slight positive to neutral difference in 

effects to coastal habitats when compared to Alternative A. 

Marine Mammals: Alternative D would reduce the likelihood of strikes associated with vessels 

that are engaged in site characterization and site assessment activities during the winter. 

Alternative D would also reduce the likelihood that marine mammals would suffer potential 

acoustic disturbances from vessel operation, HRG survey activity, and meteorological tower 

construction during winter. It is not anticipated that this alternative would greatly impair lessee 

activities, as it is expected that most survey and construction activities would occur in the 

summer when the weather is most favorable. Other cetacean species, such as fin, minke, and 

humpback whales, as well as the short-beaked common dolphin and the harbor porpoise would 

also benefit from a winter seasonal prohibition in the Mid-Atlantic WEAs. 

Although winter is when it is believed that peak migration occurs, there are occurrences of 

right whales in the Mid-Atlantic during the spring, summer, and fall (May-October). Sightings 

and acoustic monitoring data from the New Jersey Baseline Study (Section 4.1.2.3 of this EA) 

shows the occurrence of marine mammals in all four seasons from the passive acoustic 

monitoring data and sightings of marine mammals concentrated between March and June. Thus, 

180 
right whales could occur in all seasons in at least the New Jersey WEA. Enough uncertainty 

exists regarding the spatial and temporal extent of the migratory corridor for right whales that it 

appears unlikely that the seasonal exclusion would fully eliminate the chances of a right whale 

being exposed to harassing or disturbing levels of noise and/or vessel traffic. Given BOEM’s 

mandatory project design criteria detailed in Appendix B (particularly the exclusion zone), it is 

doubtful that Alternative D would present substantial marginal additional protection for whales. 

It is therefore unlikely that Alternative D would have substantially different consequences to 

right whales and marine mammals than would Alternative A. 

Sea Turtles: The winter prohibition would narrow the window of activity in and around the 

WEAs, concentrating activities that would have been performed in the winter into spring, 

summer, and fall. Sea turtle occurrence in the Mid-Atlantic WEAs is greatest in the summer 

season. Thus sea turtles would not benefit from the winter prohibition. To the contrary, under 

Alternative D, the likelihood that the activities associated with Alternative D would impact sea 

turtles would likely increase, as whatever work would have been done in the winter would 

simply be added in the spring, fall, and summer. BOEM does not anticipate that much survey 

work would be conducted during the winter as allowed for under Alternative A. However, due 

to potential displacement of limited winter activities to the summer, potential for impacts to sea 

turtles would increase somewhat from that anticipated under the Alternative A. 

Birds: It is not expected that Alternative D would significantly increase the potential impacts the 

piping plovers or roseate terns. They are present in the Mid-Atlantic from April to September. 

By early April, both species have migrated north back to their breeding grounds in the MidAtlantic and New England where they remain close to shore to feed and provision for their 

offspring. At the end of the breeding season (August-September), individuals aggregate near 

shore before migrating southward the South Atlantic and Caribbean by mid-September. Since 

these birds migrate south of the Mid-Atlantic WEAs for the winter, a winter prohibition would 

not benefit them. Since most their activity is restricted to nearshore waters, the concentration of 

activity in the summer months is not expected to increase impacts relative to Alternative A. 

Thus the total impacts to birds relative Alternative A is anticipated to be neutral. 

Bats: Section 4.1.2.6, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of Alternative A on 

bats, concluded that, while it is unlikely that bat species would be foraging or migrating through 

the WEAs, these mammals may on occasion be driven to the project area by prevailing winds 

and weather. The only potential impact to bats presented by Alternative A would be the 

possibility that bats blown into the project area could possibly collide with a meteorological 

tower or buoy. It is not expected that Alternative A would have any measurable impact on bats. 

Since bat impacts do not have a seasonal component related to construction and survey activity it 

is not expected to impact bats in any case, BOEM does not anticipate that that there would be 

any difference in the impacts to bats between Alternative D and Alternative A. 

Benthic Resources: Although Alternative D would not increase or decrease the reasonably 

foreseeable impacts to benthic geological features, the impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation 

(SAV) may vary due to their seasonal life cycle. In general, SAV such as macroalgae and 

seagrasses are most productive during the spring and summer. In the case of macroalgae, they 

bloom in the spring and are persistent throughout the summer becoming dormant in the winter. 

181 
Seagrass, primarily Zostera marina, flower in the spring and release their seeds between May 

and August. The seeds germinate in the fall. Concentrating bottom-disturbing activity in late 

spring, summer, and fall may increase potential impacts during the reproductive phase. 

Additionally, these impacts are further reduced due to best management practices to avoid 

disturbance to seagrass beds. Some benthic invertebrates are also dormant in winter. These 

species may be more vulnerable to bottom disturbances during the winter, as they may be 

immobilized in the sediment. In the spring, summer, and fall, motile invertebrates have the 

capability to leave a disturbed area, thus gaining some benefit from a seasonal prohibition. 

Impacts to benthic invertebrates as a whole are not expected to be significantly different from 

those anticipated under Alternative A if activities are concentrated in the spring, summer, and 

fall months. As a whole, impacts to benthic resources is not expected to differ greatly from that 

in Alternative A even with the slightly negative effects to SAV and slightly positive effects to 

benthic invertebrates. 

Fish and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH): Section 4.1.2.7, which describes the reasonably 

foreseeable impacts of Alternative A on fish and EFH, concluded that the activities associated 

with Alternative A and the potential effects of HRG survey noise on marine fish are generally 

expected to be limited to avoidance around the HRG survey activities, short-term changes in 

behavior, and limited and temporary loss of habitat from during the installation of meteorological 

towers and buoys. Thus, potential population-level impact on fish for HRG surveys is not 

anticipated. 

Sub-bottom sampling, construction of meteorological towers, and the installation of 

meteorological buoys could affect local benthic habitats. The seabed disturbance footprint of 

sub-bottom sampling would be small; it is expected that this activity would have negligible 

effects on benthic habitat, and that this disturbance would have a negligible, if detectible, impact 

on federally-managed fish species that may occur in the Delaware WEA. Impacts related to 

meteorological towers/buoys installation and decommissioning is expected to be minor and not 

expected to result in changes in local community assemblage and diversity. 

Fish could be exposed to operational discharges or accidental fuel releases from construction 

sites and construction vessels and to accidentally released solid debris. The entanglement in or 

ingestion of OCS-related trash and debris by fish would not be expected during normal 

operations. Impacts to fish and their habitat from the discharge of waste materials or the 

accidental release of fuels are expected to be minor. 

The impacts to fish and EFH are expected to differ from Alternative A in the case of 

migratory fish such as tunas, bluefish, and herrings. Impacts to the biological benthic resources 

are discussed in the preceding section. Migratory fish tend to be warm water migrants along the 

Atlantic coast. This means they will be moving into the Mid-Atlantic bight in the late spring 

through early summer. Thus they would not benefit from a winter prohibition on activity as they 

would likely be located in warmer southern waters including the Gulf of Mexico and the 

Caribbean during the winter prohibition period. One might expect a slightly negative impact on 

these migratory species, as activity would be restricted to periods when they are present in the 

Mid-Atlantic. However, since these species are fast swimmers they are expected to quickly flee 

an area that is being disturbed through site characterization surveys and construction/installation 

of meteorological platforms. So although the chance of exposure to disturbing impacts to 

migratory fish are greater under Alternative D than Alternative A, the actual impacts to these 

species is not expected to differ substantially from those associated with Alternative A. 

182 
Socioeconomic Conditions 

Recreational Resources: Section 4.1.3.2, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on recreational resources, concluded that, due to the distance of the proposed lease 

areas from shore and the fact that that no new coastal infrastructure is proposed, no impacts to 

coastal recreational resources from meteorological towers or buoys and spills within the WEAs 

are expected. Section 4.1.3.2 also concluded that the increase in vessel traffic associated with 

Alternative A would not significantly affect recreation in the coastal areas or oceans outside any 

of the potentially affected states. While impacts could occur from marine trash and debris 

associated with Alternative A, they would unlikely be perceptible to beach users or 

administrators. 

Although Alternative D would restrict activity to the period when people would be 

recreating along the Mid-Atlantic coast, the impacts are not expected to differ from those under 

Alternative A. This is primarily due the fact that any noticeable increase in vessel traffic would 

likely be restricted to industrial port areas, where there is less recreating. Thus, the impacts to 

recreational resources under Alternative D are not expected to be greater or less than the impacts 

expected under Alternative A. 

Demographics: Section 4.1.3.3, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on demographics, concluded that, due to the magnitude, dispersed nature, and 

short duration of survey, construction, and decommissioning activities, any benefit to local 

economies or employment would be minor and short-term. Also these activities are not expected 

to employ many workers relative to the existing employment numbers. 

There is no perceptible seasonal component to affected demographic groups from site 

characterization surveys and construction/installation of meteorological towers/buoys. Thus, the 

impacts to demographics from Alternative D do not differ from those discussed in Alternative A. 

Environmental Justice: Section 4.1.3.4, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A related to environmental justice issues, concluded that Alternative A would have 

no impacts on the environmental or health-related conditions of minority or low-income 

populations. Only the use of existing coastal facilities has the potential to impact minority or 

low-income populations. However, no expansion of these existing onshore areas is anticipated 

to support Alternative A or Alternative D, and significant increases in activity at these existing 

facilities is not anticipated as a result of either Alternative A or Alternative D. As a result, 

neither Alternative A nor Alternative D is expected to have disproportionately high or adverse 

environmental or health effects on minority or low-income populations. 

Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure: Section 4.1.3.5, which describes the reasonably 

foreseeable impacts of Alternative A on land use and coastal infrastructure, concluded that 

existing ports or industrial areas are expected to be used, and that expansion of these existing 

facilities is not anticipated to support Alternative A. This assumption also applies to Alternative 

D. It is not expected that land use and coastal infrastructure (i.e., ports) would be differentially 

affected by a seasonal restriction on certain activities. Although there would be a concentration 

if activity in the spring, summer, and fall, it is expected that the ports and other infrastructure 

183 
would be able to accommodate this activity. Thus, the impacts to land use and coastal 

infrastructure from Alternative D do not differ from those discussed in Alternative A. 

Commercial and Recreational Fishing Activities: Section 4.1.4.6, which describes the 

reasonably foreseeable impacts of Alternative A on commercial and recreational fishing 

activities, concluded that the increase in vessel traffic, and activities from the 

installation/operation of the meteorological towers and buoys would not measurably impact 

commercial or recreational fishing activities, total catch of fish and shellfish, or navigation. Any 

impacts, such fishing displacement and target species availability, would be of short duration, 

limited in area, and temporary. Proposed mitigation measures (notifying fisherman of 

construction and decommissioning activities, and verification and evidence of site clearance) 

would further reduce or eliminate any potential minor impacts on fisheries. 

Although commercial and recreational fishing occur year-round, the bulk of activity occurs 

in the summer months. Thus, although a winter prohibition may slightly benefit some winter 

fisheries; most fishing activity would not accrue any benefit from Alternative D. The 

concentration of activity to the spring, summer, and fall may slightly increase the vessel traffic in 

areas fished and transited by commercial and recreational fishing vessels. However, as 

explained under Alternative A, these impacts are expected to be of short duration within a 

limited area. Thus the overall impacts from Alternative D in comparison to Alternative A are not 

expected to be significantly different. 

Other Uses of the OCS: Section 4.1.3.7, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on other uses of the OCS, concluded that minor direct impacts on vessel traffic 

density and patterns would occur from routine activities associated with Alternative A. 

Under Alternative D impacts to other uses of the OCS are not expected to differ from that 

described in Alternative A. Military and marine transportation uses of the OCS occur yearround. Restricting site characterization surveys and construction/installation of meteorological 

towers/buoys to the spring, summer, and fall would not alter the impacts that are given in 

Alternative A as the activities are not heavily influence by seasonality and slight increases or 

decreases of activities therein. 

Summary/Conclusion 

Alternative D would appreciably reduce the risk of vessel strikes to North Atlantic right 

whales and other marine mammals in and around the WEAs. Other resources that have a 

seasonal component that might be affected by site characterization surveys and/or meteorological 

tower/buoy construction/installation may have slightly positive to slightly negative impacts 

depending on the specific resource. As a whole, it is not anticipated that the impacts are 

substantially different between Alternatives A and D for resources other than the North Atlantic 

right whale, and other cetacean species, such as fin, minke, and humpback whales, as well as the 

short-beaked common dolphin and the harbor porpoise. Since Alternative D would be narrowing 

the window of time to complete construction and site characterization activities and additional 

biological surveys, there would be slightly greater impacts on air and water quality than under 

Alternative A. 

As detailed in Section 4.1.2.3 of this EA, right whales could occur in all seasons in at least 

the New Jersey WEA. The mandatory project design criteria detailed in Appendix B requires 

observers outside of the estimated peak Mid-Atlantic migration period. Enough uncertainty 

184 
exists regarding the spatial and temporal extent of the migratory corridor for right whales, and 

the predicted impact to this species under Alternative A is sufficiently minor, that it appears 

unlikely that the seasonal exclusion in Alternative D would provide substantially more protection 

for right whales than would the selection of Alternative A. 

4.5 Alternative E – Removal of Inclement Weather Diversion Area 

Offshore Virginia (Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative) 

Description of the Alternative 

In response to the NOI, the American Waterways Operators (AWO) raised concerns 

regarding navigational safety in inclement weather and requested that BOEM exclude eight OCS 

lease blocks (6013, 6014, 6063, 6064, 6113, 6114, 6163, and 6164) within the Virginia WEA 

from leasing consideration (see Figure 2.2). The AWO states that: 

Under inclement weather conditions, vessel traffic plans require north and south 

bound tugboats, barge, and ATBs [articulated tug barges] to divert westward 

approximately 24 nm from Virginia Beach, through the proposed area of interest, 

between OCS leasing blocks 6013, 6014, 6063, 6064, 6113, 6114, 6163 and 6164. 

This area provides tugboats and barges with safer operating conditions, enough 

depth for tow-wires to sag 50 to 75 feet and provides ATBs with enough depth for 

under-keel clearance. Towing vessels would be forced to divert further west, 

away from the proposed area, in order to safely navigate around wind turbines. 

Diverting west, tugboats and barges would have to shorten their tow-wires and 

decrease speeds, placing crewmembers, vessels and cargo at additional risk, along 

with decreased maneuverability as they navigate through the shoals south of the 

Chesapeake Light Tower. To avoid navigating through such hostile 

environments, vessels would have to be delayed while captains plot alternative 

bad weather diversion routes. 

In response to the NOA of a draft version of this EA, AWO, after consulting with their 

members who are intimately familiar with the area, informed BOEM that its comments stated 

above were incorrectly drafted. In a letter dated August 22, 2011, AWO revised its previous 

comment as follows: 

AWO believes it would be preferable instead to create a channel on the most western edge of 

the leasing blocks by eliminating a column of parcels on the most western edge of the leasing 

blocks by eliminating a column of parcels on the western edge of the proposed area [full 

OCS blocks 6111 and 6161, and partial OCS blocks 6011, 6061, 6110, and 6160]. This 

change will preserve an area currently used by members during inclement weather while 

making a large block of undeveloped ocean available for alternative energy development. 

As part of its continuing consultation with the USCG, BOEM requested that the USCG 

identify those OCS blocks in the Virginia WEA that, should wind energy installations be placed 

on them, would present navigational safety issues. On September 26, 2011, the USCG identified 

areas it believes would pose navigational risks should structures be installed on those leases (see

Figure 2.2). Like it did in its analysis of the Maryland WEA, the USCG categorized these two 

full and five partial OCS blocks as Category A areas. The area identified by the USCG as 

Category A is the same as that identified as an area of concern by the AWO, except the USCG 

also found risk present in three additional aliquots in OCS blocks 6012. 

185 
Although BOEM is not currently considering approving any COPs for wind energy 

generation facilities in any area offshore the Mid-Atlantic States, BOEM may not want to 

give priority to issuing leases in areas that the USCG currently believes would not be 

suitable for development in the future (see Section 2.3). Based on the USCG’s 

recommendation and BOEM’s own preliminary analysis of vessel traffic data, BOEM has 

identified Alternative E as the proposed action and the preferred alternative. 

BOEM revised Alternative E accordingly. Under the revised Alternative E, these areas 

identified by AWO and USCG would be excluded from leasing decisions under this action (see

Figure 2.2). As a result, an area slightly less than of 20 OCS blocks in the Virginia WEA would 

be considered for leasing and subsequent site assessment activities under Alternative E. Based 

simply on the reduction of the area potentially leased, there would be an 19% reduction in site 

characterization surveys in Virginia (about a 4% reduction in overall site characterization 

surveys potentially occurring in all WEAs). Due to the reduction in area, one less lease is 

anticipated in the Virginia WEA; therefore, one fewer meteorological tower and/or two fewer 

meteorological buoys would be constructed (see Section 3.1.3 discussing reasonably foreseeable 

site assessment scenarios). 

Under alternative E, the scenario and impact analysis would be the same as that described 

under Alternative A for the WEAs offshore New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. 

Table 4.17 

Projected Site Characterization and Assessment Activities for Alternative E 

(Removal of Inclement Weather Diversion and USCG Category A Areas Offshore 

Virginia) 

Site Characterization 

Activities Site Assessment Activities Wind 

Energy 

Area 

(WEA) 

Leaseholds 

High Resolution 

Geophysical 

(HRG) Surveys 

(max nm/hours) 

Subbottom 

Sampling 

(min-max) 

Meteorological 

Towers 

(max) 

Meteorological 

Buoys 

(max) 

New Jersey 7 31,100/6,900 900-2,500 7 14

Delaware 1 9,300/2,100 300-700 0 1 

Maryland 2 7,100/1,600 200-600 2 4 

Virginia 2 10,200/2,300 300-800 2 4 

Total 12 57,700/12,800 1,700-4,700 11 23 

Effects of the Alternative 

Physical Resources 

Air Quality: Section 4.1.1.1, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of Alternative 

A on air quality, concluded that due to the distance from shore, neither routine activities nor nonroutine events within the WEAs would impact onshore air quality. Similarly, Section 4.1.1.1, 

concludes that the amount of additional vessel traffic associated with Alternative A would not 

significantly affect onshore air quality in any of the potentially affected state. 

186 
The reduced level of survey and construction activities under Alternative E would reduce 

emissions within the vicinity of Virginia and the Virginia WEA associated with site 

characterization and site assessment by 18%. Due to the short duration or low level of emissions 

from routine activities, potential impacts on ambient air quality from Alternatives A and F would 

remain negligible, if detectible. 

Water Quality: Section 4.1.1.2, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on water quality, concluded that impacts to coastal and marine waters from routine 

activities associated with Alternative A, if detectible, would be of short duration and remain 

minimal. Should an oil spill occur, the localized impact on water quality would be negligible, as 

diesel is light and would become dispersed, evaporate, and biodegrade within a few days. Since 

collisions occur infrequently, the potential impacts to water quality associated with Alternative A 

are not expected to be significant. Under Alternative E, the reduced level of bottom disturbing 

activities associated with surveys and construction would reduce impacts to water quality within 

the vicinity of the Virginia WEA. Approximately 4% fewer of total survey, construction and 

support vessel trips would similarly reduce the risk of diesel spills in coastal waters, mainly in 

Virginia, and would also reduce the amount of bilge and other vessel discharges into harbor and 

coastal waters, as well as the waters above the WEA offshore Virginia. 

Biological Resources 

Coastal Habitats: Section 4.1.2.1, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on coastal habitats, concluded that no direct impacts on coastal habitats would 

occur from routine activities as a result of Alternative A due to the distance of the WEAs from 

shore and the use of heavily-trafficked vessel routes and existing port facilities. Indirect impacts 

from routine activities may occur from wake erosion and associated added sediment caused by 

increased vessel traffic in support of Alternative A, but in light of the amount of existing vessel 

traffic in waterways and in light of the minimal increase in traffic in any single waterway 

associated with Alternative A, these impacts would be negligible if detectible. Under Alternative 

E, fewer survey, construction, and support vessel trips would occur in and around the Virginia 

WEA than contemplated in Alternative A. This would reduce whatever increase of wakeinduced erosion and risk of diesel spills in coastal waters, and reduce the amount of potential 

vessel discharge in and around the Virginia WEA. As a result, Alternative E would lead to fewer 

impacts to the Coastal habitat, primarily in Virginia, than would Alternative A. 

Benthic Resources: Section 4.1.2.2, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on benthic resources, concluded that impacts of site characterization, and the 

construction, operation, and removal of meteorological towers and buoys on benthic 

communities would be short-term in duration and negligible in extent. The primary potential 

impacts of Alternative A on benthic communities would be associated with the construction, 

operation, and decommissioning of meteorological towers, or the installation of meteorological 

buoys. Impacts would be caused by contact via anchors, driven piles, and scour protection that 

could cause crushing or smothering. 

Potential impacts from non-routine events, such as a diesel spill, are also anticipated to be 

negligible, because a diesel spill is unlikely and would likely be restricted to the sea surface and 

would dissipate rapidly if a spill were to occur. 

187 
Under Alternative E, there would be no potential for bottom-disturbing activities within the 

excluded blocks, and therefore, no potential to impact benthic habitats located there. 

Marine Mammals: Section 4.1.2.3, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on marine mammals, concluded that Alternative A would minimally or negligibly 

effect marine mammals and that the proposed alternative would impact marine mammals in an 

episodic fashion. Specifically, harassment from sound (sonar during surveys and short-duration 

pile driving) and slight increases in the risk of vessel collisions associated with surveys and 

construction are the primary activities that could impact marine mammals. 

Under Alternative E, the lower level of site characterization and site assessment activity 

would reduce the potential exposure of marine mammals to noise from surveys, vessel traffic, 

and pile driving offshore Virginia. The reduced vessel traffic would also lower the risk of vessel 

collisions with marine mammals to the same proportion that vessel traffic would be reduced from 

that anticipated in connection with Alternative A. 

Sea Turtles: Section 4.1.2.4, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of Alternative 

A on sea turtles. These impacts are expected to be short-term and would result in minimal to 

negligible harassment depending on the specific activity at issue. Specifically, harassment from 

noise associated with pile driving and sonar surveys, minor displacement from forage areas 

during construction, decommissioning, and survey activities, and to a lesser degree, vessel 

collisions, are the primary anticipated impacts to ESA-listed sea turtles. 

Under Alternative E, the lower level of activity would reduce the exposure of sea turtles in 

the area of the Virginia WEA to noise from surveys, vessel traffic, and pile driving offshore 

Virginia. The reduced vessel traffic would lower the risk of vessel collisions with sea turtles and 

reduce the potential for displacement from forage areas offshore Virginia. 

Birds: Section 4.1.2.5, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of Alternative A on 

birds, concludes that, while birds may be affected by vessel discharges and the presence of 

meteorological towers and buoys, accidental fuel release is unlikely and the risk of collision with 

structures would be minor due to the small number of meteorological towers proposed, and their 

distance from shore and each other. 

Under Alternative E one less meteorological tower and two fewer buoys are projected to be 

constructed as a result of not leasing the two full and four partial OCS blocks of the Virginia 

WEA, which would reduce the overall risk of bird collisions. Since Alternative E contemplates 

two meteorological towers and four meteorological buoys within the WEA as opposed to the 

three meteorological towers and six meteorological buoys contemplated by Alternative A, 

Alternative E presents one-third the risk that birds will collide with structures within the Virginia 

WEA. 

Bats: Section 4.1.2.6, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of Alternative A on 

bats, concluded that, while it is unlikely that bat species would be foraging or migrating through 

the WEAs, these mammals may on occasion be driven to the project area by prevailing winds 

and weather. The only potential impact to bats presented by Alternative A would be the 

possibility that bats blown into the project area could possibly collide with a meteorological 

tower or buoy. Because of the anticipated distance between the anticipated meteorological 

towers and buoys, there would be no additive effect of constructing all the anticipated 

188 
meteorological towers or placement of buoys on bats. It is not expected that Alternative A 

would have any measurable impact on bats. The current holder of the Interim Policy lease in the 

area could install a meteorological tower structure even if the No Action alternative were 

selected (see Interim Policy EA (USDOI, MMS, 2009a)). 

Under Alternative E one less meteorological tower and two fewer buoys are projected to 

be constructed as a result of not leasing the two full and four partial OCS blocks of the Virginia 

WEA, which would reduce the overall risk of bat collisions. Since Alternative E contemplates 

two meteorological towers and four meteorological buoys within the WEA as opposed to the 

three meteorological towers and six meteorological buoys contemplated by Alternative A, 

Alternative E presents one-third the risk that bats will collide with structures within the Virginia 

WEA. 

Fish and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH): Section 4.1.2.7, which describes the reasonably 

foreseeable impacts of Alternative A on fish and EFH, concluded that the activities associated 

with Alternative E and the potential effects of HRG survey noise on marine fish are generally 

expected to be limited to avoidance around the HRG survey activities, short-term changes in 

behavior, and limited and temporary loss of habitat from during the installation of meteorological 

towers and buoys. Thus, potential population-level impact on fish for HRG surveys is not 

anticipated. 

Sub-bottom sampling, construction of meteorological towers, and the installation of 

meteorological buoys could affect local benthic habitats. The seabed disturbance footprint of 

sub-bottom sampling would be small; it is expected that this activity would have negligible 

effects on benthic habitat, and that this disturbance would have a negligible, if detectible, impact 

on federally-managed fish species that may occur in the Delaware WEA. Impacts related to 

meteorological towers/buoys installation and decommissioning is expected to be minor and not 

expected to result in changes in local community assemblage and diversity. 

Fish could be exposed to operational discharges or accidental fuel releases from construction 

sites and construction vessels and to accidentally released solid debris. The entanglement in or 

ingestion of OCS-related trash and debris by fish would not be expected during normal 

operations. Impacts to fish and their habitat from the discharge of waste materials or the 

accidental release of fuels are expected to be minor. 

Under Alternative E, the lower level of activity would reduce the exposure of fish to noise 

from surveys and vessel traffic and potential discharges by approximately seven percent offshore 

Virginia, and pile driving offshore Virginia by one-third. There would be no potential for 

bottom disturbing activities to impact EFH located within the excluded blocks under Alternative 

E. 

Socioeconomic Conditions 

Offshore Archaeological Resources: Section 4.1.3.1, which describes the reasonably foreseeable 

impacts of Alternative A on offshore archaeological resources, concluded that the information 

generated from the lessee’s initial site characterization activities and should provide an adequate 

picture of the presence of significant and/or unique archaeological resources within the WEAs 

and along potential cable routes to shore. As a result, the potential for seafloor/bottomdisturbing activities (e.g., anchorages and installation of meteorological towers and buoys) to 

cause damage to or loss of significant and/or unique archaeological information would be 

189 
avoided. Under Alternative E, there would be no potential for bottom-disturbing activities to 

impact archeological resources located within the excluded blocks. 

Recreational Activities: Section 4.1.3.2, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on recreational resources, concluded that, due to the distance of the proposed lease 

areas from shore and the fact that that no new coastal infrastructure is proposed, no impacts to 

coastal recreational resources from meteorological towers or buoys and spills within the WEAs 

are expected. Section 4.1.3.2 also concluded that the increase in vessel traffic associated with 

Alternative A would not significantly affect recreation in the coastal areas or oceans outside any 

of the potentially affected states. While impacts could occur from marine trash and debris 

associated with Alternative A, they would unlikely be perceptible to beach users or 

administrators. 

The excluded blocks under Alternative E are located so far offshore that a meteorological 

tower located within those blocks would not be visible from shore in any case. Not leasing in 

this area would present no different impact, insofar as structures are concerned, than does 

Alternative A on recreational resources. Under Alternative E, vessel traffic and survey activities 

would be reduced by approximately seven percent. As a result, assuming that vessel traffic 

associated with the Virginia WEA would traverse Virginia coastal and harbor-related waters, 

Alternative E would slightly reduce the risk that vessel traffic and discharges could impact 

recreational activities within Virginia. 

Demographics: Section 4.1.3.3, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on demographics, concluded that, due to the magnitude, dispersed nature, and 

short duration of survey, construction, and decommissioning activities, any benefit to local 

economies or employment would be minor and short-term. Also these activities are not expected 

to employ many workers relative to the existing employment numbers. Due to the reduced level 

of site characterization surveys and site assessment activities offshore Virginia as compared with 

Alternative A, Alternative E is expected to produce slightly fewer positive impacts on the 

population and employment of coastal counties of Virginia, assuming that the activities in the 

Virginia WEA would be supported by facilities in Virginia. 

Environmental Justice: Section 4.1.3.4, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A related to environmental justice issues, concluded that Alternative A would have 

no impacts on the environmental or health-related conditions of minority or low-income 

populations. Only the use of existing coastal facilities has the potential to impact minority or 

low-income populations. However, no expansion of these existing onshore areas is anticipated 

to support Alternative A or Alternative E, and significant increases in activity at these existing 

facilities are not anticipated as a result of either Alternative A or Alternative E. As a result, 

neither Alternative A nor Alternative E is expected to have disproportionately high or adverse 

environmental or health effects on minority or low-income populations. 

Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure: Section 4.1.3.5, which describes the reasonably 

foreseeable impacts of Alternative A on land use and coastal infrastructure, concluded that 

existing ports or industrial areas are expected to be used, and that expansion of these existing 

facilities is not anticipated to support Alternative A. This assumption also applies to Alternative 

E. Assuming that Virginia coastal infrastructure would be used to support activities in the WEA 

190 
offshore Virginia, the selection of Alternative E would reduce the need for Virginia’s coastal 

infrastructure for survey vessels by approximately seven percent, and for the fabrication and/or 

staging of towers or buoys by one-third. As a result, Alternative E would have less impact on 

land use or coastal infrastructure in Maryland than would Alternative A. 

 

Commercial and Recreational Fishing Activities: Section 4.1.4.6, which describes the 

reasonably foreseeable impacts of Alternative A on commercial and recreational fishing 

activities, concluded that the increase in vessel traffic, and activities from the 

installation/operation of the meteorological towers and buoys would not measurably impact 

commercial or recreational fishing activities, total catch of fish and shellfish, or navigation. Any 

impacts, such fishing displacement and target species availability, would be of short duration, 

limited in area, and temporary. Proposed mitigation measures (notifying fisherman of 

construction and decommissioning activities, and verification and evidence of site clearance) 

would further reduce or eliminate any potential minor impacts on fisheries. 

Under Alterative E, there would be no potential for site characterization surveys and site 

assessment activities to conflict with commercial fishing within the excluded blocks. Compared 

to Alternative A, Alternative E may reduce the potential for fishing-use conflict within and 

around the WEA offshore Virginia. However, due to the distance from shore of the excluded 

blocks, recreational fishing is unlikely to take place there. As a result, Alternative E would not 

likely benefit or otherwise affect recreational fishing in any manner other than that described in 

Alternative A. 

Other Uses of the OCS: Section 4.1.3.7, which describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

Alternative A on other uses of the OCS, concluded direct impacts on vessel traffic density and 

patterns would occur from routine activities as a result of Alternative A. Under Alternative E, 

survey and construction activities that would impact vessel traffic density and patterns would not 

occur in the excluded blocks that were identified by AWO and USCG as has having navigational 

safety issues. Therefore, Alternative E would provide a reduction in the overall risk of collisions 

and allisions than would result from selecting Alternative A. In addition, the reduction in the 

overall level of vessel traffic associated with the Virginia WEA, compared to Alternative A, 

would reduce the risk collisions, while one less meteorological tower would reduce the risk of 

allisions within the Virginia WEA. 

Summary/Conclusion 

The potential impacts of Alternative E would differ from Alternative A only within the 

Virginia WEA and in the coastal and harbor areas of Virginia. There would be no potential for 

bottom disturbing activities to impact benthic habitats or archeological resources located within 

the excluded blocks. While there is still the potential for conflicts with other uses of the OCS in 

the remaining areas in the Virginia WEA, there would be no potential for conflict within the 

excluded blocks. 

Compared to Alternative A, the reduced level of survey and construction activities under 

Alternative E would reduce the impacts on air and water quality within the vicinity of the 

Virginia WEA. Reduced vessel traffic and fewer structures would reduce the risk of vessel 

collisions and allisions, reducing the risk of a diesel spill. The lower level of activity would 

reduce the exposure of marine mammals, sea turtles, and fish to noise from surveys, vessel 

traffic, and pile driving in and around the WEA. The reduced vessel traffic would also lower the 

191 
risk of vessel collisions with marine mammals and sea turtles. There would be less 

loss/displacement of sea turtles from forage areas under Alternative E. One less meteorological 

tower is projected to be constructed as a result of not leasing the 2 full and 4 partial OCS blocks 

of the Virginia WEA, which would reduce the overall risk of bird collisions. While the same 

existing onshore facilities would be used in support of the site characterization surveys and site 

assessment in the remainder of the Virginia WEA, fewer survey, construction and support vessel 

trips would reduce the increase of wake induced erosion and risk of diesel spills in coastal waters 

and ports, mainly in Virginia. Alternative E is expected to produce slightly fewer positive 

impacts on the population and employment of coastal counties of Virginia. 

Under Alternative E, survey and construction activities that would impact vessel traffic 

density and patterns would not occur in the excluded blocks that were identified by the American 

Waterways Operators and USCG as presenting navigational safety issues. Alternative E would 

provide a greater reduction in the risk of collisions and allisions than would result from simply 

reducing the level of activity alone. 

4.7 Alternative F – No Action 

Description of the Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no commercial or research leases to develop wind energy 

would be issued and there would be no approval of additional site assessment activities within 

the WEAs offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia at this time. Site assessment 

activities authorized under the four Interim Policy leases offshore New Jersey and Delaware (see

Section 1.6 of this EA) could still occur. While site characterization surveys are not under 

BOEM’s jurisdiction and could still be conducted, it is not likely that these activities would 

occur without a commercial energy lease. 

Effects of the Alternative 

Any potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts, described in Section 4.1 of this 

EA, from these activities would not occur or would be postponed. Opportunities for the 

collection of meteorological, oceanographic and biological data offshore Maryland and Virginia 

would also not occur or would be postponed. Opportunities for the collection of meteorological, 

oceanographic and biological data offshore New Jersey and Delaware would be limited to the 

four existing Interim Policy leases. 

Summary/Conclusion 

Any potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts, described in Section 4.1 of this 

EA, from these activities would not occur or would be postponed. Opportunities for the 

collection of meteorological, oceanographic and biological data offshore Maryland and Virginia 

would also not be presented to potential applicants, or would be postponed. Opportunities for the 

collection of meteorological, oceanographic, and biological data offshore New Jersey and 

Delaware would be limited to the four existing Interim Policy leases. 

Under the no action alternative, the collection of data necessary to successfully determine the 

feasibility of all of the proposed lease areas for commercial wind energy development from a 

dedicated data collection facility would not occur and site characterization surveys would not 

likely occur. 

192 
4.8 Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts are the impacts on the environment that result from the incremental 

impact of Alternative A when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions regardless of what agency, industry, or person undertakes the other actions. See 40 CFR 

1508.7. The purpose of this EA is to issue leases and approve site assessment plans, which 

allows the installation of meteorological facilities. Additional analysis under NEPA will be 

required before any future decision is made regarding construction or operation of any wind 

energy facility on leases that may be issued within the WEAs. BOEM is not currently reviewing 

any COP, nor has any COP been submitted for the agency’s consideration in the aforementioned 

WEAs. The purpose of conducting surveys and installing meteorological measurement devices 

is to assess the wind resources in the lease area and to characterize the environmental and 

socioeconomic resources and conditions so that a lessee can determine whether the site is 

suitable for commercial development and, if so, submit a COP for BOEM review. 

Chapter 7.6.2 of the Programmatic EIS discusses generic cumulative impacts associated with 

leasing on individual environmental and socioeconomic resources. The hallmark of the affected 

environment for Alternative A is one of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable human-induced 

impacts over an extended period of time. This EA has discussed Alternative A in context of 

these past and present activities, and in the case of navigational safety, future increases in vessel 

traffic (e.g, increase in shipping in the future, widening of the Panama Canal, etc.). See Section 

4.1.3.7. The following summarizes the cumulative impacts discussed in the EA and will focus 

on the incremental impact of Alternative A when added to other reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, which include proposed renewable energy projects in New Jersey State waters and 

offshore New York, existing interim policy leases, and existing meteorological facilities on the 

OCS. 

Onshore 

As discussed in Section 4.1.3.5, there are nine major ports and 28 smaller ports in New 

Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia that could support Alternative A. These existing sites 

would be used as fabrication sites, staging areas, and crew/cargo launch sites for the installation, 

operations and decommission of meteorological towers and buoys, and to conduct site 

characterization surveys. Some of the major ports are among the busiest in the nation, and all 

would be accessed by already heavily used waterways. 

As discussed in Section 4.1.2.1, while New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia have a 

complex range of diverse coastal habitats consisting of barrier islands, sand spits, beaches, 

dunes, tidal and non-tidal wetlands, mudflats, and estuaries, much of the Atlantic shoreline in 

these states has been altered in some degree, and most of the coastal habitats have been impacted 

by human activities. Much of this alteration has been from development, agriculture, maritime 

activities, beach replenishment, or shore protection activities, such as jetties (USDOI, MMS, 

2007a). 

New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland 

Due to their proximity to three of the WEAs, it is anticipated that the coastal areas of New 

Jersey, Delaware and Maryland would host the majority of the activity associated with the 

WEAs offshore those states. 

As discussed in Section 4.1.2.1, while New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland have a complex 

range of diverse coastal habitats consisting of barrier islands, sand spits, beaches, dunes, tidal 

193 
and non-tidal wetlands, mudflats, and estuaries, much of the Atlantic shoreline in these states has 

been altered in some degree, and most of the coastal habitats have been impacted by human 

activities. For example, New Jersey is considered the most developed and densely populated 

shoreline in the country (Richard Stockton College, Coastal Research Center, 2011). 

Several of the ports that would support Alternative A would be access by the Delaware Bay 

and Delaware River. Delaware Bay is important ecologically and commercially to the region. 

The Delaware estuary wetlands, which include the Delaware Bay area, provide critical habitat 

for 35 percent of the region’s threatened and endangered species (Adkins, 2008) (see Section 

4.1.2.1). The Delaware Bay is also home to the world’s largest freshwater port with over 3,000 

commercial vessel arrivals annually (Marriott and Frantz, 2007). The Port of Wilmington is the 

busiest terminal, handling over 400 vessels per year, on the Delaware River, which passes 

through the urban and industrialized areas (Port of Wilmington, 2011) (see Section 4.1.3.5.2). 

As discussed in Section 4.1.3.3 of this EA, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland, like the rest 

of the Atlantic region, are comprised of heterogeneous sociocultural and economic systems. In 

2008, the shore adjacent counties of these three states had populations of over 8 million, nearly a 

quarter of a million businesses, over 3.6 million jobs, and nearly $185 billion in wages. 

Virginia 

Due to their proximity to the Virginia WEA, it is anticipated that the coastal areas of Virginia 

would host the majority of the activity associated with the WEA offshore Virginia. 

While the Chesapeake Bay, which includes coastlines for both Maryland and Virginia, is the 

world’s third largest estuary, it is also an important commercial waterway and near many large 

commercial, industrial, and urban areas. There are numerous large and small ports located along 

the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia, especially the large port in the Hampton Roads area, which 

could be used to support activities associated with Alternative A. As discussed in Section 

4.1.2.1, growing commercial, industrial, recreational and urban activities threaten the 

Chesapeake Bay and its living resources. 

As discussed in Section 4.1.3.5 of this EA, Virginia, like the rest of the Atlantic region, is 

comprised of heterogeneous sociocultural and economic systems. In 2008, the counties of 

Virginia adjacent to the shoreline had populations of about 2.2 million, over 60,000 

establishments, over 1.1 million jobs, and about $53.5 billion in wages. 

Incremental Contribution of Alternative A 

Over 12,000 round trips are anticipated from site characterization and assessment activities 

associated with Alternative A over a five and one-half year period, if the entire area of each 

WEA would be leased and the maximum amount of site characterization surveys would be 

conducted in the leased areas of the WEAs. These trips would be divided among nine major and 

28 smaller existing ports in Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia. Due to proximity, it 

is assumed the majority of traffic associated with site characterization and assessment of the 

Virginia WEA (about 2,800 round trips) would be supported by the 3 major and 9 smaller ports 

in Virginia. If all ports are used equally, this would average about 45 round trips per year to 

each of the Virginia ports. Based simply on the number of ports in each state, traffic associated 

with site characterization and assessment of the WEAs offshore New Jersey (about 6,400 round 

trips), Delaware (about 1,200 round trips) and Maryland (about 1,700 round trips) would be 

divided as follows: over half of the traffic supported by 3 major and 11 smaller ports in New 

Jersey; and the remainder of the traffic split between 3 major and 8 smaller ports in Delaware 

194 
and Maryland. If all ports are used equally, this would average about 60 round trips per year to

each of the ports in New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland. 

Since Alternative A would be supported by several existing sites located in already heavily 

impacted areas, and would add a relatively minor amount of additional vessel traffic, the 

incremental impacts to coastal habitats and the economy from onshore activities associated with 

Alternative A would be negligible, if detectable. 

Offshore 

Of the other activities that would occur offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and 

Virginia during the five and one-half year life of Alternative A, the chief impact-producing 

activity is vessel traffic. For example, one of the primary human-induced threats identified for 

the North Atlantic right whale, among the most endangered whales in the world, is collisions 

with vessels (ship strikes). 

With the exception of other renewable energy activities, the past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions discussed in this section are not unique to the Mid-Atlantic WEAs or 

region. Migratory species, which may be impacted by Alternative A, would also experience 

impacts from other actions while outside of the WEAs and Mid-Atlantic region. Sections 4.1.1.3 

(Marine Mammals), 4.1.1.4 (Sea Turtles), and 4.1.1.5 (Birds) discuss cumulative impacts 

specific to those migratory species. 

All of the WEAs are located at or near the entrances to major ports and traditional coastwise 

routes. Like the inland waterways that would support Alternative A, offshore waters from the 

shoreline to the seaward extent of the WEAs are also heavily trafficked by commercial, private, 

or military vessels (see Section 4.1.3.7). This is evident by the number of ports located in New 

Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia (see Section 4.1.3.5). Millions of military, commercial 

and recreational vessel trips are projected to occur during the five and one-half year life of 

Alternative A (USDOI, MMS, 2007a). 

As discussed in Section 4.1.3.7 of this EA, BOEM received an unsolicited ROW grant 

application from AGH for over 700 statute mile (600 nm) subsea backbone transmission system 

in state and federal waters offshore New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. 

Since the site characterization surveys would be the same as the surveys of potential cable routes 

to shore under Alternative A, the potential impacts would be similar to those described in 

Chapter 4.1. Using the same assumptions presented in Section 3.1.1.1, the AWC proposal could 

result in up to 3,000 nm of additional HRG surveys and 600 bottom samples. Based on the 

estimated number of surveys, BOEM anticipates the AWC proposal would add 900 vessel trips 

to the 12,000 vessel trips anticipated as a result of Alternative A and the millions of other 

unrelated vessel trips that would occur during the five and one-half year life of Alternative A. 

The 12,900 cumulative vessel trips associated with both Alternative A and the AWC proposal 

that would occur in this heavily trafficked area are not anticipated to lead to significant 

environmental consequences. Similarly, the discussion of sub bottom sampling contained in 

Chapter 4 of this EA concluded that 1,800-4,800 samples that could be taken over the life of the 

project would have no significant impact. This conclusion remains valid even when 600 

additional samples are added to the scenario. 

While there are no meteorological towers or buoys currently located within any of the 

WEAs, there are dozens of meteorological, oceanographic, and navigational buoys located 

between the WEAs and between the WEAs and shore. Chapter 3 of this EA describes the 

reasonably foreseeable scenario regarding the placement of meteorological buoys within the 

195 
WEAs, which is projected at a maximum of 25 from the WEA offshore Virginia to the WEA 

offshore New Jersey. When added to the existing buoys offshore these states, the buoys 

associated with Alternative A are not anticipated to result in significant environmental 

consequences. 

There are also four existing interim leases that would allow meteorological towers and buoys 

to be installed in the WEAs offshore Delaware and New Jersey. As discussed in Section 3.1.3 

and the Interim Policy EA: Issuance of Leases for Wind Resource Data Collection on the Outer 

Continental Shelf Offshore Delaware and New Jersey Environmental Assessment (USDOI, 

MMS, 2009a), the reasonably foreseeable impacts of these towers and buoys would be the same 

as those associated with the towers and buoys contemplated in Alternative A. See also Section 

4.1 of this EA. While there are several meteorological, oceanographic, and navigational buoys 

installed in vicinity of the WEAs, there are currently no meteorological towers or buoys installed 

within the New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia WEAs. A total of 14 meteorological 

towers are projected to be installed within the WEAs as a result of Alternative A (12) and the 

Interim Policy leases (2). A total of 27 meteorological buoys are projected to be installed within 

the WEAs as a result of Alternative A (25) and the Interim Policy leases (2). Due to the distance 

between structures and the impacts associated with installing, maintaining, and decommissioning 

these structures, overlapping or additive impacts are not anticipated to be significant. Since 

Alternative A would account for nearly all of the meteorological towers and buoys in the WEAs, 

the cumulative impacts of the installation, operation and decommissioning of meteorological 

towers and buoys would be primarily a result of Alternative A. The addition of two 

meteorological towers or 4 buoys that could be associated with these interim leases, when added 

to the 12 meteorological towers or 25 buoys associated with Alternative A are not anticipated to 

result in significant environmental consequences. The cumulative impact of the meteorological 

towers and buoys anticipated as a result of Alternative A when added to the impact of the same 

on the Interim Policy leases would likely be negligible to minor on all environmental resources 

and socioeconomic conditions as described in Section 4.1 of this EA. 

Fishermen’s Energy has proposed a demonstration scale wind project, consisting of six 

turbines, for an area located about 2.8 miles east of Atlantic City, New Jersey, within New Jersey 

State waters. (see Public Notice CENAP-OP-R 2008-777). On May 06, 2011, Fishermen’s 

Energy received the State permits required to start construction. 

 The WTGs associated with this facility would have towers and foundations similar to those 

of meteorological towers discussed in this EA. Unlike the meteorological towers anticipated 

under Alternative A, each WTG would also be comprised of rotor (blades and blade hub) and 

turbine assembly (gearbox and generator enclosed by a shell or nacelle). An offshore wind 

energy facility would also have an electric service platform (ESP). 

The Fisherman’s Energy project would occupy a relatively small space on the ocean 

(approximately 700 acres), and would not likely, in and of itself, result in substantial impact to 

the resources that Alternative A could also impact. (see Public Notice CENAP-OP-R 2008-777). 

When added to the predicted impacts of the Fisherman’s Energy project, the reasonably 

foreseeable environmental consequences associated with Alternative A are not anticipated to be 

significant. 

The Chesapeake Light platform is located 13 nm offshore Virginia Beach, west of the 

Virginia WEA, and is a structure that mariners navigate around. The additional three 

meteorological towers or six meteorological buoys that could be installed within the Virginia 

196 
WEA under Alternative A, when added to the Chesapeake Light, are not anticipated to pose a 

significant obstruction to marine traffic. 

While over 12,000 round trips are anticipated from site characterization and assessment 

activities associated with Alternative A over a five and one-half year period, this is relatively 

minor when compared to existing vessel traffic and considering these trips would be divided 

among nine major and 28 smaller existing ports in Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, and 

Virginia (see section Sections 4.1.3.5 and 4.1.3.7 of this EA). The additional vessel traffic 

generated by Alternative A, and the environmental consequences associated with this vessel 

traffic would likely be undetectable compared to the impacts of millions of military, commercial 

and recreational vessel trips projected to occur during the same five and one-half year period. 

The New York Power Authority (NYPA) submitted to BOEM an unsolicited application for 

a commercial lease for an area approximately 13 nm off the south shore of Long Island, in a 

south eastern direction from the Rockaway Peninsula. Were the lease issued, site 

characterization surveys may occur during the 5 and one-half year life of the activities 

contemplated under the alternatives. In addition, it is possible that NYPA may submit, and 

BOEM may consider and approve, a SAP for the proposed NYPA lease area. In any case, 

BOEM would prepare the necessary NEPA analysis prior to issuing a lease to NYPA or 

approving or approving with modification any SAP submitted by NYPA. 

Should BOEM issue a lease to NYPA in the future, BOEM anticipates that site 

characterization and assessment of the lease would include approximately 1,300 vessel trips to 

the approximately 12,000 vessel trips that would be associated with the alternatives considered in 

this EA and the millions of other unrelated vessel trips that would occur during the five and onehalf year time period contemplated in this EA. However, the New York Power Authority 

solicitation indicates that the most viable port available to support lease activities would be on 

Staten Island, New York, a port that vessels associated with the alternatives in this EA are not 

anticipated to use. Using the same assumptions presented in Chapter 3 of this EA, BOEM 

anticipates that, if NYPA were to obtain a lease, it would undertake 7,300 nm of HRG surveys 

and approximately 600 bottom surveys on the lease. These activities, would be located 44.2 nm 

north of the northernmost extent of the New Jersey WEA, and the vessel traffic associated with 

these activities are not anticipated to conflict with activities in and around the Mid-Atlantic 

WEAs. The discussion of sub bottom sampling found in Chapter 4 of this EA concluded that 

1,800-4,800 samples that could be taken over the life of the alternatives considered in this EA 

would have no significant impact. This conclusion remains valid in light of the future potential 

for 600 additional samples to be taken offshore Long Island. 

 Using the same assumptions presented in Section 3.1.3, Should NYPA submit, and BOEM 

approve a SAP on the prospective NYPA lease, the applicant would likely install one 

meteorological tower or two meteorological buoys on the lease. These structures, if installed, 

would be located 44.2 nm north of the northernmost point of the WEA offshore New Jersey, and 

is not anticipated to cause conflicts with the use of the WEAs offshore the Mid-Atlantic States. 

The discussion of the consequences of meteorological towers and buoys found in Chapter 4 of 

this EA concluded that 12 towers or 25 buoys that could be installed, operated, and 

decommissioned in the Mid-Atlantic WEAs would not have a significant impact on the 

environment. The potential future addition of one tower or two buoys on a prospective lease 

offshore Long Island would not cumulatively lead to significant impacts. 

 

197 
198 

Global Climate Change 

Cumulative activities, which include Alternative A, could impact global climate change. 

Chapter 7.6.1.4 of the Programmatic EIS describes Global Climate Change with respect to 

renewable energy development. The following is a summary of that information and 

incorporates new information specific to Alternative A. 

The temperature of the earth’s atmosphere is regulated by a balance between the radiation 

received from the sun, the amount reflected by the earth’s surface and clouds, and the amount of 

radiation absorbed by the earth and atmosphere. Greenhouse gases (GHG) keep the earth’s 

surface warmer than it would be otherwise because they absorb infrared radiation from the earth 

and, in turn, radiate this energy back down to the surface. While these gases occur naturally in 

the atmosphere, there has been a rapid increase in concentrations of greenhouse gases in the 

earth’s atmosphere from anthropogenic sources since the start of industrialization, which has 

caused concerns over potential changes in the global climate. The primary anthropogenic 

greenhouse gases are CO2, CH4, nitrous oxide (N2O), and halocarbons (MMS, 2007a). 

During the surveying, construction and decommissioning phases of Alternative A, GHG 

emissions would occur. It is currently beyond the scope of existing science to identify a specific 

source or discrete amount of GHG emissions and designate it as the cause of specific climate 

impacts at any particular location (USDOI, USGS, 2009). This is because the nature of the 

climate change phenomena thus far has precluded the identification of a causal relationship 

between discrete GHG emissions and specific environmental effects. However, the causes and 

effects of climate change can be summarized as follows. First, GHGs are emitted into the 

atmosphere, causing global warming (i.e., aggregate average increase in the temperature of the 

earth’s atmosphere). Second, global warming induces the climate to change in disparate ways at 

various places around the globe, altering global precipitation regimes, decreasing the salinity of 

the oceans, and altering the seasons. Finally, climate change leads to direct impacts on the 

environment, such as changes to the structure of an ecosystem, changes to air quality, a reduced 

supply and increased cost of food, warming of polar regions, higher precipitation totals, sea level 

rise, extreme temperatures, and severe weather events (USEPA, 2011). 

In general, while it can be assumed that the GHG emissions associated with Alternative A 

contribute to the phenomenon of climate change, these contributions are so small compared to 

the aggregate global emissions of GHGs that they cannot be deemed significant, if their impact 

could even be detected. The additional 43 – 67 vessel trips per port per year anticipated with 

Alternative A would have a negligible incremental contribution to existing GHG emissions, and 

therefore, would have an exceedingly minor effect to the environment via contributions to 

climate change. 

Conclusion 

The hallmark of the affected environment considered in this EA is one of past, present, and 

foreseeable human-induced impacts over an extended period of time. The incremental 

contribution of the proposed action and alternatives to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions which may affect the environment would be negligible to minor. Indeed, the 

proposed action and alternatives would facilitate the collection of meteorological, oceanographic, 

and biological data for the environments offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. 
5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

BOEM conducted early coordination with appropriate Federal and State agencies, Tribal 

governments, and other concerned parties to discuss and coordinate the development and 

refinement of WEAs under the Secretary’s “Smart from the Start” initiative (see Sections 1.1.1 

and 1.5 of this EA). Formal consultations and cooperating agency exchanges are detailed below. 

In addition, BOEM regularly coordinated informally, through dialogue, teleconferences, and inperson meetings, with the Federal and State agencies noted. Key agencies included NMFS, 

USFWS, DOD, FAA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), USACE, USCG, 

USEPA, NPS, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 

(DNREC), the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME), the State 

Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia, and 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). 

5.1 Public Involvement 

5.1.1 Notice of Intent 

On February 9, 2011, BOEM announced in the Federal Register the NOI to prepare this EA 

(76 FR 7226). The NOI solicited public input on issues and alternatives to be considered and 

analyzed in the EA. BOEM accepted comments until March 11, 2011. In total, 38 comments 

were received during the 30-day comment period. Issues identified to be analyzed included 

analysis of conflicts with vessel traffic; avoidance of artificial reefs; and analysis of noise 

impact, collision risk, and the impacts of G&G surveys. Two specific alternatives to reduce 

conflicts with existing vessel traffic were identified for Virginia. One was addressed by 

removing the block in question from the alternatives considered in the EA and the other was 

analyzed as an alternative. The comments can be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for docket id BOEM-2010-0077. 

5.1.2 Notice of Availability 

The Draft EA was available for public review and comment for 30 days following the 

publication of the NOA in the Federal Register on July 12, 2011 (76 FR 40925). The Draft EA 

was posted on BOEM’s website at: http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/Smartfrom-the-Start/Index.aspx. The availability of the Draft EA was also announced in a USDOI 

press release (see http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Interior-Takes-Next-Step-towardHolding-First-Ever-Lease-Sales-for-Commercial-Wind-in-the-Mid-Atlantic.cfm). 

Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force members were notified by email. 

The comment period ended on August 11, 2011. During this period, BOEM conducted two 

webinars, which provided stakeholders an overview of the EA and consultations. Attendees 

included applicable Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force members, nongovernmental organizations, and entities that responded to planning notices for the WEAs 

offshore New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland (see Section 1.4.3). 

In response to the NOA, BOEM received 60 individual letters via the internet and regular 

mail. This included a set of 2,265 form letters submitted by the Sierra Club and a petition 

submitted by the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund on behalf of its supporters. 

Information submitted from written comments is summarized in Appendix C of this EA. 

199 
Commenters can find responses to their individual comments by locating their name, 

organization or document ID found just above each set of comments. All comments received 

were considered in the preparation of this EA and in determining whether the proposed action 

and alternatives would lead to significant environmental impacts. Comment letters received in 

response to the NOA can be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket ID 

BOEM-2011-0053. 

5.1.3 Cooperating Agencies 

Section 1500.5(b) of the CEQ implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500.5(b)) encourages 

agency cooperation early in the NEPA process. A Federal agency can be a lead, joint lead, or 

cooperating agency. A lead agency manages the NEPA process and is responsible for the 

preparation of an EA or EIS; a joint lead Agency shares these responsibilities; and a cooperating 

agency is one that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental 

issue and which participates in the NEPA process upon the request of the lead agency. The NOI 

included an invitation to other Federal agencies and State, tribal, and local governments to 

consider becoming cooperating agencies in the preparation of this EA. Three cooperating 

agencies were identified and all three participated in the development and review of this EA. 

The agencies’ jurisdiction and/or expertise are described below. 

Section 4(e) of OCSLA extends the USACE’s authority to prevent the obstruction to 

navigation in the navigable waters of the U.S. to OCS facilities. This includes the construction 

of meteorological towers and installation of buoys proposed by BOEM. BOEM invited the 

USACE in a letter dated February 18, 2011 to participate as a cooperating agency on this EA. 

That invitation was accepted by the USACE’s North Atlantic Division in a letter to BOEM dated 

February 22, 2011. The USACE is also a co-consulting agency on Section 106, EFH and ESA 

consultations described below. 

Also, on February 18, 2011 BOEM sent a letter, inviting the USCG to participate as a 

cooperating agency. BOEM requested USCG’s assistance in the preparation of the EA, and it 

accepted, due to its jurisdiction and expertise with port usage vessel traffic, lighting 

requirements/mitigation measures for meteorological towers and buoys, and spill risk and 

response. 

As part of the comments received on the NOI, the Commonwealth of Virginia DMME 

requested to participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of this EA. Due to DMME’s 

expertise in environmental conditions and issues associated with the areas offshore Virginia and 

Virginia’s port usage, on March 30, 2011, BOEM invited the DMME to participate as a 

cooperating agency on the EA. The DMME accepted the invitation on April 1, 2011. 

5.2 Consultations 

5.2.1 Endangered Species Act 

As required by Section 7 of the ESA, BOEM consulted with NMFS and USFWS on 

assessing the potential impacts of the proposed action on endangered/threatened species and 

designated critical habitat under their jurisdiction. In letters dated March 24, 2011, BOEM 

initiated informal consultations with NMFS and USFWS. The March 24, 2011 biological 

assessment (BA), prepared by BOEM for the consultations, concluded proposed lease issuance, 

associated site characterization, and subsequent site assessment activities were likely to affect 

200 
but not adversely affect ESA-listed sea turtles, marine mammals, bats, birds, and fish (USDOI, 

BOEMRE, 2011c). 

In a letter dated June 20, 2011, USFWS concurred with BOEM’s determination that the 

proposed issuance of offshore wind energy leases and approval of site assessment activities 

would not adversely affect ESA-listed birds (Roseate tern and piping plover) (USFWS, 2011e). 

However, its determination, USFWS requested that BOEM make determinations regarding the 

ESA-listed cahow or Bermuda petrel (Pterodroma cohow) as new data indicated the possibility 

that the species may seasonally occur in the vicinity of the Virginia WEA. In light of this new 

information, BOEM has affected potential impacts to the cahow which is included in this Final 

EA. 

The consultation with NMFS was concluded on September 20, 2011 (USDOC, NOAA, 

NMFS, 2011c). NMFS concluded that the proposed lease issuance, associated site 

characterization, and subsequent site assessment activities is not likely to adversely affect listed 

whales or sea turtles, when implemented according to the project design criteria and the 

conditions outlined in this assessment (see Appendix B). These requirements will be included as 

a condition on any leases and/or SAPs issued or approved under this decision. 

5.2.2 Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

Pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, Federal agencies are required to consult with NMFS on any action that may result in 

adverse effects to EFH. The NMFS regulations implementing the EFH provisions of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act can be found at 50 CFR 600. 

Certain OCS activities authorized by BOEM may result in adverse effects to EFH, and therefore, 

require EFH consultation. 

Concurrent with publication of the Draft EA, BOEM initiated consultation with the NMFS, 

as required by the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, on the effects of the 

following on fish and EFH: (1) issuing leases; (2) site characterization activities that lessees may 

undertake on those leases (e.g., geophysical, geotechnical, archaeological and biological 

surveys); and (3) the subsequent approval of site assessment activities on the leaseholds (e.g., 

installation and operation of meteorological towers and buoys) in the WEAs offshore New 

Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. BOEM concluded that the proposed actions may 

adversely impact the quality and quantity of fish, essential fish habitat and the fish that are 

present. Howerver, given the limited spatial extent and limited duration of the proposed 

actitivies, it is not likely that the impacts would be more than temporary and not substantially 

affect the populations of fish in the area. BOEM received the results of this consultation in a 

letter dated August 11, 2011. In that letter NMFS identified four conservation recommendations 

that BOEM will consider applying in the future if and when a lessee submits a COP for a full 

scale wind energy development. See Appendix C of this EA. 

5.2.3 Coastal Zone Management Act 

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires that Federal actions that are reasonably 

likely to affect any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone be “consistent to the 

maximum extent practicable” with relevant enforceable policies of the State’s federally approved 

coastal management program (15 CFR 930 Subpart C). If an activity will have direct, indirect, 

or cumulative effects, the activity is subject to Federal consistency. A consistency review was 

201 
performed and a Regional Consistency Determination (CD) was prepared for the affected States. 

Under 15 CFR 930.36(e): 

A Federal agency may provide states with CDs for Federal agency activities that are national 

or regional in scope and that affect any coastal use or resource of more than one State. Many 

States share common coastal management issues and have similar enforceable policies. The 

Federal agency’s regional consistency determination should, at a minimum, address the 

common denominator of these policies and thereby addresses different States’ policies with 

one discussion and determination. 

BOEM has determined that New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia all share common 

coastal management issues, and have similar enforceable policies as identified by their respective 

CMPs. Due to the proximity of the WEAs to each other (at least in the cases of the New Jersey, 

Delaware, and Maryland WEAs), the similarity of the reasonably foreseeable activities for all of 

the four WEAs, and similar nature of impacts on environmental and socioeconomic resources 

and uses within each state, BOEM has prepared a single Regional CD under 15 CFR 930.36(e) to 

determine whether issuing leases and approving site assessment activities (including the 

installation, operation and decommissioning of meteorological towers and buoys) within the 

WEAs offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia is consistent to the maximum 

extent practicable with the provisions identified as enforceable by the Coastal Management 

Programs of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

This single Regional CD was sent along with the Draft EA to New Jersey, Delaware, 

Maryland, and Virginia for their review. The Draft EA provided the comprehensive data and 

information required under 30 CFR 939.39 to support BOEM’s consistency determination. 

BOEM has determined that the activities described in this EA are consistent to the maximum 

extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the CMPs of New Jersey, Delaware, 

Maryland, and Virginia. The affected States had 60 days to review the Regional CD and the 

Draft EA (which provides the supporting information required under 30 CFR 930.39(a)); the 

State agency had 14 days of receiving this information to identify missing information required 

by 930.39(a). 

All four states have concurred with BOEM’s conclusion described in the Draft EA Regional 

CD. Both the States of Maryland and Delaware Coastal Programs’ requested and were granted 

15-day extensions according to 15 CFR 930.41(b). The States of Delaware, Maryland and 

Virginia provided comments regarding the Draft EA to BOEM with their letters of concurrence. 

The Commonwealth of Virginia concurred in a letter to BOEM on August 10, 2011; the State of 

Maryland concurred in a letter to BOEM on September 23, 2011; the State of Delaware 

concurred in a letter to BOEM on September 27, 2011; and the State of New Jersey concurred in 

a letter to BOEM on October 3, 2011. 

Pursuant to 30 CFR 585.611(b), if a lessee submits a SAP that shows changes in impacts 

from those identified in the regional CD prepared for this proposed action, BOEM may 

determine that the SAP is subject to a consistency certification. In that case, the lessee would 

submit a consistency certification under 15 CFR Part 930, Subpart E. BOEM would then submit 

the SAP and consistency certification to the affected States for CZMA review. 

5.2.4 National Historic Preservation Act 

 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470f), and the 

act’s implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800), require federal agencies to consider the 

effects of their actions on historic properties and afford the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to 

202 
comment. BOEM has determined that the following activities in the WEAs constitute 

undertakings subject to Section 106 of NHPA: 

(1) Lease issuance (including reasonably foreseeable consequences associated with 

shallow hazards, geological, geotechnical, and archaeological resource surveys); and, 

(2) Approval of a SAP (including reasonably foreseeable consequences associated 

with the installation and operation of meteorological tower(s) and/or meteorological 

buoy(s)). 

BOEM is currently working toward the execution of a Programmatic Agreement (PA) 

pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14(b) with its consulting parties and including the ACHP. This PA 

provides for Section 106 consultation to continue through both the leasing process and BOEM’s 

decision making process regarding the approval, approval with modification, or disapproval of 

lessees’ SAP and will also allow for a phased identification and evaluation of historic properties. 

Once executed and implemented, this PA will establish the process to determine and document 

the APE for each undertaking; to further identify historic properties located within each 

undertaking’s APE that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places (National Register); to assess the potential adverse effects; and to avoid, reduce, or 

resolve any such effects through the process set forth in the agreement. 

In February 9, 2011, BOEM formally notified the public through the Federal Register (pages 

7226-7228), that it was initiating the “Smart from the Start” wind energy initiative and that it 

would involve Federal agencies, States, Tribes, local governments, wind power developers and 

the public as BOEM conducted the NEPA process and engaged in consultation. In March 2011, 

BOEM identified and initiated a request for NHPA Section 106 consultation through 

correspondence with the appropriate Mid-Atlantic SHPOs and potentially affected federallyrecognized Tribes. As of the publication of this EA the SHPOs of Delaware, Maryland, New 

Jersey and Virginia have requested to be consulting parties. In addition, the Federallyrecognized Indian tribes of the Narragansett Indian Tribe and the Shinnecock Indian Nation have 

formally requested to be consulting parties. BOEM has and will continue to consult with these 

federally-recognized tribes on a government-to-government basis, in accordance with Executive 

Order 13175. 

BOEM has solicited local governments, potentially affected state-recognized tribes, 

additional federally-recognized tribes, and certain individuals and organizations with a potential 

interest in the undertaking (as identified through consultation with the SHPOs) to obtain further 

information and to learn their concerns regarding the proposed undertakings’ potential effects on 

historic properties. These entities contacted by BOEM are listed below in Table 5.1. 

BOEM has held three Section 106 consultation webinars with the consulting parties. The 

first was held on October 11, 2011 to present a draft of the PA and the second was held on 

November 9, 2011 to discuss the draft and comments received from the consulting parties. On 

December 15, 2011, BOEM held a third webinar to prepare a final version of the PA. As of 

publication of this EA, BOEM has circulated a finalized version of the PA that incorporates all 

of the comments and input from the consulting parties received to date. BOEM anticipates 

executing the PA on January 20, 2012. 

On October 20, 2011, BOEM solicited public comments on the proposed undertakings as 

they pertain to historic properties. BOEM received three comments is response to this 

solicitation. These comments from Mainstream Renewable Power (UK); the Offshore Wind 

Development Coalition and American Wind Energy Association; and the National Trust for 

Historic Preservation can be viewed at regulations.gov by searching for docket id BOEM-2011-

203 
0111. Additionally, BOEM, with the consulting parties, will continue to develop a plan to 

involve the public through outreach, notifications, and request for comment throughout the 

Section 106 consultation process for both the issuance of renewable energy leases and 

consideration of subsequent SAPs. 

204 
205 

Table 5.1 

Entities Solicited for Information and Concerns Regarding Historic Properties 

 and the Proposed Undertakings 

Federally-recognized 

Tribes State-recognized Tribes Local Governments Additional Organizations 

Absentee Shawnee Tribe of 

Oklahoma 

Cheroenhaka (Nottoway) 

Indian Tribe 

Accomack-Northampton 

Planning District Commission 

Lower Eastern Shore 

Heritage Council, Inc. 

Aroostook Band of Micmacs Chickahominy Tribe Atlantic City Maryland Commission on 

Indian Affairs 

Catawba Indian Nation Eastern Chickahominy Tribe Berlin, MD Preservation Maryland 

Delaware Nation (Anadarko) Lenape Indian Tribe of 

Delaware 

Board of Supervisors 

Accomack County 

Delaware Nation 

(Bartlesville) Mattaponi Tribe City of Chesapeake 

Delaware Nation (Emporia) Monacan Indian Nation City of Hampton 

Eastern Band of Cherokee 

Indians Nansemond Tribe City of Lewes 

Eastern Shawnee Tribe of 

Oklahoma 

Nanticoke Indian 

Association, Inc. City of Millville 

Houlton Band of Maliseet 

Indians 

Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape 

Indians City of Newport News 

Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Nottoway Indian Tribe City of Norfolk 

Miccosukee Tribe Pamunkey Tribe City of Portsmouth 

Narragansett Indian Tribe Patawomeck Indian Tribe City of Rehoboth 

Oneida Indian Nation Powhatan Renape Nation City of Suffolk 

Onondaga Nation Rampanough Mountain 

Indians City of Virginia Beach 

Passamaquoddy Tribe 

(Indian Township) Rappahannock Tribe Dennis Township 

Passamaquoddy Tribe 

(Pleasant Point) Upper Mattaponi Tribe Egg Harbor City 

Penobscot Nation Egg Harbor Township 

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe Hampton Roads Planning 

District Commission 

Seminole Tribe James City County 

Shinnecock Indian Nation Northampton/Accomack City 

Stockbridge-Munsee 

Community of Mohican 

Indians 

 Ocean City 

Tuscarora Nation Office of Congressman Michael 

N. Castle 

Wampanoag Tribe of Gay 

Head (Acquinnah) Ship Bottom Borough 

 Stafford Township 

 Sussex County 

 Sussex County Council 

 Town of Bethany 

 Town of Dewey Beach 

 Town of Fenwick 

 Town of Fenwick 

 Town of Ocean City 

 Town of Ocean City Council 

 Town of Ocean View 

 Town of South Bethany 

 Worcester County Commission 

6 REFERENCES 

Adkins, J. 2008. State of the Delaware Estuary 2008. Estuary News. Vol. 18. Issue 3. PDE 

Report No. 08-01. Available at: 

http://www.delawareestuary.org/pdf/EstuaryNews/2008/SummerNews08.pdf. 

Ahlén, I, B. Hans, and B. Lothar. 2009. Behavior of Scandinavian Bats during Migration and 

Foraging at Sea. Journal of Mammalogy 90, 1318-1323. 

Atlantic Grid Operations A – E, LLC. 2010. Petition for a Declatory Order Requesting 

Incentive Rate Treatment and Acceptance of Rate of Return for the Atlantic Wind 

Connection Companies Pursuant to Sections 205 and 219 of the Federal Power Act and Oder 

No. 679. 

Atlantic Grid Holdings, L.L.C. 2011. Atlantic Wind Connection Internet website: 

http://atlanticwindconnection.com/awc-intro/. Last accessed April 26, 2011. 

Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation and AWS Scientific, Inc. 2004. New Jersey offshore 

wind energy: feasibility study. Final Version. December 2004. Prepared for NJ Board of 

Public Utilities. Available at: http://www.njcleanenergy.com/files/file/FinalNewJersey.pdf. 

Bailey, H., B. Senior, D. Simmons, J. Rusin, G. Picken and P.M. Thompson. 2010. Assessing 

underwater noise levels during pile-driving at an offshore windfarm and its potential effects 

on marine mammals. Mar. Pollut. Bull. (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.01.003. 

Bowles A.E., M. Smultea, B. Würsig, D.P. DeMaster, and D. Palka. 1994. “Relative Abundance 

and Behavior of Marine Mammals Exposed to Transmissions from the Heard Island 

Feasibility Test,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 96(4):2469–2484. 

Bried, J. and M.C. Magalhães. 2004. First Paleartic record of the endangered Bermuda Petrel 

Pterodroma cahow. The Bulletin of the British Ornithologists ́ Club 124(3):202-206. 

Broadley, W.A. 2010. Comments on Commercial Leasing in response to Docket ID No. MMS2010-OMM-0038, Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) Offshore Maryland-Request for Interest, 75 FR 21653. 

Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie (BSH). 2007. Standard. StUK 3 - 

Investigation of the Impacts of Offshore Wind Turbines on the Marine Environment. 57pp. 

Center for Integrative Environmental Research (CIER), University of Maryland. 2010. 

Maryland Offshore Wind Development: Regulatory Environment, Potential Interconnection 

Points, Investment Model, and Select Conflict Areas. 

Chapman, C.J., and A.D. Hawkins. 1973. A field study of hearing in the cod, Gadus morhua. L. 

J. Comp. Physiol. 85:147-167. 

207 
Charif, R.A., D. K. Mellinger, K. J. Dunsmore, K. M. Fristrup, and C. W. Clark. 2002. 

Estimated source levels of fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) vocalizations: Adjustments for 

surface interference. Marine Mammal Science 18:81-98. 

Cole, K.B., D.B. Carter, and T.K. Arndt. 2005. Ensuring habitat considerations in beach and 

shoreline management along Delaware Bay – a bay wide perspective. Available at: 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/workshops/05oct-dots/s8-Cole.pdf. 

Collar, N.J., L.P. Gonzaga, N. Krabbe, A. Madroño-Nieto, L.G. Naranjo, T.A. Parker III, and 

D.C. Wege. 1992. Threatened Birds of the Americas. The ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book. 3rd 

edition, Part 2. International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge, UK. 

Colvocoresses, J.A. and J.A. Musick. 1984. Species associations and community composition 

of Middle Atlantic Bight continental shelf demersal fishes. Fish.Bull. (Wash. D.C.) 82:295-

313. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2004. Geological and Geophysical Exploration for Mineral 

Resources on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf, Final Programmatic 

Environmental Assessment. OCS EIS/EA, MMS 2004-054, prepared by Continental Shelf 

Associates, Jupiter, FL, for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA, July. Available at: 

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PDFs/2004/2004-054.pdf. 

Coombs, S., J. Janssen, and J. Montgomery. 1992. Functional and evolutionary implications of 

peripheral diversity in lateral line systems. In: Webster, D.B., R.R. Fay, and A.N. Popper 

(eds.). Evolutionary biology of hearing. 

Crothers, A.G. 2004. Commercial risk and capital formation in early America: Virginia 

merchants and the rise of marine insurance, 1750–1815. The Business History Review 

78(4):607–633. 

Cryan, P.M. 2003. Seasonal Distribution of Migratory Tree Bats (Lasiurus And Lasionycteris) 

In North America. Journal of Mammalogy: Vol. 84, No. 2 Pp. 579–593. 

Cryan, P.M. and A.C. Brown. 2007. Migration of Bats past a Remote island offers clues 

toward problem of bat fatalities at wind turbines, Biol. Conserv, 

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.05.019. 

Daniels, W. L. 2011. Dredge Spoil Utilization. Internet website: 

http://www.cses.vt.edu/revegetation/dredge.html. Last accessed May 2011. 

Delaware Department of Fish and Wildlife (DEDFW). 2011. Internet website: 

http://www.fw.delaware.gov/bats/Pages/BatFactsMyths.aspx Last accessed April 15, 2011. 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). 2009a. 

Delaware Annual Air Quality Report. Division of Air Quality. Internet website: 

208 
http://www.awm.delaware.gov/AQM/Documents/Annual%20Air%20Quality%20Rpt%2020

09.pdf. Last accessed March 23, 2011. 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). 2009b. 

Climate change Delaware coastal impacts. Internet website: 

http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/ClimateChange/Pages/ClimateChangeDelawareCoastalImpa

cts.aspx. Last accessed January 31, 2009. 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). 2011. 

Delaware Water Quality Assessment Report. Internet website: 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_index.control?p_area=DE. Last updated: July 08, 

2011. 

Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC). 2009. 2009 Annual Report. Available at: 

http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/2009AR.pdf. 

Delmarva Ornithological Society (DOS). 2011. Available at: http://www.dosbirds.org/records 

(Accessed: August 19, 2011). 

Derraik, J.G.B. 2002. “The Pollution of the Marine Environment by Plastic Debris: A Review,” 

Marine Pollution Bulletin 44:842–852. 

DF Dickens Associates, Ltd. 1995. The double hull issue and oil spill risk on the Pacific west 

coast. Prepared for the Enforcement and Environmental Emergencies Branch, Ministry of 

Environment, Lands, and Parks, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. October, 1995. 

Dickerman, R.W., and R.G. Goelet. 1987. “Northern Gannet Starvation after Swallowing 

Styrofoam,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 13:18–20. 

Di Iorio, L. and C.W. Clark. 2010. Exposure to seismic survey alters blue whale acoustic 

communication. Biol. Lett. February 23, 2010 6:51-54. 

Dobson, A. F. and J. Madeiros 2008. Threats Facing Bermuda’s Breeding Seabirds: Measures to 

Assist Future Breeding Success. Proceedings of the fourth International Partners in Flight 

conference: Tundra to Tropics. 223-226. 

Dunn, E.H. 1993. “Bird Mortality from Striking Residential Windows in Winter,” Journal of 

Field Ornithology 64:302–309. 

Eastern Research Group (ERG), Inc. 2010. Energy Market and Infrastructure Information for 

Evaluating Alternate Energy Projects for OCS Atlantic and Pacific Regions. Prepared for the 

United States Department of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. Volume 1. 273. pp. 

eBird. 2011. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. 

Version 2. eBird, Ithaca, New York. Internet website: http://www.ebird.org. Accessed: 

August 21, 2011. 

209 
Edgett-Baron, S. Personal communication. 2011. Federal Aviation Administration, Obstruction 

Evaluation Group, AWA/FAA. April 22, 2011. 

Engle, F. Personal communication. 2011. Readiness and Training Programs and Policy, Office 

of the Secretary of Defense. April 29, 2011. 

ESS Group, Inc. 2003. Scour analysis proposed offshore wind park. Nantucket Sound, 

Massachusetts. Prepared for Cape Wind Associates, L.L.C., Boston, MA, Sandwich, MA. 

Updated: 3-17-04. Internet website: 

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/projects/ma/ccwf/app4a.pdf. 

ESS Group, Inc. 2006. Conceptual rock armor scour protection design, Cape Wind Project 

Nantucket Sound. Scour analysis proposed offshore wind park. Nantucket Sound, 

Massachusetts. Prepared for Cape Wind Associates, L.L.C., Boston, MA. February 13, 

2006. Internet website: 

http://www.mms.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/DEIS/Report%20References%20-

%20Cape%20Wind%20Energy%20EIS/Report%20No%204.1.1-6.pdf. 

Fishermen’s Energy of New Jersey, LLC. 2011. Project Plan for the Installation, Operation, and 

Maintenance of Buoy Based Environmental Monitoring Systems OCS Block 6931, New 

Jersey. Submitted to: U.S. Dept of Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation and Enforcement, Office of Offshore Alternative Energy Programs, Herndon, 

VA. 

French, C.J. 1987. Productivity in the Atlantic shipping industry: A quantitative study. Journal 

of Interdisciplinary History. 17(3):613–638. 

Garrison, E. et al. Prehistoric Site Potential and Historic Shipwrecks on the Atlantic Outer 

Continental Shelf (draft), Prepared under MMS Contract GS-10F-0401M M09PD00024, 

TRC Environmental Corporation, Norcross, GA on file with the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Herndon, VA. 2011. 

Global Security. 2011. AIS Frequently Asked Questions. Internet website: 

http://www.nerrs.noaa.gov/Reserve.aspx?ResID=DEL. Last accessed March 2011. 

Greene, K.E., J.L. Zimmerman, R.W. Laney, and J.C. Thomas-Blate. 2009. Atlantic coast 

diadromous fish habitat: A review of utilization, threats, recommendations for conservation, 

and research needs. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Habitat Management 

Series No. 9, Washington D.C. 

Hamilton, P. K., and C. A. Mayo. 1990. Population characteristics of right whales, Eubalaena 

glacialis, in Cape Cod Bay and Massachusetts Bay, 1978-1986. In Individual Recognition 

and Estimation of Cetacean Population Parameters. Hammond, P.S. et al., eds. Rep. Int. 

Whal. Comm. Special Issue 12:203-8. 

210 
Hastings, M.C., A.N. Popper, J.J. Finneran, and P.J. Lanford. 1996. Effects of low-frequency 

underwater sound on hair cells of the inner ear and lateral line of the teleost fish Astronutus 

ocellatus. JASA 99(3):1759-1766. 

Heneman, B., and the Center for Environmental Education. 1988. Persistent Marine Debris in 

the North Sea, Northwest Atlantic Ocean, Wider Caribbean Area, and the West Coast of Baja 

California. Final Report, Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. 

Hess, G.K., R.L. West, M.V. Barnhill, IIII, and L.M. Fleming. 2000. Birds of Delaware, 

University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 656. 

Hiscock, K., H.T. Walters, and H. Jones. 2002. High Level Environmental Screening Study for 

Offshore Wind Farm Developments—Marine Habitats and Species Project, prepared by the 

Marine Biological Association for the Department of Trade and Industry, New and 

Renewable Energy Programme, England. Internet website: 

http://www.og.dti.gov.uk/offshore-wind-sea/reports/Windfarm_Report. pdf. Last accessed 

Aug. 3, 2006. 

Huppop, O., J. Dierschke, K. M. Exo, E. Fredrich, and R. Hill. 2006. Bird migration studies and 

potential collision risk with offshore turbines. Ibis 148:90-109. 

Irion, J. Personal communication. 2011. Conversation with Marine Archaeologist Supervisor, 

Social Science Unit, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. February 2011. 

Jensen, A.S., and G.K. Silber. 2004. Large Whale Ship Strike Database, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-OPR-January 2004, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S Department of 

Commerce, Silver Spring, MD. 

Johnson, J.B., J.E. Gates, and N.P. Zegre. 2011. Monitoring seasonal bat activity on a coastal 

barrier island in Maryland, USA. Environmental Monitoring Assessment 173:685-699. 

Johnson, K.A. 2002. Characterization of the Fishing Practices and Marine Benthic Ecosystems 

of the Northeast U.S. Shelf (NOAA Technical Memo NMFS-NE-181, 2004). 

Joint WMO-IOC Technical Commission for Oceanography and Marine Meteorology 

(JCOMMOPS). 2011. List of Buoy Manufacturers. Internet website: 

http://wo.jcommops.org/cgibin/WebObjects/JCOMMOPS.woa/wa/usergroup?abbrev=MANUF&option=1. 

Kaiser, M.J., D.V. Mesyanzhinov, and A.G. Pulsipher. 2004. Modeling structure removal 

processes in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2005-029. 137 

pp. 

211 
Kelly, B. Personal communication. 2011. Email regarding bat reference for mid-Atlantic EA. 

August 31, 2011 

Ketten, D.R. 1998. Marine mammal auditory systems: A summary of audiometric and 

anatopical data and its implications for underwater acoustic impacts. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-256:1-74. 

Kerlinger, P., J. L Gehring, W. P. Erickson, R. Curry, A. Jain, and J. Guarnaccia, 2010, “Night 

migrant fatalities and obstruction lighting at wind turbines in North America,” The Wilson 

Journal of Ornithology 122(4):744–754. 

Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-Window Collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606–620. 

Klem, D., Jr. 1990. “Collisions between Birds and Windows: Mortality and Prevention,” 

Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120–128. 

Koski-Karell, D. 1995. Historic Archaeological Context on the Maritime Theme with the SubTheme Shipwrecks, Coastal Zone (1495-1940 +/-), Volume I- Historic Context, Karell 

Archaeological Services, Washington, D.C. 

Kuffner, A. 2010. “High-tech wind-measuring buoy being assembled at Quonset bound for 

New Jersey.” The Providence Journal. Internet website: 

http://www.projo.com/news/content/DEEPWATER_BUOY_10-15-

10_E6KCMFS_v18.2078f40.html. Last accessed October 2010. 

Laist, D.W., A.R. Knowlton, J.G. Mead, A.S. Collet, and M. Podesta. 2001. “Collisions 

between Ships and Whales,” Marine Mammal Science 17(1):35–75. 

Lee, D.S. 1987. December records of seabirds off North Carolina. The Wilson Bulletin 99(1): 

116-121. 

Lenhardt, M.L. 1994. Seismic and very low frequency sound induced behaviors in captive 

loggerhead marine turtles (Caretta caretta). In Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Dolten, D.A. Johnson, 

and P.J. Eliazar (Compilers). Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea 

Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351, 323 

pp. 

Louis Berger Group, Inc. 1999. Environmental Report: Use of Federal Offshore Sand 

Resources for Beach and Coastal Restoration in New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and 

Virginia, OCS. Prepared by Louis Berger Group for U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Herndon, VA. Study MMS 99-0036. 

Lowery, D. 2009. Geoarchaeological investigations at selected coastal archaeological sites 

along the Delmarva Peninsula: the long-term interrelationship between climate, geology, and 

culture. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Geology. University of Delaware, 

Newark, Delaware. 

212 
Lutcavage, M.E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, and P.L. Lutz. 1997. “Human Impacts on Sea 

Turtle Survival,” pp. 387–410 in The Biology of Sea Turtles, P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick 

(editors), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 

Madsen, P.T., M. Wahlberg, J. Tougaard, K. Lucke, and P. Tyack. 2006. Wind turbine 

underwater noise and marine mammals: Implications of current knowledge and data needs. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series 309: 279-295. 

Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack, and J.E. Bird. 1984. Investigations of the 

Potential Effects of Underwater Noise from Petroleum Industry Activities on Migrating Gray 

Whale Behavior/Phase II: January 1984 Migration, BBN Rep. 5586, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, AK. 

Marriott, T.L. and R.T. Frantz. 2007. “U. S. Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay, Year in 

Review, 2007.” Available at: 

http://www.uscg.mil/d5/sectdelawarebay/docs/2007%20SDB%20Year%20in%20Review%2

0ELECT%20DISTR2.pdf. 

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2009. Seasonal Air Quality Reports. 

Internet website: 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Air/AirQualityMonitoring/Pages/SeasonalReports.asp

x. Last accessed March 24, 2011. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDDNR). 2011a. Internet website: 

http://dnr.maryland.gov/wildlife/plants_wildlife/animalbits/baldeagle.html. Last accessed 

April 21, 2011. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDDNR). 2011b. Field Guide to Maryland Bats. 

Internet website: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/Plants_Wildlife/bats/nhpbatfield.asp. 

Last accessed Friday, April 15, 2011. 

Maryland Geological Service. 2011. Coastal and Estuarine Geology Program: The Need for 

Sand in Ocean City, Maryland. Internet website: 

http://www.mgs.md.gov/coastal/osr/ocsand1.html. Last accessed April 26, 2011. 

Maryland Osprey (MDOsprey). 2011. MDOsprey is a LISTSERV mailing list. Internet website: 

http://mdosprey.org/. Accessed: August 19, 2011. 

Mate, B.R., K.M. Stafford, and D.K. Ljungblad. 1994. “A Change in Sperm Whale (Physeter 

macrocephalus) Distribution Correlated to Seismic Surveys in the Gulf of Mexico,” Journal 

of the Acoustical Society of America 96(5):3268–3269. 

Matson, C. 1998. Merchants and empire: Trading in colonial New York. Baltimore: The Johns 

Hopkins Press. 

213 
Michel, J., H. Dunagan, C. Boring, E. Healy, W. Evans, J.M. Deam, A. McGillis, and J. Hain. 

2007. Worldwide synthesis and Analysis of Existing Information Regarding Environmental 

Effects of Alternative Energy Uses on the Outer continental Shelf. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Mineral Management Service, Herndon, VA. MMS OCS Report 2007-038.254 pp. 

Mitchell, J. Personal communication. 2011. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

Wallops Island Flight Facility, Virginia. April 21, 2011. 

Moffat and Nickel. 2007. Sediment Management Plan: Rehoboth Bay, Sussex County, 

Delaware. Prepared for: Division of Soil and Water Conservation Delaware Department of 

Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation (DNREC). Final Report, 2007. 

Morgan, K. 1989. Shipping patterns and the Atlantic trade of Bristol, 1749–1770. The William 

and Mary Quarterly. 3rd Series, 46(3):506–538. 

Musial, W. and B. Ram. 2010. Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States: 

Assessment of Opportunities and Barriers. NREL/TP-500-40745. Internet website: 

http://www.nrel.gov/wind/pdfs/40745.pdf. 

Myrberg, Jr., A.A. 1980. Ocean noise and the behavior of marine animals: relationships and 

implications. In: Diemer, F.P., P.J. Vernberg, N.P. Barroy, and D.Z. Mirkes (eds.) advanced 

concepts in ocean measurements for marine biology. Univ. South Carolina Press, Columbia, 

SC pp. 461-491. 

Myrberg, A. 1981. Sound communication and interceptions by fishes, pp. 395-426. In: W.N. 

Tavolga, A.N. Popper, and R.R. Fay (eds.), Hearing and Sound Communication in 

Fishes. Springer-Verlag, New York. 

National Ocean Economics Program. 2008. Ocean Economy Data. Internet website: 

http://www.oceaneconomics.org/Market/ocean/oceanEcon.asp. Last accessed May 5, 2011 

 

National Ocean Economics Program. 2011a. Ocean Economy Data. Internet website: 

http://www.oceaneconomics.org/Market/ocean/oceanEcon.asp. Last accessed June 17, 2011. 

National Ocean Economics Program. 2011b. Coastal Population and Housing Search. Internet 

website: http://www.oceaneconomics.org/Demographics/demogSearch.asp. Last accessed 

June 17, 2011. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2003. Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals. National 

Academy Press. Washington D.C. 

Natural Resources Defense Council. 2011. Virginia 12th in Beachwater Quality. Internet 

website: http://www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/ttw/sumvir.pdf. 

Nedwell, J.R., S.J. Parvin, B. Edwards, R. Workman, A.G. Brooker and J.E. Kynoch. 2007. 

Measurement and interpretation of underwater noise during construction and operation of 

214 
offshore windfarms in UK waters. Subacoustech Report No. 544R0738 to COWRIE Ltd. 

ISBN: 978-0-9554279-5-4. 

Nehls, G. Betke, K., Eckelmann, S. & Ros. M. 2007. Assessment and Costs of Potential 

Engineering Solutions for the Mitigation of the Impacts of Underwater Noise Arising from 

the Construction of Offshore Windrfarms. BioConsult SH report, Husum, Germany. On 

behalf of COWRIE Ltd. 

New Jersey Audubon Society. 2007. Raritan Bay and Southern Shore. Internet website: 

http://www.njaudubon.org/SectionIBBA/IBBASiteGuide/tabid/1258/sk/3149/Version/1b/Def

ault.aspx. Last accessed February 11, 2009. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2002. The New Jersey coastal 

management program. Fact Sheet 2, March 2002. Internet website: 

http://www.nj.gov/dep/cmp/fact2.pdf. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2008a. Air Quality Report. 

Internet website: http://www.njaqinow.net. Last accessed March 24, 2011. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2008b. Coastal engineering. 

Internet website: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/shoreprotection/. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2010a. Ocean/Wind Power 

Ecological Baseline Studies Final Report: January 2008 – December 2009. Prepared by 

Geo-Marine, Inc. Available at: http://www.nj.gov/dep/dsr/ocean-wind/report.htm. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2010b. Office of Science, 

Environmental Trends Report. 2010. Climate Change in New Jersey: Trends in 

Temperature and Sea Level. Last updated January 2010. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2011a. New Jersey Section 309 

Assessment (2011-2015). Internet website: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/cmp/nj2011-

309assessment.pdf. Last accessed March 2011. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2011b. Bat Conservation. 

Internet website: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/bat.htm. Last accessed Friday, April 

15, 2011. 

Niles, L.J., H.P. Sitters, A.D. Dey, P.W. Atkinson, A.J. Baker, K.A. Bennett, R. Carmona, K.E. 

Clark, N.A. Clark, C. Espoz, P.M. González, B.A. Harrington, D.E. Hernández, K.S. Kalasz, 

R.G. Lathrop, R.N. Matus, C.D.T. Minton, R.I.G. Morrison, M.K. Peck, W. Pitts, R.A. 

Robinson, and I.L. Serrano. 2008. Status of the Red Knot, Calidris canutus rufa, in the 

Western Hemisphere. Studies Avian Biol. 36: 1–185. 

Niles L. J., et al. 2009. Effects of horseshoe crab harvest in Delaware Bay on red knots: are 

harvest restrictions working? Bioscience 59, 153–164. 

215 
Niles, L.J., J. Burger, R.R. Porter, A.D. Dey, C.D.T. Minton, P.M. Gonzalez, A.J. Baker, J.W. 

Fox, and C. Gordon. 2010. First results using light level geolocators to track Red Knots in 

the Western Hemisphere show rapid and long intercontinental flights and new details of 

migration pathways. Wader Study Group Bull. 117(2): 123–130. 

Nordfjord, S. 2006. Late Quaternary Geologic History of New Jersey Middle and Outer 

Continental Shelf, Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas, Austin. 

Nowacek, S.M., and R.S. Wells. 2001. “Short-Term Effects of Boat Traffic on Bottlenose 

Dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in Sarasota Bay, Florida,” Marine Mammal Science 17:673–

688. 

Ocean and Coastal Consultants, Inc. 2006. Field report-revised. May 25, 2006. Available at: 

http://www.mms.gov/offshore/PDFs/CWFiles/SL-OCC2006SSCSInstallation.pdf. 

O'Hara, J., and J.R. Wilcox. 1990. Avoidance responses to loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta, to 

low 29 frequency sound. Copeia 1990(2):564-567. 

Panama Canal Authority. 2006. Proposal for the Expansion of the Panama Canal: Third Set of 

Locks Project. April 24, 2006. 

Parks, S.E., C.W. Clark, and P.L. Tyack. 2007. Short- and long-term changes in right 

whalecalling behavior: The potential effects of noise on acoustic communication. J. Acoust. 

Soc. Am.Volume 122, Issue 6, pp. 3725-3731 (2007). 

Paton, P., K. Winiarski, C. Trocki, S. McWilliams. 2010. Spatial distribution, abundance, and 

flight ecology of birds in nearshore and offshore waters of Rhode Island. Interim technical 

report for the Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan 2010. University of 

Rhode Island, technical report #11. 

Petersen, I.K., T.K. Christensen, J. Kahlert, M. Desholm, and A.D. Fox. 2006. Final results of 

bird studies at the offshore wind farms at Nysted and Horns Reef, Denmark. Commissioned 

report to Elsam Engeneering and Energy E2. 49 pp. 

Popper, A.N. and R.R. Fay. 1993. Sound detection and processing by fish: Critical review and 

major research questions. Brain Behav. Evol. 41:14-38. 

Popper, A.N., R.R. Fay, C. Platt, and O. Sand. 2003. Sound detection mechanisms and 

capabilities of teleost fishes. In: Sensory Processing in Aquatic Environments (eds. S.P. 

Collin and N.J. Marshall). Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 3-38. 

Port of Wilmington. 2011. Our Port. Internet website: http://www.portofwilmington.com. Last 

accessed July 7, 2011. 

216 
Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, Coastal Research Center. 2011. NJ Shoreline 

Protection and Vulnerability. Internet website: 

http://intraweb.stockton.edu/eyos/page.cfm?siteID=149&pageID=4. Last accessed March, 

2011. 

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine mammals 

and noise. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 576 pp. 

Ryan, P.G. 1987. “The Incidence and Characteristics of Plastic Particles Ingested by Sea 

Birds,” Marine and Environmental Research 23:175–206. 

Ryan, P.G. 1988. “Effects of Ingested Plastic on Seabird Feeding: Evidence from Chickens,” 

Marine Pollution Bulletin 19:174–176. 

Ryan, P.G. 1990. “The Effects of Ingested Plastic and Other Marine Debris on Seabirds,” pp. 

623–634 in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, April 2–

7, 1989, Honolulu, HI, R.S. Shomura and M.L. Godfrey (editors), NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Washington, D.C. 

Shire, G.G., K. Brown, and G. Winegrad. 2000. Communication Towers: A Deadly Hazard to 

Birds, American Bird Conservancy, Washington, D.C. 

Shoop, C.R. and R.D. Kenney. 1992. Seasonal distributions and abundance of loggerhead and 

leatherback sea turtles in waters of the northeastern United States. Herpetol. Monogr. 6: 43- 

67. 

Smith, S.D. 2003. Review: Reckoning with the Atlantic economy. The Historical Journal 

46(3):749–764. 

Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Green Jr., D. Kastak, 

D. R. Ketten, J.H. Miller, P.E. Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J.A. Thomas, and P.L. Tyack. 

2007. Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria: Initial Scientific Recommendations. 

Aquatic Mammals. 33(4): 415-421. 

Spotila, J. 2004. Sea Turtles: A Complete Guide to Their Biology, Behavior, and Conservation. 

John Hopkins University Press, MD. 

Stewart, R. E. and C. S. Robbins. 1958. Birds of Maryland and the District of Columbia, North 

American Fauna: Number 62: pp. 1-401. 

Steimle, F.W. and C. Zetlin. 2000. Reef habitats in the Middle Atlantic Bight: abundance, 

distribution, associated biological communities, and fishery resource use. Mar. Fish. Rev. 

62(2):24-42. 

217 
Tanacredi, J. T., M.L. Botton, and D. R. Smith (eds.). 2009. Biology and Conservation of 

Horseshoe Crabs. Springer, New York. Internet website: 

http://www.springer.com/life+sci/ecology/book/978-0-387-89958-9. 

Teng, C.C, S. Cucullu, S. McArthur, C. Kohler, B. Burnett, and L. Bernard. 2009. Buoy 

Vandalism Experienced by NOAA’s National Data Buoy Center. Internet website: 

http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA527205&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pd

f. Last accessed: April 2011. 

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 2010. GSOE Project Plan for the Deployment and Operation of a 

Meteorological Data Collection Buoy within Interim Lease Site, Block 7033. Prepared for 

Deepwater Wind, LLC. 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2010. Northwest Atlantic Marine Ecoregional Assessment: 

Phase 1 Report and Geodatabase. Available online: 

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/areas/easternusmarine/explore/ind

ex.htm; mapper tool: http://maps.tnc.org/NAMERA/ 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2011. Public Comment Received on BOEMRE Notice of 

Intent to Prepare and Environmental Assessment. Data summary of TNC Northwest Atlantic 

Marine Ecoregional Assessment. 

Thomson, D.H. and W.J. Richardson. 1995. Marine mammal sounds. Pages 159-204 in 

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson, eds. Marine mammals 

and noise. San Diego: Academic Press. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2002. Environmental assessment and statement of 

findings, application no. 199902477, Cape Wind Associates, LLC. Available at: 

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/projects/ma/ccwt/ea.pdf. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2009. 2009 Waterborne Commerce of the United 

States (WCUS). Trips By Waterways. Available at: 

http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil//wcsc/webpub09/Part1_WWYs_Tripsbydraft_CY2009.H

TM. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA). 2003. Oil and Sea Turtles, G. Shigenaka (editor), National Ocean Service, Office 

of Response and Restoration, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA). 2010. Climatological Areas of Origin and Typical Hurricane Tracks by Month. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, National 

Hurricane Center. Internet website: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastprofile.shtml#ori. Last 

accessed December 2010. 

218 
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), National Data Buoy Center. 2011. “Can You Describe the Moored Buoys” 

Internet website: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/hull.shtml. Last accessed February 16, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) Reserves. 2011. Internet 

website: http://www.nerrs.noaa.gov/Reserve.aspx?ResID=DEL. Last accessed March, 2011, 

Delaware Reserve information. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004. Characterization of the Fishing Practices 

and Marine Benthic Ecosystems of the Northeast U.S. Shelf, and an Evaluation of the 

Potential Effects of Fishing on Essential Fish Habitat. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-NE-181. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009. ESA Section 7 Consultation 

Regarding Non-Competitive Leases for Wind Resource Data Collection on the Northeast 

Outer Continental Shelf. NMFS Northeast Regional Office Letter from Patricia Kurkul to 

James Kendall dated May 14, 2009. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010a. Conclusion of Reinitiation of 

Informal Consultation for “Non-Competitive Lease for Wind Resource Data Collection on 

the Northeast Outer Continental Shelf” Regarding Bluewater Wind Interim Policy Lease. 

Letter to BOEMRE dated September 14, 2010. 

 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010b. Conclusion of Reinitiation of Informal 

Consultation for “Non-Competitive Lease for Wind Resource Data Collection on the 

Northeast Outer Continental Shelf” Regarding Garden State Offshore Energy/Deepwater 

Wind Interim Policy Lease. Letter to BOEMRE dated December 6, 2010. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010c. Biological Opinion on the 

Cape Wind Energy Project of Nantucket Sound. Final Biological Opinion dated December 

30, 2010. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010d. Shortnose Sturgeon Species Profile. 

Office of Protected Resources. Internet website: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/shortnosesturgeon.htm. Last accessed December 

30, 2010. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010e. Proactive Conservation 

219 
Program - Species of Concern. Internet website: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/concern. 

Last accessed January 2, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010f. Amendment 15 to the Atlantic 

Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2011. Atlantic bluefin tuna FishFact. 

Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishwatch/species/atl_bluefin_tuna.htm. 

Last accessed May 2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Office of Science and Technology. 

2011. Fisheries Statistics Division(ST1). Internet website: 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/index.html. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2011c. ESA Section 7 Consultation 

Regarding Commercial Wind Lease Issuance and Site Characterization Activities on the 

Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. 

NMFS Northeast Regional Office Letter from Patricia Kurkul to Maureen Bornholdt dated 

September 20, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS). 2007. Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) 5-Year Review: Summary and 

Evaluation. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, 

Maryland, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Jacksonville Ecological 

Services Field Office, Jacksonville, Florida. August 2007. 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Center (USCG), 

Navigation Center. 2011. AIS Frequently Asked Questions. Internet website: 

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=AISFAQ#1. Last accessed April 28, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). Personal communication. 

2008. Comments made at the MMS Regulator/Stakeholder Workshop. Rehoboth, DE. 

November 5, 2008. 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Fifth District. 2010. 

Comments on commercial leasing in response to Docket ID No. MMS-2010-OMM-0017, 

Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Offshore 

Delaware-Request for Interest, 75 FR 21653. 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). 2011. Pollution Incidents 

In and Around U.S. Waters, A Spill/Release Compendium: 1969-2004, and 2004 - 2009: 

220 
U.S. Coast Guard Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) System. 

Internet website: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0382.xls. Last 

accessed February 2011. 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S Coast Guard (USCG). Personal communication. 

2011. Update on the USCG Authorization Act of 2010. May, 2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and 

Enforcement (BOEMRE). 2010. Mitigation of Underwater Pile Driving Noise During 

Offshore Construction: Final Technology Assessment and Review Report Number: 

M09PC00019-8.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and 

Enforcement (BOEMRE). 2011a. OCS Incidents/Spills by Category: 1996 – 2005. Internet 

website: http://www.boemre.gov/incidents/Incidents1996-2005.htm. Last accessed February 

2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and 

Enforcement (BOEMRE). 2011b. Draft- Prehistoric Site Potential and Historic Shipwrecks 

on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf. Pacific OCS Region, Camarillo, CA. Pending 

publication. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and 

Enforcement (BOEMRE). 2011c. Biological Assessment for Commercial Wind Lease 

Issuance, Associated Site Characterization Activities and Subsequent Site Assessment 

Activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore New Jersey, Delaware, 

Maryland, and Virginia. March 24, 2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and 

Enforcement (BOEMRE). 2011d. Atlantic Wind Energy Workshop. Herndon, VA. July 12-

14, 2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1985. Determination of 

endangered and threatened status for the piping plover. Federal Register 50:50726-50734. 

 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants; determination of endangered and threatened status for two 

population of the roseate tern. Federal Register. 52(211): 42064-42068. 

 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Piping plover 

(Charadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast population, revised recovery plan. Hadley, 

Massachusetts. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. USFWS 

Threatened and Endangered Species System, Endangered Species Program. Internet 

website: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/StateListing.do?state=all&status=candidate. Last 

accessed Sept. 19, 2006. 

221 
U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Final 

environmental assessment-Definition of “disturb” as applied under the Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act. USFWS, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Washington, D.C. 

Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/BaldEagle/DisturbEAFinal.pdf. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. West Indian 

Manatee Fact Sheet. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esalibrary/pdf/manatee.pdf. Accessed January 2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Significant habitats 

and habitat complexes of the New York Bight Watershed, Raritan Bay - Sandy Hook Bay 

Complex, Complex #17. Internet website: 

http://library.fws.gov/pubs5/web_link/text/rb_form.htm. Accessed February 11, 2009. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Caribbean Roseate 

Tern and North Atlantic Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii) 5-Year Review: Summary 

and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Southeast Region, Caribbean Ecological 

Services Field Office Boquerón, Puerto Rico and Northeast Region, New England Field 

Office, Concord, New Hampshire. 142 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011a. Species Profile 

Environmental Conservation Online System Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). Internet 

website: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B079. Last 

accessed March 31, 2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011b. Species Profile 

Environmental Conservation Online System Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii). 

Internet website: 

http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B07O. 

Last accessed Wednesday, March 30, 2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011c. Species Reports. 

Internet website: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/SpeciesReport.do?listingType=C&mapstatus=1. Last 

accessed April 15, 2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011d. Marine Bird 

Science and Offshore Wind Workshop. Herndon, VA. June 21-23, 2011. Available at: 

http://www.acjv.org/marinebirds.htm. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011e. ESA Section 7 

Consultation Regarding Commercial Wind Lease Issuance and Site Characterization 

Activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore New Jersey, Delaware, 

Maryland, and Virginia. USFWS Chesapeake Bay Field Office Concurrence Letter from 

Leopoldo Miranda to Maureen Bornholdt dated June 20, 2011. 

222 
U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2005. Structureremoval operations on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf: Programmatic 

environmental assessment. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2005-013. 98 pp. Available at: 

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PDFs/2005/2005-013.pdf. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2007a. Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative Energy Development and Production and 

Alternate Use of Facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf, Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, October 2007. OCS Report MMS 2007-024. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2007b. Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2007 – 2012. Environmental Impact Statement OCS EIS/EA 

MMS 2007 – 018. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2009a. Issuance of 

Leases for Wind Resource Data Collection on the Outer Continental Shelf Offshore 

Delaware and New Jersey. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2009b. Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for Cape Wind Energy Project, January 2009. OCS 

Publication 2008-040. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009. Re: Complaint About 

Information Quality in response to Memorandum: USGS Director Mark D. Myers 

memorandum to the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Solicitor 

of the Department of the Interior dated May 14, 2008 regarding, “The Challenges of Linking 

Carbon Emissions, Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Concentrations, Global Warming, and 

Consequential Impacts” (“USGS memorandum”). Available at: 

http://www.usgs.gov/global_change/docs/USGSFinalResponse_11dec09.PDF. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. 2008. Marine Resources Assessment Update for the Virginia 

Capes Operating Area. Department of the Navy, U.S. Fleet Forces Command, Norfolk, 

Virginia. Contract #N62470-02-D-9997, CTO 0056. Prepared by Geo-Marine, Inc., 

Hampton, Virginia. 

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Maritime Administration (MARAD). 2011a. 

Vessel Calls Snapshot, 2010. Office of Policy and Plans, Maritime Administration, 1200 

New Jersey Ave, SE, Washington, D.C. 201590. Available at: 

http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/Vessel_Calls_at_US_Ports_Snapshot.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Maritime Administration (MARAD). 2011b. 

America’s Marine Highway Report to Congress. April 2011. Available at: 

http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/MARAD_AMH_Report_to_Congress.pdf. 

223 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. Chesapeake Bay: Introduction to an 

Ecosystem. Printed by the U.S. EPA for the Chesapeake Bay Program. CBP/TRS 232/00 

EPA-903-R-04-003, July, 2004. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008a. Air data: reports and maps available. 

Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html. Last accessed March 23, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008b. National list of beaches. Internet 

website: http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/beaches/upload/2008_10_06_beaches_list_list-ofbeaches.pdf. EPA-823-R-08-004 

 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008c. National Coastal Condition Report 

III, Chapter 3: Northeast Coast Coastal Condition. December 2008. Available at: 

http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/assessmonitor/upload/2008_12_09_oceans_nccr3_chapter3_n

ortheast-a.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009a. U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program; Final Report, Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.1. Coastal Sensitivity to Sea 

Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region. A report by the U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. January, 2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009b. Bay Barometer: A Health and 

Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2008. CBP/TRS 293-09 

EPA-903-R-09-001, March, 2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010a. Water: Vessel Water Discharge. 

November, 2010. Internet website: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/vwd/vsdnozone.cfm. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010b. Report to Congress: Study of Vessel 

Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other NonRecreational Vessels Less than 79 Feet. EPA 833-R-10 005, August, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011. Climate Change: Effects. Internet 

Website: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/effects.html 

 

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VADCR). 2011. Internet website: 

http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/karst_bats.shtml. Last accessed Friday, April 

15, 2011. 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ). 2010a. Virginia Ambient Air 

Monitoring 2009 Data Report. Internet website: 

http://www.deq.state.va.us/export/sites/default/info/documents/Air_Monitoring_Annual_Rep

ort_09.pdf. Last accessed March 24, 2011. 

224 
225 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ). 2010b. Final Water Quality 

Assessment and Impaired Waters Integrated Report. 2010. Internet website: 

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/wqa/ir2010.html. Last accessed May 2011. 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ). 2011. What Is the Virginia Coastal 

Zone Management Program? Internet website: 

http://www.deq.state.va.us/coastal/coastmap.html. Last accessed March, 2011. 

Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, C.P, K. Maze-Foley, and P. E. Rosel editors. 2010. U.S. Atlantic 

and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments -- 2010. NOAA Tech Memo 

NMFS-NE-219; 606 p. http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm219/tm219.pdf 

Watkins, W.A. and W.E. Scheville. 1975. “Sperm Whales React to Pingers,” Deep-Sea 

Research 22:123–129. 

Watts, B.D. 2010. Wind and waterbirds: establishing sustainable mortality limits within the 

Atlantic Flyway. Center for Conservation Biology Technical Report Series, CCBTR-10-05. 

College of William and Mary/Virginia Commonwealth University, Williamsburg, VA. 43 pp. 

World Port Source. 2011. State Ports of Call. Internet website: 

http://www.worldportsource.com. Last accessed February 2011. 

Wysocki, L. E., J. P. Dittami, and F. Ladich. 2006. Ship noise and cortisol secretion in 

European freshwater fishes. Biological Conservation, 128(4):501-508. 

Zelick, R., D. Mann, and A. Popper. 1999. Acoustic communication in fishes and frogs, pp. 

363-412. In: R. Fay and A. Popper (eds.), Comparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians. 

Springer Handbook of Auditory Research, Vol. 11. Springer-Verlag, New York. 

Zimmer, B.J. and S. Groppenbacher. 1999. New Jersey Ambient Monitoring Program Report 

on Marine and Coastal Water Quality, 1993-1997. NJDEP, Bureau of Marine Water 

Monitoring, Leeds Point, New Jersey. 

227 

7 PREPARERS 

NEPA Coordinator 

Algene Byrum, NEPA Coordinator, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Resource Scientists and Contributors 

Tasha Anderson, Editor 

David Bigger, Avian Biologist 

Stephen L. Creed, GIS Specialist 

Michele DesAutels, Renewable Energy Program Specialist 

Jennifer L. Golladay, Renewable Energy Program Specialist 

William Hoffman, Archaeologist 

Brain Hooker, Marine Biologist 

Brandi Carrier Jones, Archeologist 

Jennifer Kilanski, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Brain Krevor, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Megan Milliken, Environmental Protect Specialist 

Angel McCoy, Meteorologist 

Michelle V. Morin, Chief, Environment Branch 

Kristen L. Strellec, Economist 

Nina (Jean) Thurston, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Kathleen Tyree, Archaeologist 

Reviewers 

BOEM, Office of Renewable Energy Programs 

Maureen A. Bornholdt, Program Manager 

Aditi Mirani, Maryland Lead, Renewable Energy Program Specialist 

Al Pless, Virginia Lead, Renewable Energy Program Specialist 

Erin C. Trager, Delaware Lead, Renewable Energy Program Specialist 

Will Waskes, New Jersey Lead, Oceanographer 

BOEM, Headquarters, Office of Environmental Programs 

Tamara Arzt, Headquarters’ Coordinator, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Kelly K. Hammerle, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Dirk Herkhoff, Meteorologist 

Brian Jordan, Archaeologist 

Kimberly Skrupky, Marine Biologist 

Poojan Tripathi, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Sally Valdes, Aquatic Ecologist 

James Woehr, Avian Biologist 

John Cossa, DOI, Office of the Solicitor 

APPENDIX A 

Marine Mammal, Sea Turtle, and 

Large Epipelagic Fish Sightings Data

 

Figure A.1. Bottlenose dolphin sightings – Spring (April-June, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC, 2010). 

231 
Figure A.2. Bottlenose dolphin sightings - Summer (July-August, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC, 2010)

232 
Figure A.3. Bottlenose dolphin sightings – Fall (October-December, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC, 2010) 

233 
Figure A.4. Bottlenose dolphin sightings - Winter (January-March, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC, 2010) 

234 
 

Figure A.5. Minke whale sightings – Spring (April-June) (April-June, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC 2010) 

235 
Figure A.6. Minke whale sightings – Summer (July-August, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC, 2010) 

236 
Figure A.7. Minke whale sightings – Fall (October-December, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC, 2010)

237 
Figure A.8. Minke whale sightings – Winter (January-March, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC, 2010) 

238 
 

Figure A.9. Fin whale sightings – Spring (April-June, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC, 2010) 

239 
Figure A.10. Fin whale sightings – Summer (July-August, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC, 2010) 

240 
Figure A.11. Fin whale sightings – Fall (October-December, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC, 2010) 

241 
Figure A.12. Fin whale sightings – Winter (January-March, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC 2010) 

242 
 

Figure A.13. Humpback whale sightings – Spring (April-June, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC 2010) 

243 
Figure A.14. Humpback whale sightings – Summer (July-August, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC, 2010) 

244 
Figure A.15. Humpback whale sightings – Fall (October-December, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC, 2010) 

245 
Figure A.16. Humpback whale sightings – Winter (January-March, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC, 2010) 

246 
 

Figure A.17. North Atlantic right whale sightings – Spring (April-June, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC, 2010)

247 
Figure A.18. North Atlantic right whale sightings – Summer (July-August, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC, 2010) 

248 
Figure A.19. North Atlantic right whale sightings – Fall (October-December, 1979-

2007). 

(Source: TNC, 2010)

249 
Figure A.20. North Atlantic right whale sightings – Winter (January-March, 1979-

2007). 

(Source: TNC, 2010)

250 
Figure A.21. Summer (July 24-August 14) 2010 Marine Mammal Aerial Sightings 

Data. 

(Source: Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species, 2011) 

251 
Figure A.22. Leatherback turtle sightings – Spring (April-June, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC, 2010) 

252 
Figure A.23. Leatherback turtle sightings – Summer (July-September, 1979-2007) 

(Source: TNC, 2010)

253 
Figure A.24. Leatherback turtle sightings – Fall (October-December, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC, 2010)

254 
Figure A.25. Leatherback turtle sightings – Winter (January-March, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC, 2010)

255 
Figure A.26. Loggerhead turtle sightings – Spring (April-June, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC, 2010) 

256 
Figure A.27. Loggerhead turtle sightings – Summer (July-September, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC, 2010)

257 
Figure A.28. Loggerhead turtle sightings – Fall (October-December, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC,2010) 

258 
Figure A.29. Loggerhead turtle sightings – Winter (January-March, 1979-2007). 

(Source: TNC, 2010)

259 
Figure A.30. Summer (July 24 – August 14) 2010 Sea Turtle Aerial Sightings Data. 

(Source: Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species, 2011) 

260 
261 

Figure A.31. Summer (July 24 – August 14) 2010 Large Epipelagic Fish Aerial 

Sightings Data. 

(Source: Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species 2011)

APPENDIX B 

Mandatory Project Design Criteria Related to Marine 

Mammals and Sea Turtles 

B.1. Mandatory Project Design Criteria related to Marine 

Mammals and Sea Turtles 

This section describes the requirements BOEM will impose on lessees related to the 

minimization or elimination of potential impacts to ESA-listed species of whales and sea turtles. 

These requirements equally serve to reduce potential impacts to ESA-listed marine fish and nonESA listed marine mammals, and marine fish. They are divided into three sections: (1) those 

required during all phases of site characterization and site assessment activities on a lease; (2) 

those required during site characterization activities; and (3) those required during construction 

of meteorological towers and installation of buoys. These project design criteria were shared 

with NMFS through the informal ESA consultation, which was completed on September 20, 

2011, with NMFS concurrence that the proposed activities, implemented as described herein, 

would not likely adversely affect listed whales or sea turtles (USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 2011c; 

Section 5.3.1 of this EA). These requirements will be included by BOEM as conditions on any 

leases and/or SAPs issued or approved under this decision. 

B.1.1. Requirements for All Phases of Site Characterization and Site Assessment Activity 

on a Lease 

The proposed activities would temporarily increase the number of vessels and vessel traffic 

within the WEAs and in the route between the WEAs and port facilities. 

The following measures are meant to reduce the potential for vessel harassment or collision 

with listed marine mammals or sea turtles regardless of what activity that vessel is engaged in: 

 All vessels and aircraft whose operations are authorized under or regulated by the terms 

of a BOEM-issued renewable energy lease would be required to abide by the NOAA 

Fisheries Northeast Regional Viewing Guidelines, as updated through the life of the 

project. Guidelines are available at: 

(http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/education/viewing_northeast.pdf). 

 Vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch for marine mammals and sea 

turtles and slow down or stop their vessel to avoid striking protected species. 

 When whales are sighted, vessels must maintain a distance of 100 yards (91 m) or greater 

from the whale. If the whale is believed to be a North Atlantic right whale, the vessel 

must maintain a minimum distance of 500 yards (457 m) from the animal (50 CFR 

2224.103). 

 When sea turtles or small cetaceans are sighted, the vessels must maintain a distance of 

50 yards (45 meters) or greater whenever possible. 

 When cetaceans are sighted while a vessel is underway, the vessel must remain parallel to 

the animal’s course whenever possible. The vessel must avoid excessive speed or abrupt 

changes in direction until the cetacean has left the area. 

 Vessel speeds must be reduced to 10 knots or less when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large 

assemblages of cetaceans are observed near an underway vessel when safety permits. A 

single cetacean at the surface may indicate the presence of submerged animals in the 

vicinity of the vessel; therefore, precautionary measures should always be exercised. 

 Whales may surface in unpredictable locations or approach slowly moving vessels. 

When animals are sighted in the vessel’s path or in close proximity to a moving vessel, 

265 
the vessel will be required to reduce speed and shift the engine to neutral. Engines are 

not to be engaged until the animals are clear of the area. 

 All vessel operators must comply with vessel strike reduction measures for North 

Atlantic right whales implemented by NMFS, including Special Management Areas 

(SMAs) and Dynamic Management Areas (DMAs). All vessels greater than 65 feet in 

length operating in a DMA must operate at speeds less than 10 knots. Compliance 

documents are located at: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/shipstrike/. When SMAs do not 

overlap with the lessee’s activity area (e.g., survey, construction activity area), all vessels 

65 feet in length or greater operating in the November 1 – April 30 time frame must 

operate at speeds less than 10 knots. 

 Because of noise concerns, FAA Circular 91-36D encourages pilots making flights near 

noise-sensitive areas to fly at altitudes higher than minimum altitudes 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/districts/admiralty/packcreek/AC91-36d.pdf). Projectrelated aircraft must avoid noise-sensitive areas, unless doing so would be impractical or 

unsafe. Pilots operating noise producing aircraft over noise-sensitive areas must fly not 

less than 2,000 ft above ground level, weather permitting, unless doing so would be 

impractical or unsafe. If the pilot has discretion, departure from or arrival to an airport, 

climb after take-off, and descent for landing should be made so as to avoid prolonged 

flight at low altitudes near noise-sensitive areas. In addition, guidelines and regulations 

issued by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) include provisions specifying that 

pilots maintain an altitude of at least 1,000 ft within sight of marine mammals. 

 The lessee must ensure that vessel and aircraft (where applicable) operators are briefed to 

ensure they are familiar with the above requirements. 

 The lessee must ensure that vessel operators, employees and contractors actively engaged 

in offshore operations must be briefed on marine trash and debris awareness elimination 

as described in the BOEM Gulf of Mexico Region’s NTL No. 2007-G03 

(http://www.gomr.boem.gov/homepg/regulate/regs/ntls/2007NTLs/07-g03.pdf), except 

that BOEM will not require the applicant to undergo formal training or post placards. 

The lessee must ensure that its employees and contractors are made aware of the 

environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with marine trash and debris and 

their responsibilities for ensuring that trash and debris are not intentionally or 

accidentally discharged into the marine environment. The above referenced NTL 

provides information the applicant may use for this awareness training. 

 The lessee must ensure that vessel crews report sightings of any injured or dead protected 

species (marine mammals and sea turtles) immediately, regardless of whether the injury 

or death is caused by the vessel. Sightings of injured or dead marine mammals and sea 

turtles must be reported to the NOAA Fisheries Northeast Region’s Stranding Hotline at 

800-900-3622. In addition, if the injury or death was caused by a collision with the 

project-related vessel, the lessee must ensure that BOEM is notified within 24 hours of 

the strike, as provided for in the lease. The notification should include the date and 

location (latitude/longitude) of the strike, the name of the vessel involved, and the species 

identification or a description of the animal, if possible. If the lessee’s activity is 

responsible for the injury or death, the involved parties should remain available to assist 

the relevant salvage and stranding network as needed. 

266 
B.1.2. Requirements for Site Characterization Surveys 

Chapters 3 and 4 of this EA describe the reasonably foreseeable HRG surveys and subbottom sampling the lessee would likely undertake. These field investigations would be 

conducted prior to the installation of a meteorological facility (see Section 3.1.2 of this EA). 

The following requirements will apply to all project-related high-resolution geophysical 

survey work. 

 Establishment of Exclusion Zone: A 500 m (1640 ft) radius exclusion zone for listed 

marine mammals and sea turtles shall be established around the seismic survey source 

vessel. 

 Visibility: If sufficient lighting is not available, survey activity must be limited to 

daylight hours. Lessees will not conduct surveys at any time when lighting or weather 

conditions (darkness, rain, fog, sea state, etc.) prevents the monitoring of the exclusion 

zone. If the lessee intends to conduct seismic survey operations at night, it must consult 

with BOEM regarding sufficient lighting and monitoring of the 500m exclusion zone. 

The use of other technologies such as passive acoustic monitors (PAMs) is encouraged to 

supplement the visual observations. The lessee may request, and BOEM will consider in 

consultation with NMFS, whether to allow the use of these technologies to facilitate 

survey activity when visual observation may be impaired. 

 Visual Monitoring of Exclusion Zone: The lessee must ensure that monitoring of the 

zones are conducted by a qualified NMFS-approved observer. Visual observations must 

be made using binoculars or other suitable equipment during daylight hours. Data on all 

observations must be recorded based on standard marine mammal observer collection 

data. This must include: dates and locations of construction operations; time of 

observation, location and weather; details of marine mammal sightings (e.g., species, 

numbers, behavior); and details of any observed taking (behavioral disturbances or 

injury/mortality). Any significant observations concerning impacts on listed marine 

mammals or sea turtles must be transmitted to NMFS and BOEM within 48 hours as 

provided in the lease. Any observed takes of listed marine mammals or sea turtles 

resulting in injury or mortality must be immediately (within 24 hours) reported to NMFS 

and BOEM. 

The lessee must ensure that visual monitoring begins no less than 60 minutes prior to the 

beginning of ramp-up and continue until seismic operations cease or sighting conditions 

do not allow observation of the sea surface (e.g., fog, rain, darkness, sea state, etc.). If a 

marine mammal or sea turtle is observed, the observer should note and monitor the 

position (including lat./long. of vessel and relative bearing and estimated distance to the 

animal) until the animal dives or moves out of visual range of the observer. The lessee 

must continue to observe for additional animals that may surface in the area, as often 

there are numerous animals that may surface at varying time intervals. At any time a 

marine mammal or sea turtle is observed within an estimated 500 m (1,640 ft) of the 

sound source array (“exclusion zone”), whether due to the marine mammal or sea turtle’s 

movement, the vessel’s movement, or because the marine mammal or sea turtle surfaced 

inside the exclusion zone, the observer will call for the immediate shut-down of the 

seismic operation. The vessel operator must comply immediately with such a call by an 

on-watch visual observer. Any disagreement or discussion should occur only after shutdown. When no marine mammals or sea turtles are sighted for at least a 60-minute 

267 
period, ramp-up of the sound source may begin. Ramp-up cannot begin unless conditions 

allow the sea surface to be visually inspected for marine mammals and sea turtles for 60 

minutes prior to commencement of ramp-up. Thus, ramp-up cannot begin after dark or in 

conditions that prohibit visual inspection (rain, fog, darkness, sea state, etc.) of the 

exclusion zone. Any shut-down due to a marine mammal or sea turtle(s) sighting within 

the exclusion zone must be followed by a 60-minute all-clear period and then a standard, 

full ramp-up. Any shut-down for other reasons, including, but not limited to, mechanical 

or electronic failure, resulting in the cessation of the sound source for a period greater 

than 20 minutes, must also be followed by full ramp-up procedures. In recognition of 

occasional, short periods of the cessation of survey equipment for a variety of reasons, 

periods of silence not exceeding 20 minutes in duration will not require ramp-up for the 

resumption of seismic operations if: (1) visual surveys are continued diligently 

throughout the silent period (requiring daylight and reasonable sighting conditions); and 

(2) no marine mammal or sea turtles are observed in the exclusion zone. If marine 

mammals or sea turtles are observed in the exclusion zone during the short silent period, 

resumption of seismic survey operations must be preceded by 60-minute all clear period 

followed by a ramp-up. 

 Implementation of Ramp-Up: A “ramp-up” (if allowable depending on specific sound 

source) will be required at the beginning of each seismic survey in order to allow marine 

mammals and sea turtles to vacate the area prior to the commencement of activities. 

Seismic surveys may not commence (i.e., ramp up) at night time or when the exclusion 

zone cannot be effectively monitored (i.e., reduced visibility). 

 Shut Down: If a listed marine mammal or sea turtle is spotted within or transiting 

towards the exclusion zone surrounding the sub-bottom profiler and the survey vessel, an 

immediate shutdown of the equipment will be required. Subsequent restart of the profiler 

may only occur following clearance of the exclusion zone and the implementation of 

ramp up procedures (if applicable). 

 Compliance with Equipment Noise Standards: All seismic surveying equipment must 

comply as much as possible with applicable equipment noise standards of the USEPA. 

 Reporting for Seismic Surveys Activities: The following report must be submitted while 

seismic surveys are conducted: 

o The lessee must provide BOEM and NMFS with a report within 90 days 

following the commencement of seismic survey activities that includes a 

summary of the seismic surveying and monitoring activities and an estimate of the 

number of listed marine mammals and sea turtles that may have been taken as a 

result of seismic survey activities. The report must include information such as 

dates and locations of operations, details of listed marine mammal or sea turtle 

sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic activities), and 

estimates of the amount and nature of listed marine mammal or sea turtle takings. 

o The lessee must ensure that any observed injury or mortality to a listed marine 

mammal or sea turtle is reported to NMFS and BOEM immediately (within 24 

hours). Any observations concerning impacts on listed marine mammals or sea 

turtles must be transmitted to NMFS and BOEM within 48 hours as provided in 

the lease. 

268 
Sub-bottom Sampling: The following requirements will apply to all sub-bottom sampling 

work. 

 Establishment of Exclusion Zone: A 200-m radius exclusion zone for listed marine 

mammals and sea turtles must be established around any vessel conducting the subbottom sampling. 

 Visual Monitoring of Exclusion Zone: The exclusion zone around the vessel must be 

monitored for the presence of listed marine mammals or sea turtles using the protocol 

detailed above for HRG survey work, absent the ramp-up procedures. 

 Reporting for Sub-bottom Sampling Activities: The following reports must be submitted 

regarding the conduct of sub-bottom sampling activities: 

(1) A report must be provided to BOEM and NMFS within 90 days following the 

commencement of seismic survey activities that includes a summary of the subbottom sampling activities and an estimate of the number of listed marine 

mammals and sea turtles observed during sub-bottom sampling activities. The 

report will include information, such as dates and locations of operations, details 

of listed marine mammal or sea turtle sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, 

associated seismic activities), and estimates of the amount and nature of any listed 

marine mammal or sea turtle takings. 

(2) The lessee must ensure that any observed injury or mortality to a listed marine 

mammal or sea turtle is reported to NMFS and BOEM immediately (within 24 

hours). Any observations concerning impacts on listed marine mammals or sea 

turtles must be transmitted to NMFS and BOEM within 48 hours. 

B.1.3. Requirements for the Construction of Meteorological Towers and Installation of 

Meteorological Buoys 

Acoustic harassment from construction activities presents the potential for disturbance. The 

following requirements are meant to reduce or eliminate the potential for adverse impacts on 

listed marine mammals or sea turtles during the construction of meteorological towers and 

installation of meteorological buoys. 

 Requirements for Pile Driving: BOEM will require lessees to implement the following 

measures during the conduct of pile driving activities related to meteorological towers: 

 Establishment of Exclusion Zone: A preliminary 7 km radius exclusion zone for listed 

marine mammals and sea turtles must be established around each pile driving site in order 

to reduce the potential for impacts to these species. The 7 km exclusion zone is based 

upon the field of ensonification at the 160dB level. The 7 km exclusion zone must be 

monitored from two locations. One observer must be based at or near the sound source 

and responsible for monitoring the 180 dB field of ensonification out to 1000m from the 

sound source. An additional observer must be located on a separate vessel navigating 

approximately 4-5 km around the pile hammer monitoring 360° out to 7km from the 

sound source. If this method (one observer near the source and one on a vessel) is not 

sufficient to allow the observers to adequately monitor the exclusion zone such that any 

whale or sea turtle in the exclusion zone would be detected, additional observers must be 

used to ensure complete coverage of the exclusion zone. 

269 
o Modification of Exclusion Zone: If multiple piles are being driven, the field 

verification method may be used to modify the exclusion zone. Any new 

exclusion zone radius must be based on the most conservative measurement (i.e., 

the largest safety zone configuration) of the 160 dB zone. This zone must be used 

for all subsequent pile driving and be periodically re-evaluated based on the 

regular sound monitoring described in the Field Verification of Exclusion Zone 

section described below. The lessee must obtain BOEM approval of any new 

exclusion zone before it may be implemented. 

o Field Verification of Exclusion Zone: The lessee must conduct field verification 

of the exclusion zone during pile driving of the first pile if the meteorological 

tower design includes multiple piles. The results of the measurements from the 

first pile must be used to establish a new exclusion zone which may be greater 

than or less than the 7 km default exclusion zone depending on the results of the 

field tests. The lessee must take acoustic measurements during the driving of the 

last half (deepest pile segment) for any given open-water pile. Two reference 

locations must be established at a distance of 500 m and 5 km from the pile 

driving. Sound measurements must be taken at the reference locations at two 

depths (a depth at mid-water and a depth at approximately 1m above the seafloor). 

Sound pressure levels must be measured and reported in the field in dB re 1 μPa 

rms (impulse). An infrared range finder may be used to determine distance from 

the pile to the reference location. 

 Visibility: The lessee may not undertake any pile-driving at any time when lighting or 

weather conditions (darkness, rain, fog, sea state, etc.) prevent monitoring of the 

exclusion zone. The use of other technologies such as passive acoustic monitors (PAMs) 

is encouraged to supplement visual observations. The developer/operator may request, 

and BOEM will consider in consultation with NMFS, whether to allow the use of these 

technologies to facilitate survey activity when visual observation may be impaired. 

 Visual Monitoring of Exclusion Zone: The lessee must ensure that monitoring of the 

zones is conducted by a qualified NMFS-approved observer. Visual observations must 

be made using binoculars or other suitable equipment during daylight hours. Data on all 

observations must be recorded based on standard marine mammal observer collection 

data. This must include: dates and locations of construction operations; time of 

observation, location and weather; details of marine mammal/sea turtle sightings (e.g., 

species, numbers, behavior); and details of any observed taking (behavioral disturbances 

or injury/mortality). Any observations concerning impacts on listed marine mammals or 

sea turtles must be transmitted to NMFS and BOEM within 48 hours. Any observed 

takes of listed marine mammals or sea turtles resulting in injury or mortality must be 

immediately (within 24 hours) reported to NMFS and BOEM as provided in the lease. 

The lessee must ensure that visual monitoring begins no less than 60 minutes prior to the 

beginning of soft start and continue until pile driving operations cease or sighting 

conditions do not allow observation of the sea surface (e.g., fog, rain, darkness, sea state, 

etc.). The lessee must ensure that, if a marine mammal or sea turtle is observed, the 

observer notes and monitors the position, relative bearing and estimated distance to the 

animal until the animal dives or moves out of visual range of the observer. The lessee 

must also ensure that the observer continues to observe for additional animals that may 

270 
surface in the area, as often there are numerous animals that may surface at varying time 

intervals. 

At any time a marine mammal or sea turtle is observed within the exclusion zone, 

whether due to the marine mammal or sea turtle’s movement, the vessel’s movement, or 

because the marine mammal or sea turtle surfaced inside the exclusion zone, the lessee 

must ensure that the observer notifies the Resident Engineer (or other mutually agreed 

upon individual by BOEM and the lessee). BOEM and NMFS recognize that once the 

pile driving of a segment begins it cannot be stopped until that segment has reached its 

predetermined depth. If pile driving stops and then resumes, it would potentially have to 

occur for a longer time and at increased energy levels. If listed marine mammals or sea 

turtles enter the zone after pile driving of a segment has begun, pile driving may continue 

and observers must monitor and record listed marine mammal and sea turtle numbers and 

behavior. However, if pile driving of a segment ceases for 30 minutes or more and a 

listed marine mammal or sea turtle is sighted within the designated zone prior to 

commencement of pile driving, the observer(s) must notify the Resident Engineer (or 

other mutually agree upon individual) that an additional 60 minute visual and acoustic 

observation period will be completed, as described above, before restarting pile driving 

activities. In addition, pile driving may not begin during night hours or when the safety 

radius can not be adequately monitored (i.e., obscured by fog, sea state, inclement 

weather, poor lighting conditions, etc.) unless the applicant implements an alternative 

monitoring method that is agreed to by BOEM and NMFS. However, if a soft start has 

been initiated before dark or the onset of inclement weather, the pile driving of that 

segment may continue through these periods. Once that pile has been driven, the pile 

driving of the next segment cannot begin until the exclusion zone can be visually or 

otherwise monitored (see Visibility above). 

 Implementation of Soft Start: The lessee must ensure that a “soft start” is implemented at 

the beginning of each pile installation in order to provide additional protection to listed 

marine mammals and sea turtles near the project area by allowing them to vacate the area 

prior to the commencement of pile driving activities. The soft start requires an initial set 

of 3 strikes from the impact hammer at 40-percent energy with a one minute waiting 

period between subsequent 3-strike sets. If listed marine mammals or sea turtles are 

sighted within the exclusion zone prior to pile-driving, or during the soft start, the 

Resident Engineer (or other mutually agreed upon individual by BOEM and the lessee) 

must delay pile-driving until the animal has moved outside the exclusion zone. 

 Compliance with Equipment Noise Standards: All construction equipment must comply 

as much as possible with applicable equipment noise standards of the USEPA, and all 

construction equipment must have noise control devices no less effective than those 

provided on the original equipment. 

 Reporting for Construction Activities: The following reports must be submitted during 

construction or installation: 

o Data on all observations must be recorded based on standard marine mammal 

observer collection data. This must include: dates and locations of construction 

operations; time of observation, location and weather; details of marine mammal 

sightings (e.g., species, numbers, behavior); and details of any observed taking 

(behavioral disturbances or injury/mortality). Any observations concerning 

271 
272 

impacts on listed marine mammals or sea turtles must be transmitted to NMFS 

and BOEM within 48 hours. Any observed takes of listed marine mammals or 

sea turtles resulting in injury or mortality must be immediately (within 24 hours) 

reported to NMFS and BOEM. 

o A final technical report within 120 days after completion of the pile driving and 

construction activities must be provided to BOEM and NMFS which provides full 

documentation of methods and monitoring protocols, summarizes the data 

recorded during monitoring, estimates the number of listed marine mammals and 

sea turtles that may have been taken during construction activities, and provides 

an interpretation of the results and effectiveness of all monitoring tasks. 
APPENDIX C

Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment 

L. R. (Englewood, NJ) 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0002) 

Comment: Our family is a proponent of offshore wind installations. We feel this method of 

electricity production will add to the energy grid without adding pollutants or waste products to 

our burdened environment. We welcome this form of electricity production. 

Response: Thank you for your comments, which have been noted and will be considered in the 

decision-making process. 

Wayne Huebschman., Port Captain, Express Marine Inc. 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0003) 

Comment: Port Captain Wayne Huebschman with Express Marine Inc. submitted information 

on existing and future tug and barge usage in the area of Alternative A. Mr. Huebschman also 

commented on potential vessel routing measures. 

Response: The EA discusses potential conflicts between vessels and site characterization and 

assessment activities, while Mr. Huesbschman’s comments concern conflicts between vessels 

and commercial wind generation facilities. If and when a lessee is prepared to propose a wind 

energy facility on its lease, it will submit a COP. If a COP is submitted, BOEM would prepare a 

separate site- and project-specific NEPA analysis for that proposal. This may take the form of an 

EIS and would provide additional opportunities for public involvement pursuant to NEPA and 

the CEQ regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 (Section 1.4.2). 

As discussed in Section 4.1.1.7, the USCG anticipates providing BOEM with additional 

navigational safety recommendations upon completion of the ACPARS. The goal of the 

ACPARS (see 76 FR 27788 (May, 11, 2011)) is to enhance navigational safety by examining 

existing shipping routes and waterway uses, and, to the extent practicable, reconcile the 

paramount right of navigation within designated port access routes with other reasonable 

waterway uses. The data gathered during the ACPARS may result in the establishment of new 

vessel routing measures, modification of existing routing measures, or disestablishment of some 

existing routing measures of the Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida by the USCG. Mr. 

Huesbschman’s comment letter has been provided to the USCG for consideration in the 

ACPARS. 

 Alex Pavlak 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0004) 

Comment: The draft views offshore wind as if it were as environmentally benign as a bridge. It 

ignores the fact that the whole point of wind power is to impact the environment, to reduce 

electric power system emissions. The emission impact is completely ignored. The usual 

assumption in the literature is that emissions are proportional to power, that is, if wind 

contributes 1% of the energy it will reduce emissions by 1%. By this method, PJM estimates 

Maryland offshore wind will reduce emissions by 0.17 CO2/kWh. In reality a little wind saves 

natural gas, about 0.10lbs CO2/kWh. Too much wind can cause base load coal plants to cycle 

275 
and increase emissions. There simply is no data from real systems. How can you issue an 

environmental impact statement that ignores electric power system emissions? 

Response: The purpose of this EA is to consider the reasonably foreseeable environmental 

consequences associated with issuing leases and approving site assessment plans in the WEAs 

described. If and when a lessee submits a COP, BOEM would prepare a NEPA document 

addressing the impacts associated with the installation and operation of the wind energy facility 

it proposes, which may implicate the issues raised in the comment (see Section 1.4.2, Scope of 

Analysis, of this EA). 

Jason Wood, SMRU Ltd. 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0005) 

Comment: BOEM [sic] propose as mitigation monitoring for pile-driving (for marine mammals 

and turtle) to use observers on both the construction vessel and an outer observer boat circling 

the area. At typical observer sighting speeds (10nm/hr), coverage of the outer circumference will 

take > 3 hours and be limited by good sighting conditions. BOEM should consider the additional 

use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) to concurrently detect both listed baleen whales and 

local odontocete populations. PAM could also be employed prior to operations starting. Towed 

PAM could be used from the support vessel or autonomous buoys (modem-linked to the 

construction vessel) used to cover the area in near real-time more comprehensively. 

Response: The mandatory project design criteria require the monitoring of exclusion zones for 

both survey and pile driving activity, and do not preclude the use of PAMs to aid visual 

observations. The requirements detailed in Appendix B of this EA (formerly Appendix C of the 

Draft EA) have been updated to reflect this. If the lessee desires to conduct activity outside of 

times of good visibility and a calm sea state, as currently required, they may request the use of 

additional technologies, such as PAMs, in order to facilitate this activity. As discussed in the 

2011 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement for Marine Seismic Research Funded by the National Science Foundation or 

Conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, available at 

http://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/usgs-nsf-marine-seismic-research/nsf-usgs-final-eisoeis_3june2011.pdf, PAM can be effective at detecting some animals before they are detected 

visually. Its value can be limited, however, by bottom configuration (water depth) and other 

environmental factors, and in some cases towing the PAM equipment is not practicable. Because 

of present limitations to determine range of acoustic contacts, the value of PAM is to detect 

acoustic cues that alert visual observers of the presence and general direction of marine 

mammals (NSF, 2011). The PAMs would only detect acoustically active animals. Thus sea 

turtles and non-vocalizing marine mammals would not be detected. What was stated above in 

regards to PAMs can be said for the use of active forward-facing sonar to detect animals and 

discern behavior. Although active sonar would detect all animals with a reflective signature, it 

would only detect animals in the direction the sonar was pointing. These are additional tools that 

can aid shipboard endangered species observers, but are not required elements of the activities 

which are the subject of this assessment. Operators are encouraged to use additional tools at 

their disposal to aid shipboard endangered species observers in identifying endangered species 

and avoiding impacts to them.

276 
Mariners’ Advisory Committee for the Bay & River Delaware 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0006) 

Comment: Any structure can present a hazard to navigation, and a ship strike could cause the 

breaching of cargo and/or fuel tanks and could result in the discharge of oil into the environment. 

Any such spill could harm wildlife, habitat and adjacent beaches – impacting both the 

environment and the economy of coastal states. The MAC strongly recommends that no less 

than 1⁄2 nautical mile buffers be established beyond all vessel anchorage and navigation fairways 

and any wind energy structures; and that all structures be properly designated with navigation 

buoys, lights and RACONs. 

Response: The MAC’s recommendation for no less than a 1⁄2 nautical mile buffers is currently 

only applicable to the Delaware and Maryland WEAs and is addressed in Section 4.1.1.7.2.. The 

EA proposes that no meteorological towers /buoys could be located within a TSS or within 1 nm 

of any TSS boundary. In addition, Alternative B would exclude a potential anchorage ground 

offshore Delaware from leasing and site assessment activities at this time (see Sections 2.2 and 

4.2). All meteorological towers and buoys, regardless of height, would have lighting and 

marking for navigational purposes. 

Comment: MAC is also concerned about the negative environmental impacts that deviation of 

vessels around WEAs will have on the environment. Should WEAs be located such that exiting 

navigational fairways are relocated seaward, the voyage distances for ships and tows transiting 

around the WEAs will result in increased fuel use and increased vessel emissions. 

Response: Vessels could freely traverse the WEAs, even after leases are issued. It is not 

anticipated that vessels would need or be required to deviate a significant distance in order to 

avoid a meteorological tower or buoy. Future development of commercial wind turbine facilities 

is not part of the proposed action or alternatives. Should a lessee subsequently submit a COP 

proposing a wind energy facility, the reasonably foreseeable environmental consequences of that 

facility, such as the potential rerouting of vessel traffic around the project area, would be 

addressed in a site- and project-specific NEPA analysis. 

Richard Reis, Conservation Engineering 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0007) 

Comment: I strongly support the development of wind energy resources off of the Mid-Atlantic 

state. 

Response: Thank you for your comment, which has been noted and will be considered in the 

decision-making process. 

277 
enXco Development Corporation 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0008) 

Comment: The enXco Development Corporation provided the following recommendations 

regarding each of the alternatives considered in this EA: 

 Alternative A (Full Leasing for WEAs) – Recommends that BOEM select Alternative A 

(Full Leasing for WEAs). A FONSI should be issued because the Draft EA found that the 

foreseeable consequences of Alternative A would be short-term in duration and 

negligible in extent. 

 Alternative B (Removal of Anchorage Ground Offshore Delaware) – While this change is 

minor and appears to have a relatively small impact on the Mid Atlantic offshore wind 

energy development, there is concern this may set a precedent that could allow similar 

concerns to eliminate larger lease areas. BOEM should not exclude the Delaware 

anchorage ground from the Final EA because its NEPA process provides future 

opportunity to exclude the anchorage ground after the ACPARS is complete and there is 

a formal designation of the anchorage. 

 Alternative C (Removal of Category B Areas Offshore Maryland) – There is a strong 

objection to Alternative C which would effectively decimate the area proposed offshore 

Maryland WEA for wind development. The further reduction proposed in this alternative 

would effectively stop all offshore wind development activity in the Maryland WEA. 

BOEM should wait for completion of the study and urge BOEM not to choose 

Alternative C in the Final EA. 

 Alternative D (Seasonal Prohibition to Protect the North Atlantic Right Whale) – One 

recognizes the importance of protecting the North Atlantic right whale. However, one 

questions the need for further protections beyond those already in place pursuant to the 

MMPA. The seasonal prohibition will increase project development time and ultimately 

delay the availability of renewable energy generation capacity. This will make it more 

difficult for Mid Atlantic States to attain their RPS goals. One opposes this alternative. 

 Alternative E (Removal of Inclement Weather Diversion Areas Offshore Virginia) – 

Exclusion of this area will likely result in significant cost increase for wind development 

in Virginia by reducing the economies of scale that occur with larger projects. It would 

be premature to remove significant portions of the proposed WEA off Virginia at this 

time. 

 Alternative F (No Action) – This alternative is unacceptable. It is recommended that 

BOEM adopt a Final EA selecting Alternative A and ultimately issue a FONSI. 

Response: Thank you for your comments, which have been noted and will be considered in the 

decision-making process. 

Under Alternatives B, C, and E, areas would be excluded from leasing decisions. Alternative 

E has been modified to exclude leasing and site assessment in full OCS blocks 6111 and 6161, 

and partial OCS blocks 6011, 6061, 6110, and 6160 on the most western edge of the Virginia 

WEA, rather than the eight OCS blocks identified in the draft EA (see Sections 2.5 and 4.5 of 

this EA). 

Under the renewable energy regulations, the issuance of leases and subsequent approval of 

wind energy development on the OCS is a staged decision-making process. BOEM’s wind 

energy leasing and development process occurs in four distinct phases: (1) planning; (2) lease 

278 
issuance; (3) approval of a site assessment plan (SAP); and (4) approval of a COP. BOEM 

intends to use the EA to inform decisions to issue leases in the WEAs and to subsequently 

approve SAPs on those leases. At the fourth phase – COP phase, BOEM would prepare a 

separate site- and project-specific NEPA analysis which may take the form of an EIS (see

Sections 1.1.4 and 1.4.2 of this EA.) Additional areas may be excluded during each of these 

phases. 

University of Delaware 

College of Earth, Ocean & Environment 

School of Marine Science & Policy 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0009) 

Comment: The risk of vessel collisions with whales during peak migration time is a concern. 

However, a 6-month blanket prohibition on construction and survey activities is not an effective 

method to protect marine mammals and still allow for reasonable offshore wind site assessment 

and site characterization activity. 

 Why would BOEM consider constraining development of wind energy projects given its 

significantly smaller level of impact than commercial shipping of fishing, and, unlike 

those activities, wind energy development may have benefits for right whales in terms of, 

for example, creating commercial shipping exclusion zones in which whales can migrate 

without risk of strike.

 It is unclear why BOEM would consider adopting a much more stringent regime for 

offshore wind than the expert agency, NOAA-NMFS, has with regard to the leading 

cause of right whale mortality-ship strikes of commercial vessels exceeding 10 knots. 

 Any such blanket prohibitions should be promulgated by NOAA-NMFS pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and not by BOEM, 

which has no expertise in regard to marine mammals, under its authority to authorize 

offshore wind power development. 

 There is no reason for BOEM to adopt a blanket prohibition for wind energy activities 

during this season provided appropriate mitigation measures are in place. 

Response: BOEM received several comments from four entities for and against the selection of 

Alternative D, as well suggestions on how the alternative might be improved. BOEM will 

consider these comments when evaluating whether or not to select this alternative. One 

suggestion by the environmental organization Oceana was to edit Alternative D to ensure that 

biological investigations for marine mammals be permitted during the seasonal prohibition 

period. Alternative D has been modified to allow biological surveys year-round. 

 BOEM works very closely with NMFS and other expert agencies to explore how to 

reduce adverse impacts to marine mammals. The alternatives developed in this EA utilize the 

expertise of those agencies and within BOEM to put forth a reasonable range of alternatives to be 

considered to reduce individual and cumulative impacts from Alternative A. At the time of the 

release of the Draft EA informal consultation with NMFS was not yet complete. This 

consultation is now complete and the results of this consultation (USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 

2011c) have been incorporated into this Final EA. 

The proposed action and alternatives do not include approval of any commercial wind 

energy facility. If and when a lessee submits a COP, BOEM would prepare a NEPA document 

279 
addressing the impacts associated with the installation and operation of the wind energy facility 

it proposes, which may implicate the issues raised in the comment (see Section 1.4.2, Scope of 

Analysis, of this EA). 

Comment: Implementing site-specific conservation measures to protect North Atlantic right 

whales and other marine wildlife is a more effective means of ensuring the protection of marine 

mammal populations. In contrast, generic temporal exclusions will not produce desirable results. 

Response: BOEM received several comments both for and against the selection of Alternative 

D, as well suggestions on how the alternative might be improved. BOEM has made changes to 

the design of Alternative D as a result of these comments, and will consider these comments 

when evaluating whether or not to select this alternative. 

Comment: BOEM should be cautions with the suggestion of reducing mitigation measures 

during summer months if the action Alternative D is chosen. Such a measure would not serve to 

protect other marine mammals present in the mid-Atlantic from vessel strikes, acoustic impacts 

from construction, and other related impacts from Alternative A. It is important to consider 

impacts to all marine wildlife and not exclusively to North Atlantic right whales when 

commencing activities in the ocean. 

Response: Text was added to this EA explaining that the mandatory project design criteria 

detailed in Appendix B is a part of the proposed action and all alternatives, including Alternative 

D.

Oceana 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0010) 

Comment: Upon the submission of the first offshore wind COP for the Mid-Atlantic OCS, it is 

expected that a cumulative impact and indirect effects analysis to be conducted that would 

consider the impact of a full build out of offshore wind projects along the Mid-Atlantic OCS. 

Response: If and when a COP is submitted, BOEM would prepare a separate site- and projectspecific NEPA analysis (see Section 1.4.2 of this EA) for the project proposed. This may take 

the form of an EIS which would analyze the construction and operation activities for that 

particular project including the cumulative impacts of the action added to other past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, including other renewable energy activities. Through the 

scoping process for such a NEPA document, BOEM will determine the geographic scope of the 

cumulative effects analysis. 

Comment: Alternative A would best expedite offshore wind development; it does not 

sufficiently protect the North Atlantic right whale, even with the inclusion of mitigation measure 

in Appendix C of the Draft EA [now Appendix B in the Final EA]. There is great concern for 

the imperiled North Atlantic right whale. Therefore consider selecting Alternative D. 

 Alternative D seems to exclude all surveys from November to April. Doing so, would be 

counterproductive, in that it would prohibit crucial data from being gathered during the critical 

window of time. BOEM should allow biological surveys to be conducted from November to 

280 
April, while prohibiting seismic surveys. BOEM should also force these biological surveys to 

abide by the supplemental mitigation measures outlined below to prevent harm to marine 

mammals. 

Response: Your suggestion to edit Alternative D to ensure that biological investigations for 

marine mammals be permitted during the seasonal prohibition period has been adopted. 

Comment: Oceana strongly urges BOEM to mandate that site characterization and assessment 

activities abide by the following supplemental mitigation measures. 

1. Enforce and Clarify Appendix C of the Draft EA [now Appendix B in this Final 

EA] 

BOEME needs to enforce the mitigation measures in competitive and noncompetitive leases, such as by including them as lease stipulations as was done with the 

Interim Policy leases. However, with respect to potential impacts to marine mammal, 

particularly the North Atlantic right whale, the proposed mitigation measures fall short. 

The Draft EA does not state that the mitigation measures in Appendix C will be 

enforced, but rather say they “would likely be required by NMFS through its biological 

opinion an IHA permit”, (pg., 87), leaving the possibility open for Appendix C to be 

ignored. BOEM must mandate that the mitigation measures in Appendix C be adhered to 

during site characterization and assessment and clarify the numerous internal 

inconsistencies within Appendix C. 

Throughout Appendix C, BOEM states that activities that require the monitoring 

of an exclusion zone must be stopped when “sighting conditions do not allow observation 

of the sea surface (e.g., fog, rain, darkness)” (pg., 226). Nowhere in Appendix C are sea 

conditions explicitly acknowledge as an important factor to consider in determining 

whether the exclusion zone can be monitored. BOEM needs to explicitly single out sea 

conditions, along with fog, rain, and darkness, as a factor that should be considered in 

exclusion zones monitoring. 

Under Section C.1.2, seismic surveys must be halted if a whale is observed within 

the 500 m exclusion zone. Per that same section, seismic surveys are not allowed to begin 

if a marine mammals or sea turtle – not just whale – is observed within the 500 m 

exclusion zone. Seismic surveys should be halted if any marine mammal or sea turtle is 

observed within the 500 m exclusion zone. This must be clarified. (Pg.. 226 -227). 

Under Section C.1.2 seismic surveys are allowed to continue without a ramp-up if 

surveying has stopped for less than 20 minutes, unless a sea turtle or marine mammal is 

sited within the 500 m exclusion zone during the silent period. In that case, a ramp-up 

must be performed. However, in all other cases where seismic surveys must be restarted 

via ramp-up, the exclusion zone must be monitored for 60 minutes and ensured to be free 

of marine mammals and sea turtles. The exclusion zone must be free of marine mammals 

and sea turtles prior to ramp-up for 60 minutes, should be mandated in this case. 

Under Section C.1.3, when any new exclusion zone is established during pile 

driving, “an additional buffer area extending out of the 160 dB zone” must be included 

(pg. 228). However, the exact size of the buffer is never defined. BOEM defined the 

size of the buffer area and state how that buffer area should be established, which would 

better safeguard marine species from acoustic effects during pile driving. 

281 
2. Cease Pile Driving if a Marine Mammal or Sea Turtle Enters the Exclusion Zone 

Appendix C, Section C.1.3, allows pile driving to continue if a marine mammal or 

sea turtle is sighted within the exclusion zone after pile driving has already begun. The 

analysis discount the fact that wildlife may not even be in the exclusion zone, and that if 

they were, they would likely not be affected because the alternative would require for pile 

driving to stop if they entered the exclusion zone. Pile driving should be immediately 

stopped once a marine mammal or sea turtle enters the exclusion zone. 

3. Prohibit Pile Driving at Night 

Appendix C, Section C.1.3, allows pile driving to begin during night hours or 

when the safety radius can not be adequately monitored if “the applicant implements an 

alternative monitoring method that is agreed to by BOEM and NMFS” (pg., 229). 

Recommendation that pile driving not be allowed to start at night. 

4. Prohibit Seismic Surveys at Night 

 Appendix C, C.1.3, allows seismic surveys to be conducted at night if “sufficient 

lighting is provided to monitor the 500 m exclusion zone” (pg., 227). Prohibiting seismic 

survey during night hours would reduce potential acoustic impacts on marine mammal 

and sea turtles. 

5. Limited Sound Intensity during Pile Driving to 160dB 

Appendix C, C.1.3, set no limits on sound intensity that can be generated during 

pile driving. Consequently, while the exclusion zone is established based on a sound 

intensity limit of 160 dB along it outer perimeter, any marine mammal or sea turtles 

within the exclusion zone would be subject to sound intensities much greater than 106 dB 

– levels which are know to cause harm to marine species. BOEM should mandate that 

sound pressure levels not exceed 160 dB, and when they do, be attenuated to as close to 

160dB as possible. 

6. Use Vibratory Hammers Wherever Applicable 

A vibratory hammer should be mandated in pile driving whenever possible to 

reduce generated sound intensities during construction, as is the case in previously issued 

Interim Policy leases. 

7. Establish Exclusion Zones at the 133 dB Isopleth 

Appendix C, Section C.1.3, sets the sound intensity isopleth at which the 

exclusion zone should be established during pile driving at 160 dB, the same threshold 

the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) uses as the onset of marine mammal 

behavior harassment from impulse noises. Also of concern, little data is available on the 

acoustic effects on North Atlantic right whales. BOEM needs to consider setting the 

exclusion zone during pile driving at the 133 dB isopleth. 

8. Establish Exclusion Zones for Pile Driving with Site-Specific Acoustic Models 

Insufficient exclusion zones, in turn, could expose marine life, such as North 

Atlantic right whale to harmful sounds. Site-specific modeling would avoid this potential 

282 
impact by ensuring the generalize exclusion zone radius is sufficient therefore BOEM 

need to mandate its use prior to pile driving. 

9. Use Passive Acoustic Monitoring for Live Monitoring of the Exclusion Zone 

The PAM could provide invaluable assistance in ensuring the area is clear of 

marine mammals prior to the inception of construction and/or seismic surveys. BOEM 

needs to mandate that PAM be used for live monitoring of exclusion zones. 

10. Limit Vessels Over 65 Feet in Length to 10 knots or less 

All ships greater than or equal to 65 feet in length should be restricted to speeds of 

10 knots or less year-round when on the Mid-Atlantic OCS and in transit to or from a 

WEA, or when moving within a WEA. 

Response: In response to comments received, several edits have been made to the Mandatory 

Project Design Criteria in Appendix B, which incorporates the results of the ESA consultation 

with NMFS (USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 2011c). These edits include speed restrictions for vessels 

65 feet or greater operating between November 1 and April 30. Discussion regarding the use of 

noise mitigating technologies regarding pile driving has been added to Chapter 4. The 

mandatory project design requirements identified in Appendix B in this Final EA are based upon 

the best available scientific information. Although offshore pile driving is new to the U.S. 

Atlantic OCS, high resolution geological and geophysical surveys are not. BOEM and the 

Federal natural resource agencies draw upon experiences and expert knowledge from the U.S. 

Navy, National Science Foundation, USGS, NOAA, and BOEM’s own experiences in the Pacific 

and Gulf of Mexico. That said, no procedure has a guaranteed effectiveness or a proven 

quantitative means to measure the effectiveness. Pursuant to 30 CFR 585.615, BOEM and the 

lessee will refine monitoring and operating procedures as necessary in response to monitoring 

reports received from the field. 

The requirements regarding the monitoring of exclusion zones for both survey and pile 

driving activity does not preclude the ability to use PAMs to aid visual observations. The 

requirements in Appendix B of this EA (formerly Appendix C of the Draft EA) have been 

updated to reflect this. If the lessee desires to conduct activity outside of times of good visibility 

and a calm sea state, as currently required, they may request the use of additional technologies, 

such as PAMs, in order to facilitate this activity. As discussed in the 2011 Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Marine Seismic 

Research Funded by the National Science Foundation or Conducted by the U.S. Geological 

Survey, PAM can be effective at detecting some animals before they are detected visually. Its 

value can be limited, however, by bottom configuration (water depth) and other environmental 

factors, and in some cases towing the PAM equipment is not practicable. Because of present 

limitations to determine range of acoustic contacts, the value of PAM is to detect acoustic cues 

that alert visual observers of the presence and general direction of marine mammals (NSF, 2011). 

PAMs would only detect acoustically active animals. Thus sea turtles and non-vocalizing marine 

mammals would not be detected. What was stated above in regards to PAMs can be said for the 

use of active forward facing sonar to detect animals and discern behavior. Although active sonar 

would detect all animals with a reflective signature, it would only detect animals in the direction 

the sonar was pointing. These are additional tools that can aid shipboard endangered species 

observers, but are not seen as required elements for the activities analyzed in this assessment. 

283 
Operators are encouraged to use additional tools at their disposal to aid shipboard endangered 

species observers in identifying endangered species and avoiding impacts to them. 

Section 3.1.3.1 discusses the installation of foundations for meteorological towers. 

Specifically, this discusses vibratory and impact hammering methods. Since vibratory hammers 

do not use force to drive the piles, the bearing capacity is not known and the piles must often be 

“proofed” with an impact hammer. This involves striking the pile a number of times with the 

impact hammer to ensure that it meets the designed bearing capacity. As a result, the 

requirements regarding impact hammers are still necessary. Vibratory hammers are encouraged 

to be used where appropriate, as their use would reduce the duration of exposure to the higher 

sound pressure levels associated with impact hammers. However, it should be noted that the use 

of vibratory hammers could result in an increase in the total installation time and thus, total 

duration of sound exposure. Other noise reduction measures for pile driving; primarily 

cofferdams and foam sleeves (see Nehls, 2007 and USDOI, BOEMRE, 2010) have been shown 

to be effective. However, the feasibility of requiring these technologies in the offshore 

environment needs further exploration and may be appropriate on a case-by case basis for full 

commercial-scale construction projects where the total duration of pile driving activities would 

be greater than that for a single meteorological tower. 

Comment: BOEM need[s] to use adaptive management throughout the site characterization and 

assessment phase, in accordance with the principles put forth by the Interagency Ocean Policy 

Task Force in its Final Recommendation. Significant data gaps exist with respect to biological 

assemblage in the Mid-Atlantic region, including within the proposed WEAs, and the impacts of 

site characterization activities on assemblages. 

Response: Given that no CMSP plan exists for the Mid-Atlantic, and following the principles 

outlined in the Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, BOEM 

prepared this EA with the best available information. Additionally, BOEM’s ongoing regulatory 

authority over the activities and plans of lessees allows the agency to accommodate changing 

environmental conditions. Of note, much of the reason BOEM’s regulations require lessees to 

submit the results of a number of surveys, including biological surveys, is so that BOEM has the 

necessary information regarding the state of the resources in the project area prior to deciding 

whether to approve, approve with modification, or disapprove a site assessment plan. 

Comment: The Draft EA does not adequately assess the cumulative impacts of site assessment 

and characterization activities. Specifically, the Draft EA takes a geographically-narrow 

approach to it cumulative impact analysis, focusing only on the Mid-Atlantic region. While 

appropriate for sedentary species, migratory species experience impacts outside of the MidAtlantic region that must be considered in the Draft EA’s cumulative impacts analysis. 

Response: The EA considers the cumulative impacts of activities associated with Alterative A 

in light of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions including: onshore 

development, existing port and future waterway usage, maritime traffic, expansion of the 

Panama Canal, and other renewable energy activities, such as the Interim Policy leases offshore 

New Jersey and Delaware; and proposed renewable projects in New Jersey State waters and 

offshore New York. Sections 4.1.1.3 (Marine Mammals), 4.1.1.4 (Sea Turtles), and 4.1.1.5 

(Birds) discuss cumulative impacts specific to migratory species. 

284 
Comment: The Draft EA, in its cumulative impacts analysis section, should consider the 

contributions to climate change from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with site 

characterization and assessment. GHG emissions contribute to climate, which will impact the 

Mid-Atlantic OCS environment in a variety of ways. Sources of GHG emissions that the Draft 

EA should consider include, but not limited to, vessel trips and construction. It may not be 

feasible to calculate exact GHG emissions at this time, but that does not mean any analysis 

should be neglected; indeed, rough approximations would satisfy NEPA requirements. 

Response: A climate change discussion has been added to Section 4.7 of this EA. 

New England Aquarium 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0011) 

Comment: The draft EA provides only the summer maps from the TNC’s 2011 report, yet the 

activities in the Mid Atlantic WEA’s will occur year-round. The EA lacks a rigorous review of 

the marine mammal acoustic literature, vastly underestimates the potential effects from Subbottom Profilers surveys and construction, and fails to address the operational questions about 

acoustic disturbance. Based upon lack of data and the lack of a review of existing scientific 

literature, the EA has little or no justification for stating that “Alternative A is not anticipated to 

result in any significant or population-level effects to marine mammals” (pg.,88). 

Response: During the preparation of this EA, BOEM relied upon the best available scientific 

information to assess the potential impacts of leasing, site characterization surveys, and site 

assessment activities in WEAs offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. BOEM 

fully acknowledges that existing data regarding impacts on the energetics of marine mammals 

and sea turtles from acoustic harassment is incomplete. This EA has been updated to show 

sightings data for all species in all seasons as well as the most recent data from the joint BOEMNOAA Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS). 

Comment: The main concern is that if any Sub-bottom Profiler or pile driving activity takes 

place during the migratory periods, there is the possibility that such activity will create acoustic 

barrier to migration of either pregnant females or mothers with newborn calves, both of which 

could have significant population effects for this highly endangered species. The effects of both 

the Sub-bottom Profiler surveys and the pile driving activities are probably underestimated in the 

EA, suggesting a greater potential for significant acoustic disturbance than the EA suggests. 

 There are substantial omissions in the scientific literature on right whales and other 

species throughout the marine mammal section of the EA. These omissions mean that the EA 

does not consider the emerging body of literature that suggests significant impacts from 

anthropogenic noise on marine mammals, and in particular, the effects of louder low frequency 

noises for sub-bottom profilers and seismic exploration on large whales. 

Response: Based on the best available information, BOEM believes that the section on acoustic 

harassment that could result from the activities associated with Alternative A is not understated. 

BOEM has reviewed the literature cited in your letter and updated the discussion of behavioral 

reaction of baleen whales acoustic disturbances in Section 4.1.1.3.2. An acoustic barrier to 

285 
migration is highly unlikely given the small amount of area within each WEA that would be 

subject to acoustic disturbance, either pile driver or sub-bottom profiling, at any given time. If 

whales or sea turtles are observed in the exclusion zones the noise producing activity will cease 

until the animal has left the area. See Section 3.1.2.4 regarding the time frame in which these 

activities are likely to occur. 

Comment: The EA underestimates the potential for ship whale collisions from the traffic 

expected to occur in the construction and operation of the wind farms offshore. BOEM should 

make 10 knots speeds a condition of the construction and operation of wind farms in the midAtlantic. 

Response: The proposed action and alternatives do not include the consideration or approval of 

any commercial wind energy facility or “wind farm.” The proposed action and alternatives are 

to issue leases and approve site assessment plans on those leases, the effects of which are the 

subject of this EA. If and when a lessee submits a COP, BOEM would prepare a NEPA 

document addressing the impacts associated with the installation and operation of the wind 

energy facility it proposes, which may implicate the issues raised in the comment (see Section 

1.4.2, Scope of Analysis, of this EA). 

However, the mandatory design criteria for all leasehold activities, which was the subject of 

consultations with NMFS, imposes speed restrictions for vessels 65 feet or greater operating 

between November 1 and April 30. See Appendix B of this EA. . 

Comment: The use of the Cape Wind assessment of the effects of the Sub-bottom Profiler 

Surveys to estimate the sound level isopleths around the mid-Atlantic WEA’s is flawed. The 

Cape Wind assessments were based on sandy bottom waters about 60 feet in depth. The midAtlantic WEA’s have a variety of bottom types. Harder bottom types and deeper waters are 

likely to increase the range of acoustic effects of both Sub-bottom Profilers surveys and pile 

driving. This section of the EA needs a rigorous re-analysis and assessment of the likely 

acoustic propagation characteristics based upon either in-situ measurements or state of the art 

acoustic modeling. 

Response: The draft EA stated explicitly in Section 4.1.2.3.2 that the Cape Wind information 

“serves as guide and that different equipment may produce different results in different submarine environments.” In this particular case, the noise assessment from sonar equipment was 

based upon a spherical spreading model of the sound from the source without influences of depth 

or bottom type. Thus, this assessment is suitable for the general characterization of activities in 

the Mid-Atlantic. 

Comment: The location of the WEA’s and the location of the Sub-bottom Profiler surveys, as 

well as the pile driving activities suggest that Alternative E plus a revised mitigation strategy is a 

minimal requirement for attempting to mitigate effects on the right whale migration. Alternative 

A with the required mitigation measures described in Appendix C [now Appendix B in this EA] 

is wholly inadequate for marine mammal protection. A revision of the mitigation strategy is 

critical for permitting, construction planning, and BOEM’s long term planning for alternative 

energy development. 

286 
Response: Although offshore pile driving is new to U.S. Atlantic waters, high resolution 

geological and geophysical surveys are not. BOEM and the Federal natural resource agencies 

draw upon experiences and expert knowledge from these experiences. In its September 20, 2011 

concurrence letter, NMFS determined that the proposed lease issuance, associated site 

characterization, and subsequent site assessment activities, when implemented according to the 

mandatory project design criteria detailed in Appendix B, is not likely to adversely affect listed 

whales or sea turtles. See discussion of NMFS Concurrence, Section 5.2.1 of the EA. 

Department of the Army, North Atlantic Division, Corps of Engineers

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0012) 

Comment: It is critical that BOEM evaluate potential hazards to navigation that may be 

attributed to lease blocks that effectively constrain deep draft “New Panamax” sized ships 

between the Dam Neck danger zone (33 CFR 334.390), the Atlantic Ocean Channel (a federal 

project channel), the Chesapeake Bay Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS), and natural deep water 

(60 feet mean lower low water) corridors used to approach to the Chesapeake Bay. While the 

EA notes that a TSS is “non-mandatory” in reality insurance and ship owner requirements will 

often mandate the use of TSS routes, in part due to collision avoidance value. 

Response: As discussed in Section 4.1.3.7, it is not anticipated that site characterization and 

assessment activities would constrain vessel traffic; including deep draft “New Panamax” sized 

ships, due to the temporary nature of the surveys and the limited number and size of structures 

that would be associated with Alternative A. Language has been added to this section regarding 

the insurance company and ship owner requirements’ effect on TSS usage by ships. 

Comment: Alternative D, may be required to facilitate the use of Corps Nationwide Permit 5 

(NWP-5) for “Scientific Measurement Devices”, and 6 (NWP-6) for “Survey Activities” due in 

part to NWP general condition 17 (Endangered Species). If the proposed SAP activities “may 

affect” the North Atlantic Right Whale, then general condition 17 applies and a non-federal 

permittee cannot proceed with any work that may otherwise be authorized by NWP-5 or NWP-6 

until notified by the Corps that we have determined that the activity will have “no effect” on the 

whale, or otherwise complete formal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service. If 

the National Marine Fisheries Service concurs that Alternative D results in ‘no effect” to the 

whale, activities can proceed to use NWP-5 and NWP-6 so long as the activity otherwise 

complies with all other terms and conditions, and any special conditions of the nationwide 

permit. 

Response: Comment noted. It should be noted that, in its September 20, 2011 concurrence 

letter, NMFS determined that Alternative A, when implemented according to the mandatory 

project design criteria detailed in Appendix B, is not likely to adversely affect listed whales or 

sea turtles. See discussion of NMFS Concurrence, Section 5.2.1 of the EA.

Comment: Alternative E, Removal of Inclement Weather Diversion Areas Offshore Virginia, 

may be required if the Corps determines that activities in the eight affected OCS blocks (6013, 

6014, 6063, 6064, 6113, 6114, 6163 and 6164) constitute an adverse hazard to navigation or are 

contrary to the public interest regarding national security factors. Recommend that the EA 

287 
include an evaluation regarding the possible substitution of eight additional blocks north, south, 

or east of the proposed lease area so that, in the event that permits area likely to denied, that 

other potential lease areas are available as replacement blocks. 

Response: Alternative E has been modified to exclude leasing and site assessment in full OCS 

blocks 6111 and 6161, and partial OCS blocks 6011, 6061, 6110, and 6160 on the most western 

edge of the Virginia WEA, rather than the eight OCS blocks identified in the draft EA, per a 

revised the comment submitted by the American Waterways Operators and analysis conducted 

by the USCG. (see Sections 2.5 and 4.5 of this EA).

Comment: Regarding recreational fishing vessels, the EA states that, “It is likely that tying up 

to the structure by a vessel would be prohibited by the project developer as it is private 

property.” However, unless actively enforced there is no way to prevent tie ups actions. 

Recommend that the EA (4.1.3.6) further discuss the potential effects of unauthorized tie up to 

meteorological tower and buoys. 

Response: A brief discussion on the impacts of unauthorized tie-ups to meteorological tower 

and buoys has been added to Section 4.1.3.6.2 of this EA.

Commonwealth of Virginia 

Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0013) 

Concern: Alternative A was developed as the result of months of research and input from 

VCERC and numerous other stakeholders, including academic, government, military, and private 

sector maritime interests. The 22 OCS lease blocks and 4 partial blocks are the result of 

negotiation by all parties, and after much consolidation and ceding of many of the lease blocks 

originally assessed as having economically attractive wind resources. Virginia supports the 

designation of this area as BOEM moves forward with leasing and development off of Virginia's 

coast. 

Response: Thank you for your comments, which have been noted and will be considered in the 

decision-making process.

Comment: Eliminating the eight lease blocks as proposed in Alternative E would split the 

Virginia WEA into two separate parcels, which would undermine the commercial value of the 

area by creating logistical and economic challenges for commercial developers, reducing the 

economies of scale necessary to attract supply chain interests, and ultimately increasing the cost 

of power. It believed the concerns addressed by Alternative E can be effectively accommodated 

in the leasing and development process. 

Response: Alternative E has been modified to exclude leasing and site assessment in full OCS 

blocks 6111 and 6161, and partial OCS blocks 6011, 6061, 6110, and 6160 on the most western 

edge of the Virginia WEA, rather than the eight OCS blocks identified in the draft EA (see 

Sections 2.5 and 4.5). 

288 
Virginia Maritime Association 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0014) 

Comment: The Virginia Maritime Association stated that “there are too many unresolved issues 

with implications for domestic and international waterborne commerce and navigational safety” 

and “all alternatives proposed by the draft EA still present significant impediment for the 

commercial maritime industry and the Port of Hampton Roads. Therefore, a finding of “No 

Significant Impact” would be imprudent until necessary accommodations have been made for 

commercial navigation.” 

Response: BOEM believes that there is sufficient information to analyze the potential impacts of 

site characterization and assessment activities on domestic and international waterborne 

commerce and navigational safety. It is acknowledged that there are unresolved issues regarding 

domestic and international waterborne commerce and navigational safety, such as the outcome of 

the ACPARS, as related to commercial wind facilities, which are not being proposed and are not 

the subject of the analysis in this EA. 

National Park Service, Northeast Region 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0015) 

Comment: Request at a minimum, that agency consultation is initiated with the NPS prior to 

BOEM approval of any SAP in this area to allow for review of the specific actions and proposed 

infrastructure associated with each SAP. 

Response: As required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, BOEM will continue to coordinate 

with affected State, local and tribal governments and relevant Federal agencies throughout its 

process. As an Intergovernmental Task Force member, NPS can provide input. Also under the 

renewable energy regulations at 30 CFR Part 585, BOEM coordinates with relevant Federal 

agencies (including, in particular, those agencies involved in planning activities that are 

undertaken to avoid conflicts among users and maximize the economic and ecological benefits of 

the OCS). 

Comment: NPS recommends the EA be redone specifically to (1) improve the identification of 

avian, marine and bat distribution, densities and migration routes using more substantial and 

scientifically credible data, and (2) to more comprehensively address cumulative impacts on 

biological resources. There are large data gaps for the Mid-Atlantic ecological resources, such as 

marine birds, marine mammals, and sensitive benthic habitats. An adequate baseline is needed 

for these resources so that BOEM can adequately and confidently analyze the effects of the 

proposed offshore wind activities in the NEPA document. Specific comments regarding the 

analysis in the EA for Biological resources are provided in Attachment B, Table 1. 

Response: The purpose of the description of the affected environment is to describe what 

resources may be impacted by the proposed action and alternatives, which is the issuance of 

leases and site assessment activities, including meteorological, oceanographic, and biological 

surveys and not the construction of a commercial wind facility. The impacts to the distribution, 

density, and migration routes of avian, bat, and marine fauna are not anticipated to be significant, 

289 
and are discussed in Section 4.1.2 of this EA. If and when a lessee submits a COP, BOEM 

would prepare a NEPA document addressing the impacts associated with the installation and 

operation of the wind energy facility it proposes, which may implicate the issues raised in the 

comment (see Section 1.4.2, Scope of Analysis, of this EA). BOEM appreciates the review and 

concerns expressed by the NPS and will continue to work with the NPS, along with other 

constituents with an interest in offshore wind in the future. 

BOEM agrees that there are site-specific data gaps regarding biological resources in the 

mid-Atlantic. One of the primary purposes of the regulatory requirement that lessees submit the 

results of biological and other surveys to BOEM with the lessees’ COP is to collect site specific 

data regarding the state of biological and other resources. See 30 CFR Part 585.626(a)(3). In 

addition to the site specific site characterization work that would be conducted by the lessee, 

BOEM has an environmental studies program that has several projects collecting regional avian, 

bat, marine mammal, and sea turtle data (e.g., AMAPPS). BOEM has solicited input from 

NMFS, USFWS, and Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) regarding draft survey and 

monitoring guidelines for lessees. In addition to that ongoing effort, BOEM has contracted three 

separate studies that will be developing survey and monitoring protocols that will be 

incorporated into BOEM’s guidelines to lessees once they become available. 

Many of the specific comments in Attachment B, Table 1, of NPS’s letter pertain to 

commercial activities. It is important to note that Alternative A does not include the 

consideration or approval of any commercial wind energy facility. Alternative A is the issuance 

of leases and approval of site assessment plans, the reasonably foreseeable effects of which are 

the subject of this EA. 

Comment: Request that BOEM consider placing additional mitigation measures (e.g., 

permitting buoys in lieu of towers) on any lease areas within the Maryland WEAs to protect this 

unique National Seashore resource. 

Response: Lessees may choose to install buoys in lieu of towers. Much of the EA is occupied 

with the consideration of scenarios where lessees employ buoys rather than towers on their 

leases. 

Comment: Page 24, Section 3.1.2.1 High-resolution Geophysical (HRG) Surveys – This section 

describes the High-resolution Geophysical (HRG) Surveys that will be implemented within each 

potential lease area. This section also makes reference to identified onshore transmission grid 

connection points for Delaware, New Jersey and Virginia. Consider adding additional 

information to the draft EA to clarify if any such locations have been identified for Maryland. 

Response: BOEM will include information on potential onshore transmission grid connection 

points for Maryland in Section 3.1.2.1 of this EA. 

Comment: Page 32, Section 3.1.3 Site Assessment Activities – The draft EA does not identify 

who will review the SAPs and whether review of the SAPs and any determination regarding the 

need for subsequent NEPA analysis will involve consultation with other agencies. 

Response: Review of a SAP plan will be done by BOEM in accordance with 30 CFR Part 

585.605 - 613 As appropriate, BOEM will coordinate and consult with relevant Federal and State 

290 
agencies, executives of relevant local governments, and affected Indian tribes on relevant 

nonproprietary data and information pertaining to the proposed activities. 

Comment: Page 36, 3.1.3.1 Installation – When assessing adequacy of the NEPA analyses, if 

BOEM cannot reach a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for installation of the met 

towers, it should carry out subsequent analyses pursuant to NEPA. 

Response: Clarification was added to Sections 1.4.2 and 3.1.3.1. After completion of this EA, 

BOEM will either issue a FONSI or prepare an EIS prior to issuing any leases in the WEAs. In 

the event that a particular lease is issued, and the lessee subsequently submits a SAP, BOEM 

would then determine whether this EA adequately considers the environmental consequences of 

the activities proposed in the lessee’s SAP. 

Comment: Page 39, Section 3.1.3.1 – Operation and Maintenance – There is concern about 

potential leaks and/or spills associated with this increased activity, and would like assurance that 

proper containment materials and procedures would be readily available and implemented to 

protect National Seashore resources should a leak or spill occur. 

Response: Section 3.2.3 of this EA explains that vessels are expected to comply with USCG 

requirements relating to prevention and control of oil spills. Clarification was also added to that 

section stating “though not mandated under 30 CFR Part 585, BOEM may require an Oil Spill 

Response Plan (OSRP) for an individual SAP, if the lessee proposes the use of a generator.” The 

potential impacts to coastal areas from spills are presented in Section 4.1.2.1.2, Non-Routine 

Events, among other places, and the impacts of a spill associated with the activities related to the 

proposed action, should one occur, would be small. 

Comment: Page 49, Section 4.1.1.1.1 Description of Affected Environment – The number of 

vessel trips to and from ports in Virginia may have a greater impact on air quality in the state 

than determined by the draft EA. The U.S Environmental Protection Agency will be finalizing 

stricter national ambient air quality standards for ozone. With this in mind, the coastal 

communities of NJ, MD, DE and VA may be impacted and may require further reduction of 

ozone causing emissions, which would include emissions from marine vessels as described on 

pages 49-50 of the draft EA. 

Response: Since the conclusion stated in Section 4.1.1.1.2 is based on the existing standards for 

ozone, and in any case reflect the actual impacts to air quality regardless of what the ozone 

standards currently are, no change to the EA is necessary. Ozone emissions associated with 

activities proposed in an individual SAP would be reassessed using contemporaneous standards 

for ozone at the time the SAP is submitted.

Comment: Page 51, Section 4.1.1.1.1 Class I areas – The discussion of Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) regulations does not seem pertinent because it only applies to major new 

sources or major modifications to existing sources. The draft EA should explain whether there is 

some aspect of the wind leasing process that might require PSD permits. 

291 
Response: PSD regulations are not pertinent to the reasonably foreseeable activities associated 

with the proposed action or alternatives. Section 4.1.1.1.1, Class I Areas, has been edited to 

remove discussion of PSD permits.

Comment: Page 51 – 52, Section 4.1.1.1.1 Regulatory Controls on OCS Activities that Affect 

Air Quality and 4.1.1.1.2 Impact Analysis of Alternative A – It is unclear whether a general 

conformity analysis is required for route activities, which include site characterization activities 

and the construction, servicing, maintenance, and decommissioning of met towers and buoys; 

please clarify. 

Response: Clarification has been added to Section 4.1.1.1.2 that a General Conformity analysis 

would be performed upon the submission of a SAP by a lessee that indicates that the SAP 

activities would emit over 100 tons per year of a criteria pollutant that is in non-attainment or 

maintenance. This analysis would pertain only to the specific criteria pollutant that is in 

nonattainment for maintenance areas onshore and in state waters and has the potential to exceed 

the 100 tons per year threshold associated with the activities proposed in that SAP. 

Comment: Page 53, Section 4.1.1.1.2 Site Characterization Surveys – The total impact of 43 – 

67 trips per year; per port may not be not accurate without some type of air quality analysis. It is 

not reasonable to conclude that emissions may be negligible without an analysis or explanation 

to thresholds. 

Response: The thresholds set by the USEPA apply to fixed structures and associated vessels. 

The vessel emissions associated with meteorological towers and buoys represent a small portion 

of the vessel trips projected for Alternative A. These thresholds apply when performing a 

general conformity analysis when a SAP is submitted by a lessee which indicates that the SAP 

activities would emit over 100 tons per year of a criteria pollutant that is either in nonattainment 

or maintenance. When comparing 43 – 67 vessel trips per year per port to existing port activity 

to the thousands to tens of thousands vessels annually, it is reasonable to conclude that emissions 

associated with Alternative A would have a negligible impact. This clarification has been added 

to Section 4.1.1.1.2 of this EA.

Comment: Page 53, Section 4.1.1.1.2 Construction and Decommissioning – It is unclear if the 

total tons provide[d] by Bluewater Wind New Jersey Energy, LLC for the construction and 

decommissioning of met tower include marine vessel transportation to and from the site. Also, 

the total tons determined for offshore New Jersey at 94.5 tons is very close to the de minimus 

levels for determination for general conformity (100 tons). A refined analysis of air quality 

impact from construction and decommissioning is necessary to verify whether or not a lessee 

and/or BOEM would be required to conduct a general conformity analysis. 

Response: The Bluewater Wind New Jersey Energy, LLC estimated emissions of criteria air 

pollutants from the construction and decommissioning includes vessel traffic to and from the 

site. The total emissions of 94.5 tons is for all criteria pollutants for all seven proposed 

meteorological towers projected to be installed in the New Jersey WEA as a result of Alternative 

A, including vessel traffic. The total criteria pollutant emissions for one meteorological tower 

and associated vessels is anticipated to be well below the de minimus level. A general 

292 
conformity analysis would be performed when a SAP is submitted by a lessee and only for the 

individual criteria pollutant that exceed the 100 tons per year threshold of a pollutant in 

nonattainment or maintenance. It is highly unlikely for any criteria pollutant to exceed the 100 

tons per year threshold for the installation of a meteorological facility and therefore a conformity 

determination is not likely. This clarification has been added to Section 4.1.1.1.2.

Comment: Page 54, Section 4.1.1.2 Operations – The draft EA states, “Support vessels traveling 

to and from shore and in harbor or port area making approximately 12,000 trips over 5.5 years 

have the potential to affect onshore air quality.” The determinations that such support vessel 

travel would “...contribute slightly to emission totals...” and that”...impacts from additional 

pollutant emissions...would be negligible” are made without data provided or analyzed. Such 

statements appear contradictory to the first sentence that air quality may be impacted. 

Response: Section 4.1.1.1.2 has been reworded to clarify that this statement is based on the 

comparison to pre-existing emissions from vessel activity and ambient air quality in these areas. 

There are no exact emissions totals for existing vessel traffic activity; however, by comparing 

additional vessel traffic to the existing, one is able to conclude that the additional emissions 

associated with Alternative A would have a negligible impact to existing air quality. 

Comment: Page 54, Section 4.1.1.1.2 Conclusion – If BOEM is to conclude that air quality 

impacts are minor, it must provide some data analysis, in the form of general conformity or 

otherwise, especially considering the determination that marine vessel transportation to and from 

the New Jersey ports almost reach de minimus level (94.5 tons compared to 100 tons). 

Response: The total emissions of 94.5 tons is for all criteria pollutants for all seven 

meteorological towers projected to be installed in the New Jersey WEA as a result of Alternative 

A. The total criteria pollutant emissions for one meteorological tower and associated vessels is 

anticipated to be well below the de minimus level. A general conformity analysis would be 

performed when a SAP is submitted by a lessee and only for the individual criteria pollutant that 

exceed the 100 tons per year threshold of a pollutant in nonattainment or maintenance. It is 

highly unlikely for any criteria pollutant to exceed the 100 tons per year threshold for the 

installation of a meteorological facility. This clarification has been added to Section 4.1.1.1.2 of 

this EA.

Comment: Page 116, Section 4.1.3.1 Archaeological Resources – The draft EA does not clarify 

whether the State Historic Preservation Officer for each of the four states has be consulted. The 

NPS recommends further clarification on the compliance process being utilized by BOEM under 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Response: Section 5.3.4 (National Historic Preservation Act) of the Draft EA has been updated 

to reflect the current state of consultations with SHPOs, among other things. Section 5.3.4 

explains that all the SHPOs have been consulted and outlines compliance process being utilized 

by BOEM under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

 

293 
Comment: Page 40, Section 3.1.3.1 Lighting and Marking – The draft EA does not include an 

analysis of lighting impact to avian species. Only impacts to marine navigation and aviation are 

considered. The NPS recommends including an analysis of impact to avian species. 

Response: The analysis of impact to avian species is in the Section on Birds in Chapter 4. 

Comment: The Maryland coastal bays adjacent to Assateague Island NS and the Town of Ocean 

City are notably absent for this section and the subsequent impacts analysis. These estuaries are 

the water bodies most likely to be affected by the proposed activities. Suggest that additional 

water quality data be obtained through the EPA funded Maryland Coastal Bays Program and 

associated analyses be appended to this section of the draft EA. 

Response: The Maryland coastal bays and estuaries were not included in this analysis because 

BOEM does not anticipate that these waters would be traversed by vessels associated with site 

characterization and assessment activities. 

Virginia Offshore Wind Coalition 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0016) 

Comment: The Virginia Offshore Wind Coalition is in support of a solution that would create a 

slight revision to Alternative A that provides safe and efficient commercial navigation and 

allows for all competing uses. One such solution would include minor modifications to the 

current northeast and southeast commercial vessel approaches, the DoD training areas and the 

WEA, Figure 1 presents an alternative that would permit safe and efficient commercial 

navigation into the Chesapeake Bay, sustain future growth of the Port, and allow off-shore wind 

energy development to proceed as proposed. Figure 1 depicts the delineation of a single “sealane” from the current Atlantic Ocean Channel that splits into a “North Fairway” and “South 

Fairway” utilizing existing deep water access and circumventing the proposed WEA. A portion 

of the northwest quadrant of the WEA would require relocation potentially to the west. In 

addition, a portion of the northeast section DoD training area could possibly relocated to the 

south and the southern boundary of the existing training area reconfigured and enlarged to 

maintain required space for military exercises and testing. 

Response: BOEM has no authority to modify vessel approaches or DoD training areas. BOEM 

has modified Alternative E to exclude leasing and site assessment in full OCS blocks 6111 and 

6161, and partial OCS blocks 6011, 6061, 6110, and 6160 on the most western edge of the 

Virginia WEA, rather than the eight OCS blocks identified in the draft EA (see Sections 2.5 and 

4.5). The purpose of this EA is to consider the reasonably foreseeable environmental 

consequences associated with issuing leases and approving site assessment plans in the WEAs 

described. If and when a lessee submits a COP, BOEM will prepare a separate, site- and projectspecific NEPA document addressing the impacts, including any impacts on commercial vessel 

approaches or USCG’s modification of existing routing measures, associated with the installation 

and operation of a wind energy facility at that time. 

294 
Maryland Ornithological Society 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0017) 

Comment: An error in the EA, i.e. the statement that the federally listed Roseate Tern does not 

occur in the states of Maryland or Delaware. The federally endangered Roseate Tern, in fact, was 

a breeder in Maryland in Worcester County in the 1930s. Most recently, it has been recorded on 

Skimmer Island in Ocean City, MD, 21-22 June 2011: on Assateague Island 21 June 2011. This 

strongly suggests that the Roseate Tern occurs as a migrant. 

Response: Currently, there are no known roseate tern breeding colonies in Maryland or 

Delaware. The EA has been updated to reflect this information. 

Comment: The EA does not address other bird species. We would hope these other species 

would be addressed in a future EIS. The off-shore waters of all four state hosts numerous 

pelagic species, are the target of several pelagic birding trips every year. There is concern about 

the possibility of these species being attracted to navigation and hazard lights. 

Response: Section 4.1.2.5.2 of this EA addresses the potential impacts of leasing, site 

assessment and characterization activities to ESA listed birds, candidate species, bald and golden 

eagles, and birds covered under the MBTA, which includes pelagic species, including potential 

attraction to lighting on towers and buoys. 

American Bird Conservancy 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0018) 

Comment: Section 1.5 states that the Wind Energy Area (WEA) for New Jersey was designed to 

avoid shoals and areas of high avian densities, an assertion supported by the complex border of 

the NJ WEA. In contrast, the section’s descriptions of DE, MD and VA WEAs do not indicate 

that shoals or areas of high avian densities were avoided, and those WEAs have, in comparison 

to NJ, much less complex borders (pg., 6-8). Was avoiding shoals and areas of high avian 

densities considered necessary for NJ but not DE, MD, or VA, and if so, why not? Please 

explain. 

Response: Additional information on the development and refinement of the WEAs was added 

to Section 1.5 of this EA. 

Comment: ABC recommends that clear efforts are made to identify areas where emerging 

environmental data would reduce or eliminate areas from each WEA to avoid environmental 

conflicts, and the final environmental review document should describe what these efforts have 

been for each WEA. 

Response: The WEAs were identified using the best information currently available. Simply 

because an area is included in a WEA, or because an area is leased, does not necessarily mean 

that such an area would be the ideal location for a facility. One of the chief reasons BOEM’s 

regulations require lessees to submit the results of a number of surveys, including biological 

surveys with their plans for facilities, is so that BOEM has the necessary information regarding 

295 
the state of the resources in the project area prior to deciding whether to approve, approve with 

modification, or disapprove the facilities contemplated in the plan, which includes the location of 

such facilities. Plans for development (i.e., SAPs and COPs) could include conditions 

preventing the lessee from siting facilities in areas shown by the survey results (and all 

information contemporaneous with BOEM’s consideration of the plan) to be particularly 

sensitive. 

Comment: The discussion of risk from met towers needs correction (pg., 102). The EA 

dismisses collision risk because there will be few met towers and they will be some distance 

form shore. The EA does not take into account that in the dark environment with very few 

structures, those few structures that are lit can be expected to attract bird to them, per experience 

with bird collisions at rural communication towers. 

Response: The following text was added to Section 4.1.1.5.2, Birds - Impact Analysis of the 

Alternative A, Meteorological Towers: “For instance, certain types of nighttime lighting, like 

steady burning lighting, can confuse or attract birds when it is raining or foggy. However, red 

flashing lights are commonly used at land-based wind facilities without any observed increase in 

avian mortality compared to unlit turbine towers (Kerlinger et al. 2010).” 

Comment: The environmental risks of oil spills is largely dismissed in Section 3.2.3, stating that 

because most non-tanker spills are of small quantity and are diesel spills, rather than crude oil or 

bunker C. The EA’s statistics are very misleading, as recreational vessels and fueling spills are 

included in the statistics. These spills are not related to at sea collisions following loss of 

steerage, and are not applicable to this discussion. Because the WEAs include shipping lanes, 

the EA must address the collision risks of spills from commercial ships. 

Response: See Non-Routine Events Section 4.1.3.7.2. The WEAs were designed to avoid the 

shipping lanes and the heavier trafficked approach/departure areas associated with shipping 

lanes. In assessing the reasonably foreseeable impacts associated with Alternative A, BOEM has 

worked in close consultation with other expert agencies and has used the best information 

currently available. 

APEX Wind Energy 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0019) 

Comment: Recommend that the EA clearly state that fewer, larger, and more widely spaced 

lease areas would also fall within the specific findings in the EA. 

Response: As discussed in Section 3.1.1, a leasing scenario is necessary to develop a scenario 

for site characterization and assessment activities. The EA uses the most conservative 

assumption that the entire area of each WEA would be leased. By dividing the total number of 

OCS blocks by 10, a total of 13 leases are anticipated under Alternative A. 

The WEAs were developed in close consultation with numerous federal and state 

agencies, renewable energy task forces from each state, and with the input of the public and 

myriad interested parties. Alternative A considers whether or not to issue leases within these 

WEAs, and in order to assess the reasonably foreseeable consequences of doing so, BOEM has 

analyzed a leasing scenario that is reasonably foreseeable within those areas. BOEM is not 

296 
proposing fewer, larger, or more widely spaced leases within these areas (indeed some of the 

WEAs could only support 1-3 leases altogether), or to make fewer, larger, or more widelyspaced WEAs, as neither would achieve the purpose and need. Therefore, the EA need not 

analyze the consequences associated with doing so. 

Comment: In Section 3.1.3.3, both LIDAR and SODAR are described as “ground-base[d]” 

sensing technologies. It is important to note that these technologies can and have been deployed 

offshore on both fixed platforms (stub towers or met towers) or floating ones (buoys). 

Response: The term “ground-based” was removed from Section 3.1.3.3, Meteorological Data 

Collection. This section acknowledges that measurement devices could be mounted on towers or 

buoys. 

Comment: In Section 3.1.3.3, a buoy’s location is assumed to be fixed for the duration of its 

field deployment. In the case where a met tower has also been commissioned, it may be desirable 

to first deploy the buoy adjacent to the met tower for a limited test period (1 month) in order to 

establish some wind measurements. 

Response: This comment does not warrant further agency response, because it was included in 

the analysis of Alternative A. BOEM assumes a number of meteorological towers and/or buoys 

will be placed in the WEAs identified in Alternative A. BOEM does not, however, speculate 

where lessees would intend to locate the meteorological towers or buoys should they acquire a 

lease. It is certainly a possibility that both a meteorological tower and buoy could be located 

near each other (or even adjacent to each other). 

Comment: The last paragraph of the Lighting and Marking section on page 40 states that if 

BOEM were to receive a SAP for a met mast greater than 199 feet (just taller than 60 meters) 

beyond the boundary of Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) jurisdiction 12 nautical 

miles from shore, “additional NEPA analysis and the imposition of additional mitigation 

measures may be necessary prior to approval.” It is not clear why additional NEPA analysis 

cannot be performed and the incremental, minimal impacts assessed as part of this EA. 

Response: This language has been removed from Section 3.1.3.1, Lighting and Marking. As 

explained in Section 1.4.2, in the event that a particular lease is issued, and the lessee 

subsequently submits a SAP, BOEM would then determine whether this EA adequately 

considers the environmental consequences of the activities proposed in the lessee’s SAP. If 

BOEM determines, in coordination with other agencies, such as FAA if appropriate, that the 

analysis in this EA adequately considers these consequences, then no further NEPA analysis 

would be required before the SAP is approved. If, on the other hand, BOEM determines that the 

analysis in this EA is inadequate for that purpose, BOEM would prepare an additional NEPA 

analysis before approving the SAP. 

Comment: On page 38 the EA assumes that scour control system will be installed on the ocean 

floor around the base of a met tower, but this assumption may be too broad. The EA should 

account for instance where a met tower is in place for a limited period of time, and in those cases 

incorporating scour protection would exceed the recommended design standards. 

297 
Response: Section 3.1.3.1 acknowledges that a scour control system may be required based on 

potential seabed scour anticipated at the site. As part of its SAP, the lessee would provide to 

BOEM information on the condition of the proposed site, which would include an assessment of 

the magnitude of potential seabed sour anticipated at the site (30 CFR 585.610(b) and 

585.611(b)(1)). Based on this information, BOEM may require the installation of a scour control 

system as a term or condition of SAP approval. A scour system may also be required to be 

installed later if significant scour is discovered during monitoring. Section 3.1.3.1. has been 

updated accordingly. 

Comment: The conclusion and proposed mitigation measures for benthic habitat on page 70 are 

too broad and restrictive and have the potential to exclude significant areas. 

BOEM’s “primary mitigation strategy” of avoiding “cultural resources and biologically 

sensitive habitats” (19) is unnecessarily broad and could give rise to the exclusion of large areas 

if surveys detect targets. The above clause could be revised as: “Where significant adverse 

environmental effects on offshore cultural resources and biologically sensitive habitats are likely 

to arise, BOEM’s primary mitigation strategy has and will continue to be avoidance”. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 4 of this EA, none of the alternatives are anticipated to 

result in significant adverse environmental effects or significant adverse effects on potential 

cultural or historic resources. Nevertheless, in order to minimize the potential for any adverse 

effect, or to minimize the effects that may occur, BOEM’s primary mitigation strategy is the 

avoidance of sensitive areas. This policy is part of our Record of Decision in Appendix B of the 

PEIS and reflected in BOEM’s renewable energy regulations (e.g., 30 CFR Part 585.627(a)). 

However, this strategy does not preclude BOEM from approving structures in areas where these 

resources exist, provided that the environmental impacts associated with doing so do not exceed 

that anticipated in a NEPA analysis. 

Comment: The scope of this EA is rightly limited to “reasonably foreseeable consequences” 

resulting from lease issuance and SAP approval, but the potential impacts avoided by 

Alternatives B and C relate to project construction and operation rather than survey activities and 

the siting of met tower/buoys. 

Response: While it is true that Alternatives B and C would likely reduce the environmental 

impacts associated with large-scale project construction, which is not a part of Alternative A, 

they would also reduce the small impacts associated with site characterization and assessment 

activities, which are a part of Alternative A. It is also important to note that, although BOEM is 

not currently considering approving any COPs for wind energy generation facilities in any area 

offshore the Mid-Atlantic States, it would make little sense to give priority to issuing leases in 

areas that would not be suitable for development in the future (hence exclusion of USCG 

“Category ‘A’” areas from all current alternatives). The consideration of Alternatives B and C 

does not indicate that leasing in these areas is inadvisable. However, consultations and scoping 

indicated that these alternatives were reasonable and should be thoughtfully considered prior to 

selecting a course of action. 

298 
The Humane Society of the United States 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0020) 

Comment: Many of the assumptions of marine mammal habitat use are questionable, as they are 

based on the study conducted as part of New Jersey’s analysis and a compilation of federal 

agency data by the Nature Conservancy (EA at 73). These sources do not necessarily reflect the 

best available science regarding the habitat use of the area. Appendix [A], which shows marine 

mammal densities based on the Nature Conservancy report, shows only summer distributions for 

a handful of species. 

The EA states that winter acoustic detections in the area monitored with passive acoustic 

buoys were “inconsistent with current distribution data” (EA at 77). We must point out that there 

are so few data on distribution in the mid-Atlantic, that it cannot be determined that these 

detection were an anomalous occurrence. 

Thus the EA and the FEIS appear to rely on the fact there will be displacement of animals 

from their normal seasonal feeding areas or migratory routes but neither can assure that this 

displacement will not adversely affect species at a population level. We are concern that the 

effect of displacement could be significant either as a result of increased energetic costs at a time 

when females are fasting or as a result of increased risk of entanglement or vessel-related 

collisions if the whales are displaced into areas where these activities are more concentrated. 

Since the EA directs reviewers to the NMFS compliance document for vessel in the midAtlantic, and these speed restrictions do not require speed reductions for large vessels in any but 

a few limited port entrances, it is not clear that project vessels will be operating at slow speeds in 

any other transit areas or areas in which site characterization or pile driving will take place. If 

this is the case, then the risk of fatal collisions would be elevated in all but a few small areas. 

The EA appears to count on the displacement of animals from the area as mitigation from 

noise-related hearing damage without a consideration for where they will be displaced or what 

the consequences could be (e.g., displaced into areas with more gillnet or crab fishing that may 

entangle them or into adjacent areas used by risk-prone shipping. 

Response: The analysis in this EA is based on the best information currently available; the 

commenter does not present any new information for consideration in the analysis. BOEM 

agrees that there are some site specific data gaps regarding biological resources in the midAtlantic. One of the primary purposes of the site characterization activities, the impacts of which 

are analyzed in this document, is to collect this additional data. This requirement comes directly 

from the regulations at 30 CFR Part 585.626(a)(3). In addition to the site specific site 

characterization work that would be conducted by the lessee, BOEM has an environmental 

studies program that has several projects collecting regional avian, bat, marine mammal, and sea 

turtle data (e.g., AMAPPS). BOEM has solicited input from NMFS, USFWS, and MMC 

regarding draft survey and monitoring guidelines for lessees. In addition to that ongoing effort, 

BOEM has contracted three separate studies that will be developing survey and monitoring 

protocols that will be incorporated into BOEM’s guidelines to lessees once they become 

available. 

Several edits have been made to Appendix B in response to comments received and 

incorporates the results of the ESA consultation with the NMFS (USDOC, NOAA, NMFS 

2011c). These edits include speed restrictions for vessels 65 feet or greater operating between 

November 1 and April 30. Discussion regarding the use of noise mitigating technologies 

299 
regarding pile driving has been added to Chapter 4 and discussed elsewhere in this section. The 

mitigation measures identified in Appendix B are based upon the best available scientific 

information. The alternatives considered in this EA were developed utilizing the expertise of the 

natural resource agencies and within BOEM to put forth a reasonable range of alternatives to be 

considered to reduce individual and cumulative impacts. Pursuant to 30 CFR 585.615 BOEM 

and the lessee will refine monitoring and mitigation measures as necessary in response to 

monitoring reports received from the field. 

Although BOEM concludes that there would be temporary displacement of animals as a 

result of animals avoiding sound sources, this displacement is anticipated to be largely localized 

to the area around the sound source. Migratory corridors inshore (west) and offshore (east) of 

the action areas which sightings data (see Appendix B) indicate are currently utilized corridors, 

would remain as they are currently which includes vessel traffic and fishing effort. For 

additional information on the timing of these activities see Section 3.1.2.4.

Deepwater Wind, LLC 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0021) 

Comment: We concur with the Draft EA’s conclusions that no significant impacts are expected 

and that mitigation measures can be effectively implemented for any potential impacts associated 

with the leasing and site characterization/assessment activities contemplated by actions to this 

Notice. Accordingly, we strongly support Alternative A. 

Response: Thank you for your comments, which have been noted and will be considered in the 

decision-making process. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Federal Activities 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0022) 

Comment: Based on our review of this draft EA, EPA has no comments. 

Response: Thank you for your response. 

National Wildlife Federation 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0023 and 

BOEM-2011-0053-0046 (replaces BOEM-2011-0053-0044)) 

Comment: We recommend the inclusion of strong protective measures – like those suggested in 

Appendix [B] and Alternative D – to first avoid; then mitigate impacts to the right whale. We 

believe that strong, formal consultation with the NMFS and NOAA is needed to ensure that the 

most effective measures are required to protect this critically endangered species throughout the 

year. 

It is critical that the final EA require stringent measures at all times to protect whales 

from ship strikes and adverse impacts from undersea noise resulting from sonar and pile driving 

activities. The final EA must include detailed explanations of the required protective measures 

and their likely effectiveness, as this is lacking in Appendix [B] and Alternative D in the Draft 

300 
EA. Further, if some type of blanket exclusion of site assessment and characterization activities 

is determined to be necessary during the winter months, we strongly encourage BOEM to allow 

biological data surveys to occur during the time as it is critical that we collect as much data as 

possible during the time to help inform construction and operation planning. 

Response: Formal consultations with states and other Federal agencies are required by statute 

(e.g. ESA, MSA, CZMA) and are discussed in Section 5.3 of this EA. The results of 

consultations with NOAA and FWS were not complete for the Draft EA but have now been 

completed (USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 2011c; USFWS, 2011e) and incorporated into the 

document and its appendices. Appendix B contains BOEM’s mandatory project design criteria; 

requirements that will be applied to all lessees regardless of the alternative selected. No design 

criteria has a guaranteed effectiveness or a proven quantitative means to measure the 

effectiveness. However, these requirements reduce the risks to endangered species to the point 

where anticipated impacts would be minimal. Pursuant to 30 CFR 585.615, BOEM and the 

lessee will refine monitoring and mitigation measures as necessary in response to monitoring 

reports received from the field. Alternative D has been modified to provide for year-round 

biological surveys (see Section 4.4 of this EA).

Comment: We believe that any area removed in the Final EA – from either Alternative A, C or 

E should not be permanently off the table. We support moving forward with the areas identified, 

but encourage BOEM to gather more information and take a closer look at all areas removed at 

this stage and consider them for future site assessment and characterization leasing. 

Response: In Sections 2.3, 2.5, 4.2 and 4.5, additional text was added to clarify that under these 

alternatives areas would be excluded from this initiative; BOEM is not “closing” any area of the 

OCS to renewable energy leasing. Nothing precludes BOEM from considering an application to 

lease any area on the OCS. 

Comment: The base language that is used for all leases should be made available for pubic 

comment prior to issuance. It is especially critical that the specific wildlife avoidance and 

mitigation measures recommended by NMFS and NOAA are fully incorporated into the lease 

language. 

Response: On September 6, 2011, BOEM published in the Federal Register the proposed 

commercial renewable energy lease form (76 FR 55090). The Federal Register notice opened a 

30-day comment period. BOEM is currently reviewing all submissions and will publish a final 

version of the form in the coming months. The mandatory project design criteria in Appendix B 

of this EA will be included as conditions on any leases and/or SAPs issued or approved under all 

of the alternatives considered in this EA. 

Comment: The following comment was submitted on behalf of 11,047 National Wildlife 

Federation Action Fund supporters: “Thank you for taking action to advance clean energy in 

America. It is time to tap one of our most significant renewable resources - offshore wind in the 

Mid-Atlantic. Our current dependence on fossil fuels has far reaching and devastating impacts 

affecting our health, draining our pocketbooks, causing air and water pollution, warming the 

planet causing sea-levels to rise and destroying wildlife habitat. The time to transition to a clean 

energy economy is now.” 

301 
Response: Thank you for your comments, which have been noted and will be considered in the 

decision-making process. 

State of Delaware, Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0024) 

Comment: Impact pile driving has more potential to harm species sensitive to acoustic changes 

than vibratory pile driving because of the ‘pulse.’ The draft EA should discuss why vibratory 

pile driving is or is not suitable for installation in the WEAs. 

Response: The discussion of the installation of foundations for meteorological towers in Section 

3.1.3.1 has been updated. Specifically, this update discusses vibratory and impact hammering 

methods. Vibratory hammers are encouraged to be used where appropriate as the duration of 

higher sound pressure levels associated with impact hammers would be less, even though the 

total installation time may slightly increase. 

Comment: On page 48 the EA states, “From 2000 to 2009, the average spill size of vessels other 

than tank ships and tank barges was 88.36 gallons (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

USCG, 2011), and, should Alternative A result in a spill in any given area, BOEM anticipated 

that the average volume would be the same.” However, it is the threat posed by tank ships and 

barges that ARE of concern and any allision with either of those two types of large vessel that 

will result in accidents with significant consequences. The EA suggest that the vessel control 

process currently in place will negate the possibility of an incident while a few pages later is 

states, “The most commonly reported causes of the allisions and collisions include human error, 

weather-related cause, equipment failure on the vessel, and potential exist for such an incident to 

occur. 

Response: BOEM believes that the vessel control procedures currently in place will negate the 

possibility of an incident; BOEM also acknowledges the causes of allisions and collisions as 

stated in Section 3.2.3, Spills. In Section 4.1.3.7.2, Non-Routine Events, it is stated that the 

WEAs were designed to avoid the shipping lanes and the heavier trafficked approach/departure 

areas associated with shipping lanes. The shipping lanes are where there is potential for an 

allision to occur with a tanker ship or barge. It is unlikely that vessels would collide with 

meteorological towers/buoys due to USCG requirements relating to marking and lighting of 

facilities and the fact that the WEAs avoid the highest traffic areas. An oil spill resulting from a 

collision or allision between a tanker ship or barge and a meteorological tower is not reasonably 

foreseeable because of the strong likelihood that a meteorological tower would collapse without 

serious damage to a tanker ship or barge. The commenter provides no new information to 

consider. 

Comment: It should be acknowledged that for many species the current available data is 

insufficient in determining occurrence within the WEAs due to disparity in spatial scale (i.e., 

data collected by Navy in relation to WEAs), location (i.e., studies conducted in New Jersey’s 

WEA may not be applicable to WEAs south of NJ due to different water temperature regimes) 

and in some cases inadequate survey methods. In addition, research effort is not equally 

302 
distributed, thus applying species data collected from one WEA to another may render inaccurate 

conclusions. 

Conclusion Page 88 – There is insufficient data for some species regarding their 

distribution and occurrence within the WEAs and on their population numbers. If there is a lack 

of data on the population, and a lack of data on the effects of Alternative A, how can a 

determination be made at this time that the impacts will be insignificant and have no population 

level effect? 

Response: The analysis in the EA utilizes the best information currently available. Sections 

4.1.2.3.1 and 4.1.2.4.1 of this EA discuss the affected environment for marine mammals and sea 

turtles as well as some of the deficiencies of that data. BOEM agrees that there are some sitespecific data gaps regarding biological resources in the mid-Atlantic. One of the primary 

purposes of the site characterization activities, the impacts of which are analyzed in this 

document, is to collect this additional data. This requirement comes directly from the regulations 

at 30 CFR Part 585.626(a)(3). 

Comment: Table 4.3, Page 72 – the stock assessment report, while including valuable 

information does not incorporate data collected by local entities within each State. Only two 

species of seal (harbor, gray) are included; however, the occurrence of harp seals and hooded 

seals are in Delaware is well documented (stetzar, 2000, MERR institute, pers.comm.). While 

this two species are not considered common, they should be included in Table 4.3. 

Response: Table 4.3 has been updated to reflect the occurrence of harp and hooded seals in 

Delaware waters and the information regarding Atlantic sturgeon has been updated in Section 

4.1.2.7.1.1. 

Comment: Noise Sensitivity in Sea Turtles Page 92 – The draft EA uses what is known about 

marine mammal auditory threshold levels to determine noise impacts and source distance for sea 

turtles, which are reptiles. Given that these two animal groups are completely different taxa with 

specific morphology, physiology, behavior, etc., drawing definitive conclusions about the 

potential for impacts based on data from a different taxonomic group should be further 

scrutinized. 

Response: Section 4.1.2.4.2 of this EA gives a full description of what is known regarding the 

hearing frequencies of sea turtles. The NMFS, the agency responsible for evaluating impacts to 

endangered and threatened sea turtles at sea, has determined that the thresholds established in 

BOEM’s mandatory project design criteria for marine mammals is adequate to protect sea turtles. 

(USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 2011c). 

Comment: Section 4.1.2.5 Birds – The draft EA indicated that Roseate Terns are not known to 

occur in Delaware. It is inaccurate to assume, that because Delaware is not listed as one of the 

states in which this species occurs, it is entirely absent for the state. To the contrary, records 

reviewed by the Delaware Birds Records Committee (http://www.dosbirds.org/records) indicate 

that the species has occurred at least seven times since 1977, with six records occurring from 

1997 – 2006 (http://www,dosbirds.org/sites/default/files/records/DBRCIndexDOS.1.1.2011.pdf) 

303 
In addition, at least five Roseate Tern records have been accepted by the Maryland Birds 

Records Committee 

(http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/pdf/mddatabase.pdf) for the state of Maryland. 

Response: BOEM agrees that it would be inaccurate to conclude that if a species was listed as 

not occurring, that the species was entirely absent. BOEM appreciates the information and 

references provided by the state. BOEM has incorporated this information into the Section on 

Birds. 

Comment: Meteorological Towers, Page 101-102 – This section seems to imply that most 

migratory birds would be flying higher than the Met tower the farther from land the tower is 

located. Birds expected to occur beyond 7 miles from shore are gulls, terns, shorebird, stormpetrels, shearwaters, sea ducks, and alcids. Most of the species groups represent birds that fly at 

relatively low altitudes and are more likely to fly lower than the height of a met tower. 

Response: BOEM has incorporated this information into the EA. 

Comment: Migratory Birds, Page 102-103 – The draft EA states, “Other migratory birds 

including marine birds, coastal shorebirds, and non-ESA birds would rarely encounter these 

structures due to the distance from shore, the great distance between buoys and towers and the 

small number of buoys and towers.” This is likely accurate for shorebirds and non-ESA birds. 

However, this statement is not completely accurate for some species of marine birds such as 

alcids, gulls, shearwaters, storm-petrels, loons and some sea ducks. These species groups are 

more likely to occur at least as far and farther from shore as the buoys and towers. 

Response: The sentence as written is inclusive and was intended to cover all groups of birds. 

Distance from shore is but one of a number of factors considered, as the sentence you quote 

indicates. 

Comment: Section 4.1.2.6 Bats – The data available is not adequate to make the assumptions 

stated in this section. There is no evidence that bat presence in any of the WEAs is “sporadic”. 

The survey work these comments are based on only included 15 nights of acoustic surveys over a 

single year and some non-targeted thermal imaging nights. The survey methods are not well 

defined but, even the data that is available (63 bat calls from at least 4 species including myotis 

during the fall migration period), suggests that bats do use the off-shore mid-Atlantic waters at 

least during the fall migration periods. Furthermore, as the draft EA mentions, offshore 

structures may be an attractant. Construction of the met towers will not be likely to impact bats. 

In fact, the construction of the met towers provides a unique opportunity to study the possibility 

of offshore structures attracting bats. Base-line data on bat activity at the proposed met tower site 

should be collected prior to installing the met towers and collected again after they are installed. 

Response: The analysis in the EA is based on the best information currently available, which 

supports the reasonable conclusions made in the EA regarding the presence of, and potential 

impacts to bats. However, the collection of base-line data on bat activity will be informative, 

and MET towers and buoys may be used as platforms for collecting additional data on bats. 

304 
Comment: Section 4.1.2.6 – The draft EA states “Based on the above information, the lack of 

land mass or vegetation seven or more km offshore for bat roosting, the presence of bats in the 

WEAs is unlikely.” Not enough data is presented to draw this conclusion. The surveys 

conducted so far have not been done within the WEAs but have been successful in detecting bats 

offshore. 

Response: The analysis in the EA regarding bats is based on the best information currently 

available, which supports the reasonable conclusions made in the EA regarding the presence of, 

and potential impacts to bats. The commenter presents no new information that indicates the 

analysis of potential impacts to bats is unreasonable. 

Comment: Conclusion, Page 106 – No data has been presented to suggest that bat presence 

would be unlikely at met tower locations. Although no impacts to bats are anticipated from the 

construction of and use of the met towers, assumptions regarding bats provided in this draft EA 

are misleading and should be revised to clarify the true possibilities of bats being found in the 

WEAs both prior to wind energy construction after construction is complete. 

Response: The EA describes the reasons BOEM believes it unlikely that bats would appear at 

meteorological tower locations. The commenter does not provide any data or information to 

indicate that bat presence would be likely at meteorological towers. 

Comment: Table 4.8, Page 105 – Evening bats (Nycticeius humeralis) are present in Delaware. 

Response: Table 4.8 has been changed as suggested, citing Brain Kelly pers. Comm. 2011. 

Comment: Section 5.3.3 – Please include in the section a brief discussion regarding the status of 

interstate consistency in NJ, DE, MD, and VA and the applicability in this process. Also, add a 

brief discussion about supplemental coordination in the event that there is new information or 

data that suggest that the propose activities will affect any coastal use or resource substantially 

different than originally described in the EA. 

Response: BOEM recognizes the regional aspect of offshore wind development, and as such, 

prepared a regional consistency determination for all four Mid-Atlantic States listed in 

Alternative A. The updated status of the regional consistency determination is included in 

Section 5.3.3, Coastal Zone Management Act, of this EA. Pursuant to 30 585.611(b), if a lessee 

submits a SAP that shows changes in impacts from those identified in the regional consistency 

determination prepared for this action, BOEM may determine that the SAP is subject to a 

consistency certification. In that case, the lessee would submit a consistency certification under 

15 CFR Part 930, Subpart E. BOEM would then submit the SAP and consistency certification to 

the affected States for CZMA review. 

Mainstream Renewable Power 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0025) 

Comment: Mainstream believes that consideration of impacts not related to the grant of leases 

or the carrying out of SAP activities should be excluded from the EA. 

305 
Response: The EA does not consider impacts unrelated to the issuance of leases or approval of 

SAPs.

Comment: While the EA uses appropriately conservative assumptions in terms of the number 

and size of OCS blocks to be leased, the EA should categorically state that fewer, larger, and 

more generously spaced leased areas would fall within the specific findings of the EA. 

Response: As discussed in Section 3.1.1, a leasing scenario is necessary to develop a scenario 

for site characterization and assessment activities. The EA uses the most conservative 

assumption that the entire area of each WEA would be leased. By dividing the total number of 

OCS blocks by 10, a total of 13 leases are anticipated under Alternative A. 

The WEAs were developed in close consultation with numerous federal and state agencies, 

renewable energy task forces from each state, and with the input of the public and myriad 

interested parties. The proposed action and alternatives under consideration are whether or not 

to issue leases within these WEAs, and in order to assess the reasonably foreseeable 

consequences of doing so, it must analyze a leasing scenario that is reasonably foreseeable 

within those areas. BOEM is not proposing fewer, larger, or more widely spaced leases within 

these areas (indeed some of the WEAs could only support 1-3 leases altogether), or to make 

fewer, larger, or more widely-spaced WEAs, as neither would achieve the purpose and need. 

Therefore, the EA need not analyze the consequences associated with doing so. 

 State of New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0026) 

Comment: As a result of the extensive ecological work conducted to date for the New Jersey 

WEA, we believe that the issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for site 

assessment activities in New Jersey is justified at this time. In the event that an EIS for site 

assessment activities is determined to be necessary in other states, a FONSI would still be 

warranted for New Jersey due to New Jersey’s advanced ecological work, which is recognized as 

extensive within the federal notice, and has been held out as a best practice for federal grants, 

conference and other offshore wind programming. 

Response: Thank you for your comments, which have been noted and will be considered in the 

decision-making process. 

Oceans Public Trust Initiative (OPTI) 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0027) 

Comment: It is clear from the EA that CMSP was not a significant factor in BOEM analysis. 

The entirety of the CMSP discussion is contained in a short paragraph on page 5. The limited 

approach to CMSP is not keeping with the comprehensive and inclusive nature of the President’s 

directive. 

306 
Response: As announced by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, in November 2010, BOEM is 

building an environmentally responsible offshore renewable energy program that is identifying 

Wind Energy Areas for potential leasing. The activities over the past 9 months are consistent 

with the tenets of this initiative, as well as the nascent CMSP effort, especially by coordinating 

with local, state and federal partners and public participation. The Wind Energy Area 

Environmental Assessments will play a crucial role in informing the CMS Plans that the 

Regional Planning Bodies will develop. BOEM will make best efforts to adhere to CMSP 

principles, as it expects other Federal and State partners will. 

Comment: BOEM has provided two abbreviated opportunities for public comment, at the 

scoping stage, and now with the issuance of the EA. It is imperative, for purposes of complying 

with the principles of CMSP, that additional meaningful opportunities for public comment be 

provided. OPTI urge BOEM to refrain from committing large portions of the OCS to one 

purpose prior to the completion of the CMSP process. 

Response: Comment noted.

Comment: The current NEPA process cannot adequately analyze the level of information and 

complex considerations necessary in order to make an informed decision of whether to offer 

leases in the WEAs. BOEM’s reliance on an EA at this stage in the process, with the anticipated 

preparation of EISs at the Construction and Operation Plan (COP) stage is misplaced. 

Response: Under the renewable energy regulations, the issuance of leases and subsequent 

approval of wind energy development on the OCS is a staged decision-making process. BOEM’s 

wind energy program occurs in four distinct phases: (1) planning: (2) lease issuance; (3) approval 

of a site assessment plan (SAP); and (4) approval of a construction and operations plan (COP). 

BOEM intends to use the EA to inform decisions to issue leases in the WEAs and to 

subsequently approve SAPs on those leases. At the fourth phase – COP phase, BOEM would 

prepare a separate site- and project-specific NEPA analysis which may take the form of an EIS. 

(see Sections 1.1.4 and 1.4.2 of this EA.) 

Comment: BOEM must, along with the NEPA process, engage in adequate consultation with 

other agencies for consideration of endangered species, marine mammals, and historic properties. 

The EA also fails to mention any measures being undertaken by BOEM to comply with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). 

Response: BOEM has convened Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Forces that have 

been established for all the states included in this assessment. Additionally, information has 

been received through public solicitations in BOEM’s RFIs offshore Delaware and Maryland and 

a Call offshore New Jersey (see Section 1.4.3 of this EA), as well as extensive consultations with 

state and federal agencies and tribes. Through these meetings and submission of comments, 

BOEM has received valuable information from the NMFS and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council. Formal consultations that BOEM conducted with states and other Federal 

agencies during this NEPA process (e.g., NMFS, FWS, SHPOs) are discussed in Chapter 5 and 

are not repeated in this response. The lessee, not BOEM, has direct obligations under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) pursuant to lease issuance. BOEM encourage offshore

307 
operators and lessees to apply for an Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) for activities with 

potential for taking marine mammals. Further, BOEM coordinates with NMFS and USFWS to 

ensure compliance with the MMPA and to also develop effective mitigation and monitoring 

requirements for an ITA. BOEM's environmental compliance on the MMPA implementing 

regulations can be view at http://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Stewardship/EnvironmentalAssessment/MMPA/index.aspx. 

U.S. DOI, Fish and Wildlife Service 

Division of Migratory Bird Management 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0028) 

Comment: On pg., 28, Avian Resources section first paragraph, the text is unclear. First, what 

scale is being referred to? Does this text imply that no survey work will be conducted with in 

WEA that has had numerous surveys (e.g., NY)? Who is responsible for determining whether a 

WEA has been surveyed adequately? Second, based on this text, BOEM will not require 

proponents to conduct surveys on smaller scales. Is this true? How will this affect micro-siting 

decisions within a WEA? Annual patterns of bird use can change and surveys should attempt to 

obtain the most current information. Relying on older surveys can mis-characterize species 

distributions. Please clarify text. 

Response: The number of avian surveys was estimated in order to assess the impact of survey 

vessel traffic to environmental resources, such air and water quality. BOEM anticipates that all 

biological surveys would be conducted by the lessees at the scale of an individual lease. As 

explained in Section 3.1.1, the average size of a proposed wind energy lease is approximately 10 

blocks and could range from just a few OCS blocks to more than 20. 

A lessee must submit the results of biological surveys with its SAP (30 CFR 

585.610(b)(5) and COP (30 CFR 585.626(3)). A lessee’s SAP and COP must describe 

biological resources, including avian resources, that could be affected by the activities proposed 

in its plan (30 CFR 585.611(a),(b)(5) and 585.627(a)). Once a plan is submitted, BOEM, in 

consultation with USFWS, would determine whether there is sufficient information to 

characterize species distribution and abundance, and assess the potential impacts of the proposed 

activities. The information submitted with a plan may have been collected previously by another 

party, by the lessee after the lease is issued, or some combination of those two. Section 3.1.2.3, 

Biological Surveys, has been revised accordingly. 

Comment: Pg., 28 – Avian Resources section: Please clarify text regarding the survey coverage 

of a lease proposal. It is unclear if BOEM is saying that only 10% of lease areas will be surveyed 

or if 1 boat survey using German guidelines covers 10% and BOEM expects multiple boat 

survey to effectively cover the lease area. Ocean predictors of bird distribution and abundance 

could be present at a variety of scales, including very small scale. Only surveying 10% of an 

area increases the probability of missing those smaller areas that could attract large numbers of 

birds. Based on the estimate of it taking 1-2 days to cover 10% of the area, it appears that it 

would not take much more effort to increase the accuracy and scale of the data (however, cost of 

surveys needs to be factored here as well). 

308 
Response: BOEM has added to the EA to clarify: “The environmental analysis in this EA 

assumes that lessees would conduct by monthly boat and/or aerial surveys for 2 to 3 years, 

during the site assessment period of a lease, prior to submitting a COP, which would capture the 

seasonal variation in avian numbers. Similar to guidelines developed in Germany, boat surveys 

would likely cover 10% of the lease (BSH, 2007). It is estimated it would take 1 to 2 days to 

cover 10% of an average-sized leasehold of 10 OCS blocks (but could range from 2-20 OCS 

blocks), which would likely be adequate for determining the presence of avian species.” BOEM 

agrees that ocean predictors of bird distribution and abundance could operate at multiple scales 

and that there has to be a balance between survey cost and accuracy. 

Comment: Pg., 108 – with regard to the MBTA text currently in the document, it is probably 

appropriate for consistency with BGEPA section below to include language that states that there 

is no unintentional take authorization for birds covered by the MBTA. Thus, any impact that has 

a negative effect on birds and their population is a violation of the Act and thus for all activities 

that may affect bird, avoidance and minimization measures will be developed and implemented 

with the goal of avoiding or minimizing unauthorized take of migratory birds. 

Response: Text was added to the biological resources section to clarify the issue. 

Comment: Pg., 112 – threats of Met towers. The text states that perching is not a threat in 

regards to the various types of tower designs. However, lattice tower designs that provide 

perching opportunities can “attract” birds to an area where threat occur – an attractive nuisance. 

Therefore, the text should be clarified the direct effect of perching is not a threat per say, but 

attraction of birds to perching locations can cause threats thru indirect effects. 

Response: The text on attractive nuisance impacts was added to Section 4.1.2.5.2 of this EA. 

Dominion 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0029) 

Comment: When developing the final EA/FONSI, BOEM should emphasize that even under a 

“worst-case” set of conditions, the issuance of leases and SAP approvals should not require any 

further environmental review and should proceed as expeditiously as possible. 

Response: In the event that a particular lease is issued, and the lessee subsequently submits a 

SAP, BOEM would then determine whether this EA adequately considers the environmental 

consequences of the activities proposed in the lessee’s SAP. If the analysis in the EA adequately 

considers these consequences, then no further NEPA analysis would be required before the SAP 

is approved. If, on the other hand, BOEM determines that the analysis in this EA is inadequate 

for that purpose, BOEM would prepare an additional NEPA analysis before approving the SAP. 

Virginia Port Authority

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0030) 

Comment: With minor modifications to the current northeast and southeast approaches, the 

DOD training areas and the WEA outlined in Alternative A, there is a solution that would permit 

309 
safe and efficient commercial navigation into Chesapeake Bay, sustain future growth of the Port, 

and allow off-shore wind energy development to proceed as proposed. Figure 3 depicts the 

delineation of a single "sealane" from the current Atlantic Ocean Channel that splits into a 

''North Fairway" and "South Fairway" utilizing existing deep water access and circumventing the 

proposed WEA. A portion of the northwest quadrant of the WEA would require relocation 

potentially to the west. In addition, a portion of the northeast section DOD training area could be 

relocated to the south and the southern boundary of the existing training area reconfigured and 

enlarged to maintain required space for military exercises and testing. 

Response: Although BOEM has no authority to modify vessel approaches or DoD training 

areas, it developed the WEAs in close consultation with numerous federal and state agencies, 

renewable energy task forces from each state, and with the input of the public and myriad 

interested parties. Under the revised Alternative E, areas identified by AWO and USCG would 

be excluded from leasing decisions under this action (see Figure 2.2). As a result, an area slightly 

less than 20 OCS blocks in the Virginia WEA would be considered for leasing and subsequent 

site assessment activities under Alternative E. See Section 4.5 of the EA. Based simply on the 

reduction of the area potentially leased, there would be an 19% reduction in site characterization 

surveys in Virginia (about a 4% reduction in overall site characterization surveys potentially 

occurring in all WEAs). Due to the reduction in area, one less lease is anticipated in the Virginia 

WEA; therefore, one fewer meteorological tower and/or two fewer meteorological buoys would 

be constructed (see Section 3.1.3 discussing reasonably foreseeable site assessment scenarios). 

See Section 4.5 of the EA. 

Comment: With the addition of the Virginia Wind Energy Area (WEA) (Figure 2), vessels 

approaching from the south, east and southeast and upon egress from the Bay will be forced into 

a narrow passage between the DOD training area and the WEA. With the opening of the 

expanded Panama Canal in 2014 and planned port development projects through 2052, vessel 

traffic is expected to increase to over 7,000 calls annually and container vessel sizes are expected 

to increase to 12,000 TEU’s making navigation through the constricted passage (Figure 2) 

difficult and potentially hazardous especially during storm events and rough seas. 

Response: Anticipated increases in vessel traffic from the opening of the expanded Panama 

Canal in 2014 are addressed in Section 4.1.3.7.1 of this EA. This EA considers the reasonably 

foreseeable impacts to navigation associated with issuing leases and approving site assessment 

plans in the WEAs in light of increased vessel traffic resulting from the anticipated expansion of 

the Panama Canal. 

Defenders of Wildlife 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0031) 

Comment: Of particular concern, we note that the general lease language has not yet been 

released or analyzed in the EA, yet the terms of these leases will be critically important to 

assessing the ability of the agency to require additional environmental protections, monitoring, or 

mitigation as time goes on. 

310 
Response: On September 6, 2011, BOEM published in the Federal Register the proposed 

commercial renewable energy lease form (76 FR 55090). The Federal Register notice opened a 

30-day comment period. BOEM is currently reviewing all submissions and will publish a final 

version of the form in the coming months. The mandatory project design criteria in Appendix B 

of this EA will be included as conditions on any leases and/or SAPs issued or approved under 

Alternative A. Additionally, lessees must still submit applications and plans for construction and 

operation as required by the renewable regulations at 30 CFR Part 585. 

Comment: BOEM focuses on the threat of ship strikes, but not on other risks to right whales 

associated with Alternative A. In particular, the risk of habitat displacement resulting from high 

levels of sounds exposure should be carefully examined. BOEM also failed to mention that, 

while no critical habitat is currently designated in or near the wind EAs, several groups did 

petition NMFS in 2009 to designate this area as part of a migratory pathway critical habitat 

designation for the North Atlantic right whale. 

Response: BOEM concludes that there would be temporary and localized displacement of 

animals as a result of animals avoiding sound sources; nothing long term, significant in area, or 

significant in impact. Migratory corridors inshore (west) and offshore (east) of the action areas 

in which sightings data (see Appendix B) indicate are currently utilized corridors, would remain 

as they are currently, which includes vessel traffic and fishing effort. For additional information 

on the timing of these activities and duration and extent of sound exposure see Section 3.1.2.

Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0032) 

Comment: Offshore development must also take into account the principles of Coastal and 

Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP). BOEM should have conducted a programmatic NEPA 

analysis, ultimately resulting in the production of a programmatic EIS. Only by involving 

stakeholders and approaching offshore energy development from a consensus-based 

management approach can BOEM comply with the principles of CMSP and ensure appropriate 

development. 

Response: The activities over the past 9 months are consistent with the tenets of this initiative as 

well as the nascent CMSP effort, especially by coordinating with local, state and federal partners 

and public participation. The Wind Energy Area Environmental Assessments will play a crucial 

role in informing the CMS Plans that the Regional Planning Bodies will develop. BOEM will 

make best efforts to adhere to CMSP principles, as it expects other Federal and State partners 

will. BOEM conducted the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative 

Energy Development and Production and Alternate Use of Facilities on the Outer Continental 

Shelf, Final Environmental Impact Statement in 2007 which was incorporated by reference 

during the analysis of this EA. 

311 
Chesapeake Climate Action Network 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0033) 

Comment: We support the Bureau’s Alternative A to begin renewable energy leasing in the 

WEAs of the Mid-Atlantic and urge BOEM to dismiss proposals that would unnecessarily 

reduce these area in any way. 

Response: Thank you for your comments, which have been noted and will be considered in the 

decision-making process. 

Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0034) 

Comment: The description of Alternative A in the Final EA should make it clear that the 

mitigation measures (independently verified by NMFS are effective strategies) referenced in 

Section 4.1.2.3.2 and Appendix B are required for all site assessment and survey characterization 

activities conducted in the WEAs year round. The lease instruments should also be clear that the 

lease only authorizes approved site assessment and site characterization surveying activities that 

the revised mitigation strategies referenced in Section 4.1.2.3.2 and Appendix [B] of the Final 

EA are operational for the life of the lease. 

Response: On September 6, 2011, BOEM published in the Federal Register the proposed 

commercial renewable energy lease form (76 FR 55090). The Federal Register notice opened a 

30-day comment period. BOEM is currently reviewing all submissions and will publish a final 

version of the form in the coming months. The mandatory project design criteria in Appendix B 

of this EA will be included as conditions on any leases and/or SAPs issued or approved under 

Alternative A. Companies must still submit applications and plans for construction and operation 

as required by the renewable energy regulations at CFR Part 585, which is expressly 

acknowledged in the lease. Clarification has been provided in numerous places in the NEPA 

document. 

Comment: The final EA should reference the most current and complete data sets relied upon to 

justify the selection of the Propose Action. 

Response: During the preparation of this EA, BOEM relied upon the best available scientific 

information to assess the potential impacts of leasing, site characterization surveys, and site 

assessment activities in WEAs offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. Chapter 

6, References, is a list of literature cited throughout this EA, and the EA makes references to the 

many sources in the course of the discussions. This EA was prepared to analyze the reasonably 

foreseeable consequences of the activities associated with the proposed action and alternatives, 

including the no action alternative; not to justify the selection of the proposed action. 

Comment: CLF supports BOEM’s proposed reliance on the best management practice of 

“avoiding” sensitive benthic resources for installation of met towers, buoys, or other sitedisturbing activities. The avoidance practice should be incorporated into the actual lease 

312 
instruments issued for Site Assessment activities within WEAs. (see Section 4.1.2.2, Benthic 

Resources). 

Response: Text has been added to Section 4.1.2.2, Benthic Resources, to clarify BOEM is not 

proposing any new specific mitigation measures to protect sensitive benthic habitat as part of this 

assessment. Rather, BOEM has a policy to avoid impacts to sensitive benthic resources, and to 

rely on the results of the site-specific surveys when considering a SAP. Furthermore, as part of 

the BOEM’s consultation with NMFS for EFH, BOEM would coordinate the review of a SAP 

with NMFS to determine if potential effects of the proposed activities fall within impacts 

anticipated in the programmatic consultation (see NMFS EFH Consultation, conservation 

recommendation #4 in Section 4.1.1.7 of this EA). 

Comment: The Final EA should explain the leasing process and specifically reference the 

federal regulation that will apply to the terms and conditions in the leasing instruments. For 

example, if the specific terms and conditions in a given lease, and the level of public review for a 

given lease, depend on whether the lease was issued as a result of a competitive lease sale 

process, BOEM should describe that process, and the regulations that apply in comparison to the 

process for the issuance of a non-competitive lease. Because BOEM has not developed a model 

lease for public review, it is not possible for stakeholders to ascertain whether DOI is taking 

sufficient steps to retain full authority to impose additional mitigation measures at either the Site 

Assessment or the Construction and Operation phases and/or to revoke a lease, without having to 

provide compensation to the lessee, if the data indicate that construction activities or facility 

operation will result in unacceptable impacts that cannot be appropriately avoided, minimized or 

mitigated. The base language in all lease instruments, whether issued as a result or noncompetitive or competitive leasing process, should contain reasonable terms and conditions 

protecting the authority of DOI to modify or revoke a lease, should specifically reference 

applicable federal regulations authorizing such modification, and should be made available for 

public comment prior to lease issuance. 

Response: In Section 1.1.2 of this EA, BOEM’s authority and regulatory process is explained 

including specific references to the renewable energy regulations published in April 2009, which 

will apply to the terms and conditions of any lease. The specific procedures for lease issuance 

are provided in subpart B of the regulations. The competitive lease process is set forth at 30 

CFR 585.210 – 585.225, and the noncompetitive process is set forth at 30 CFR 585.230 – 

585.232 (as amended by a rulemaking effective as of June 15, 2011). 

On September 6, 2011, BOEM published in the Federal Register the proposed 

commercial renewable energy lease form (76 FR 55090). The Federal Register notice opened a 

30-day comment period. BOEM is currently reviewing all submissions and will publish a final 

version of the form in the coming months. 

Under the regulations and the lease, lessees must submit the plans required by the 

regulations (i.e., SAP, COP) prior to undertaking any plan-related activities. The mandatory 

project design requirements in Appendix B of this EA will be included as conditions of any 

leases and/or SAPs issued or approved under this actionA. 

313 
Comment: In the Purpose and Need section of the EA, Section 1.2, and the final EA should 

identify impact associated with Climate Change – and the prospects for mitigating those impacts 

by garnering power from non-GHG emitting resources. 

Response: The purpose of this EA is to consider the reasonably foreseeable environmental 

consequences associated with issuing leases and approving site assessment plans in the WEAs 

described; mitigating climate change is not a part of the purpose and need. The proposed action 

and alternatives do not include the actual commercial development of offshore wind energy 

resources. Rather, if and when a lessee submits a COP, BOEM would prepare a NEPA 

document addressing the impacts associated with the installation and operation of the wind 

energy facility they propose, which may implicate the issues raised in the comment (see Section 

1.4.2, Scope of Analysis, of this EA). That said, BOEM has added a section addressing the 

contributions that Alternative A may make to climate change (see Section 4.7 of this EA). 

Comment: With respect to operational waste, Section 3.1.2.7, BOEM should project the amount 

and type of trash and debris, and the amount of ballast and bilge water it anticipate will be 

generated and discharged as a result of site assessment activities associated with 12,000 vessel 

round trips to support its conclusion that site assessment activities will no have a significant 

impact. 

Response: The impacts of vessel discharges to water quality are analyzed in Section 4.1.1.2.2 of 

this EA. As discussed in that section, the USEPA sampled wastewater discharges from vessels 

of the type associated with the activities with the proposed action and alternatives: tugboats, 

small research vessels, and supply boats, as well as others (USEPA, 2010b). It was determined 

that vessels discharging to a relatively large water body were not likely to cause an exceedance 

of National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. Rather than calculating the amount of trash, 

debris, ballast and bilge water that could be generated by Alternative A, BOEM compared the 

projected vessel traffic with the annual 140,000 vessels modeled in the USEPA study to 

determine whether or not significant impacts would occur. The anticipated volume of survey 

vessels moving in and out of each port as a result of Alternative A would potentially average 43 

trips per year per port in Virginia and 67 trips per year per port in New Jersey, Delaware and 

Maryland (see Section 4.1.1.1.1 of this EA). 

Atlantic Wind Connection 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0035) 

Comment: We concur that none of the impacts identified in the Draft EA are significant and 

urge the Bureau to determine a Finding of No Significant Impact. The Draft EA carefully 

outlines all of the potential impacts and demonstrates that, even at scale, there is no significant 

disturbance to the marine environment from the site characterization activities needed to move to 

the next step of constructing an offshore wind farm. 

Response: Thank you for your comments, which have been noted and will be considered in the 

decision-making process. 

314 
Comment: With respect to the installation of transmission cables, on page 152 the draft EA 

states: a lessee could still install leasehold interconnect cables and other structures on the seabed 

beneath the anchorage area. While it is technically possible to install transmission cables 

beneath an anchorage area, it is highly unlikely that the AWC project would be installed in or 

near an anchorage area due to the increased possibility of anchors damaging the cable. 

Response: This language has been removed from Section 4.2, Alternative B. 

 

State of Maryland

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0036) 

Comment: We recommend that future environment assessments, including site-specific 

assessments, utilize the best available information regarding the possible effects on navigation 

including the findings of the USCG Port Access Route Study (PARS) currently underway. 

Response: BOEM will continue to utilize the best available information regarding the possible 

effects on navigation, including the findings of the USCG’s ACPARS if available, in future 

NEPA analyses. 

Comment: The draft EA addresses existing conditions and considers potential effects of the 

leasing and site assessment activities on commercial shipping primarily in section 4.1.3.7 (Other 

Uses on the OCS) of the document. Given the significance of commercial navigation throughout 

the region, we recommend that BOEM provide this information in a standalone subheading 

under Section 4.1.3 (Socioeconomic Conditions and Impacts). 

Response: BOEM acknowledges the importance of commercial navigation through out the 

region. For example, this EA considers the exclusion of areas under Alternative B, C and E due 

to the risk of existing vessel traffic colliding with Alternative A structures and vessels. So that 

readers may easily compare changes made from the draft EA to the final EA, BOEM has chosen 

not to implement this recommendation.

Comment: We recommend that the final EA provide additional explanation of the standards by 

which USCG Category classification system was developed. The standards for removal of 

Category B areas seems less clear; If additional vessel data is available that has been used in 

applying the USCG classification system in Maryland’s WEA and other WEA’s we urge BOEM 

to include it in the final EA. 

Response: A summary of the basis of USCG classification was added to Sections 2.3 and 4.3 

(Alternative C). BOEM takes seriously the advice and input it receives from expert federal 

agencies regarding subject matter squarely within their area of expertise. For more information 

regarding the standards by which USCG Category classification system was developed, BOEM 

recommends contacting the USCG directly. While the USCG did not recommend that the 

Category B areas be removed from leasing consideration, BOEM elected to consider this as an 

alternative in order to present the decision maker with a reasonable range of alternatives. 

Selection of Alternative C would likely postpone leasing decisions in this area until after USCG 

315 
completes the ACPARS. Available vessel data was already included in Figures 4.7a – 4.7c (see

Section 4.1.1.7.2 of this EA). 

Comment: We encourage BOEM to similarly consider the foreseeable, cumulative effects of 

installation and operation of multiple wind energy turbines on marine traffic congestion along 

the entire East Coast in any future environmental analysis associated with project approval. 

Response: If and when a COP is submitted, BOEM would prepare a separate site- and projectspecific NEPA analysis. This may take the form of an EIS which would analyze the construction 

and operation activities for that particular project including the cumulative impacts of the action 

added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including other renewable 

energy activities. Through the scoping process for future project-specific NEPA documents, 

BOEM would determine the geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis. 

Comment: With regard to benthic resources, BOEM should address the following issues: 

mitigation measures to protect sensitive benthic habitats; the lack of data in the mid-Atlantic 

region describing sensitive benthic habitats, including natural reefs and “live bottom” habitats; 

and the assessment of cumulative impacts of potential future development activities on benthic 

habitats. As noted on page 67 of the draft EA, these features are not well mapped in the midAtlantic WEAs. Also, please provide the benthic habitat distribution and abundance data to the 

states and others so that we can assess the significance of the effects of offshore wind impact 

producing activities on the region’s benthic community. 

Response: BOEM’s primary mitigation strategy is avoidance of sensitive benthic resources. 

This policy is part of our Record of Decision in Appendix B of the PEIS and reflected in 

BOEM’s renewable energy regulations 30 CFR Part 585.627(a). However, this strategy does not 

preclude BOEM from siting projects in areas where these resources exist provided that 

Section 4.1.2.2.1, Biological Features, of this EA has been edited to include benthic 

invertebrates that have been documented on live hardbottom, including natural and artificial 

reefs, of the mid-Atlantic. 

The data used in the benthic habitat assessment is publicly available information. To 

request a specific data set the State of Maryland should contact their BOEM state coordinator. 

 

Sierra Club 

(Cover Letter - Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0037; 

Form Letters - Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0041 and BOEM-2011-0053-0041-0043) 

Comment: The reliance on observers to implement a 500 meter exclusion zone for North 

Atlantic Right Whales is questionable given the statement that “in most cases the whales were 

not seen beforehand or were seen too late to avoid collision.” (Pg., 86). Comment that cast doubt 

on the reliance on observers are provided in the NOAA “Report of a Workshop to Identify and 

Assess Technologies to Reduce Ship Strikes of Large Whales” (NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-OPR-42), published in May, 2009. 

Response: Appendix B.1.2, Visual Monitoring of Exclusion Zone, of this EA discusses the 

requirement that lessees use qualified NMFS-approved PSOs. PSOs must be able to show 

316 
proper training in at-sea protected species observations and familiarity with protected species in 

the action area. NMFS has expertise in evaluating the credentials of PSOs and working with 

companies that train and employ these PSOs. The general characterization of ship strikes on 

page 86 of the draft EA did not take into account speed restrictions and a dedicated PSO that 

would be required as part of this activity. As the NMFS ship-strike technology workshop 

concluded (NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-OPR-42), the problem of ship strikes is a complex one; 

there are no easy technological “fixes”; no technology exists, or is expected to be developed in 

the foreseeable future that will completely ameliorate, or reduce to zero the chances of, ship 

strikes of large whales; and no single technology (this includes visual observations) will fit all 

situations. 

Comment: We do not believe that the mitigation measures described in Appendix [B] are 

sufficient to protect highly vulnerable animals, and thus recommend the additional of provisions. 

Alternative D could be revised to be more focused on activities that raise the highest level of 

concern and whose impacts cannot be addressed in other ways, while still allowing some activity 

to proceed between November and April. These protections should be either incorporated into 

Alternative A, or adopted as a revised version of Alternative D. 

 BOEM should require at least one of the following methods to dampen or attenuate pile 

driver sound: bubble curtains, cushion blocks, cofferdams, and/or temporary noise attenuation 

pile (“TNAP”) design. These methods have been shown individually to substantially reduce 

propagation levels – by as much as 26 dB in the case of cushion blocks. 

Response: Thank you for your comments regarding Appendix B and Alternative D. Appendix 

B has been edited in response to comments and consultations received. Appendix B includes a 

discussion of the use of noise reducing technologies during pile driving. This and other 

operating requirements specified in Appendix B are based upon the best available scientific 

information. Noise reducing procedures for pile driving, primarily cofferdams and foam sleeves 

(see Nehls, 2007 and USDOI, BOEMRE, 2010) have been shown to be effective. However, the 

feasibility of requiring these technologies in the offshore environment needs further exploration 

and may be appropriate on a case-by case basis for full commercial-scale construction projects 

where the total duration of pile driving activities would be greater than that for a single 

meteorological tower. It should be noted that, in its September 20, 2011 concurrence letter, 

NMFS determined that Alternative,A when implemented according to the mandatory project 

design criteria detailed in Appendix B, is not likely to adversely affect listed whales or sea 

turtles. See discussion of NMFS Concurrence, Section 5.2.1 of the EA. 

Comment: The EA appears to assume that platforms to be used within the WEAs will be fixed 

platforms, rather than floating or semi-submersible. Further, the EA states that “should BOEM 

receive an application for a semi-submersible or tension-leg platform, it will consider whether 

such a platform would lead to environmental consequences not considered in the EA.” (Pg., 33). 

The exact wording used in the EA to discuss its assumptions regarding the likely choice of 

meteorological tower is confusing. 

Response: Section 3.1.3.1, Meteorological Towers and Foundations, has been revised 

accordingly. 

317 
Comment: We recommend that BOEM apply CMSP principles to develop mitigation measures 

for avoidance of ship strikes related to site characterization and assessment activities as follows: 

Identify anticipated patterns of boat traffic, related the spatial data to information regarding 

estimates of the presence and abundance of NARW and require a 10 knot speed limit on all 

boats, including those less than 65 feet in length. The Multipurpose Marine Cadastre, jointly 

hosted by BOEM and NOAA, appears to lack relevant data layers. If BOEM offers CMSP tools 

in support of decision making, e.g. selections of blocks to be eligible for lease, it is important for 

those tools to contain all the relevant data layers. 

Response: BOEM has done its best to acquire economic and environmental information 

regarding the Mid-Atlantic States, and used the best information currently available to make 

informed decisions about the proposed action and alternatives. In addition to supporting the 

ever-evolving Multipurpose Marine Cadastre, BOEM, funds ocean research to develop sound 

science and document relevant traditional knowledge, through the Technology Assessment and 

Research Program as well as the Environmental Studies Program. Past research reports, studies 

underway and future plans can be found on our website. BOEM also works closely with federal 

and state partners to share information that is relevant to the Renewable Energy Program. 

Comment: There were 2,265 form letters submitted by the Sierra Club that stated offshore wind 

means creating local jobs and providing clean, renewable energy to power our homes, schools 

and businesses. A transition away from Big Coal and its heavy cost to our public health and 

environment; is a critical step in ensuring a better future for generations to come. When siting 

offshore wind projects please choose the most viable areas with special attention to 

environmental impacts. 

Response: Thank you for your comments, which have been noted and will be considered in the 

decision-making process. 

U.S. Coast Guard

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0038) 

Comment: On Page 20, first sentence: Change words “meteorological and buoys towers” to 

“meteorological towers and buoys”. 

Response: In Section 2.7, edits were made to reflect the requested change. 

Comment: On Page 138, last paragraph, third sentence: Change the wording after “draft” to read 

“... 42 feet or greater in fresh water and naval aircraft carriers. Ships drawing less than 42 feet 

may use the deep-water route when, in their master’s judgment, the effect of ship characteristics, 

its speed and prevailing environmental conditions may cause the draft of the ship to exceed or 

equal 42 feet (see Figure 4.6) (International Maritime Organization (IMO) ships’ Routeing 

Guide, 2010 edition).” 

Response: In Section 4.1.3.7, edits were made to reflect the requested change. 

318 
Comment: On Page 138, last paragraph, last sentence: Change the wording to read “Authority to 

create official anchorage ground in the territorial sea, out to 12 nm, was received by the USCG 

under the USCG Authorization Act of 2010.” 

Response: In Section 4.1.3.7, edits were made to reflect the requested change. 

Comment: On Page 139: The last line of the first paragraph read, “There are currently no 

proposed anchorage areas for approaches to the Chesapeake Bay.” Recommend the cited 

sentence be modified to read, “There are currently no proposed anchorage areas in the vicinity of 

the Virginia WEA.” 

Response: In Section 4.1.3.7, edits were made to reflect the requested changes. 

Comment: On Page 145: Reference to “33 CFR Section 1223” should be changed to “33 U.S.C. 

1223.” Reference to “33 CFR 66” should be changed to “33 CFR Part 66.” 

Response: In Section 4.1.3.7.2, edits were made to reflect the requested changes. 

Comment: On Page 145, sentence beginning with “meteorological towers/buoys would also be 

considered Private Aids...” should begin with “USCG required marking, lighting or other 

apparatus place on meteorological tower/buoys would also be considered Private Aids...” 

Response: In Section 4.1.3.7.2, edits were made to reflect the request change. 

Comment: On page 151: Recommend replacing the entire text following the fifth bullet with the 

following text: “Lessee would operate visual, audible and electronic aids to navigation (lights, 

fog signal, RACON) with sufficient backup power and redundancy to assure a minimum 

availability rate of 99.7%. The navigation light located on a meteorological tower or buoy should 

be seen in a 360-degress arc. If a structural component prevents an uninterrupted arch of 

visibility, then two or more lights must be installed at an elevation specified by the USCG at 

mean high water, each with an operational rang of 3NM, 90% of the nights. The lights shall 

display slow flashing amber light and shall flash synchronously. If required, the fog signal shall 

have a range of 0.5 NM and shall activate whenever the visibility drops below 3NM. The 

structure shall be color-coated yellow (i.e., Munsell Chip number 2.5Y 8/12). If a RACON is 

required, its characteristic will be determined by the Coast Guard. To facilitate an uninterrupted 

deployment, early consultation with the Coast Guard during the structure/buoy design phase is 

encouraged. 

Response: In Section 4.1.3.7, edits were made to reflect the requested changes. 

Comment: CMSP is a new national effort to gather data and decide how best to manage and 

utilize the ocean resources. An Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study (PARS) is underway 

(estimated completion date June 2012) that would help the Coast Guard understand the impact of 

proposed renewable energy facilities on marine transportation route and navigational safety. 

319 
Response: Given that no CMS Plan exists for the Mid-Atlantic, and following the principles 

outlined in the Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, BOEM 

developed this EA with the best available information. Additionally, BOEM is adaptive and 

flexible to accommodate changing conditions. The information from the anticipated PARS will 

be helpful for future assessments (as stated in Section 2.3 of this EA), including site specific 

NEPA review of individual projects once leases have been issued and COPs have been 

submitted. 

Hampton Roads Planning District Commission 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0039) 

Comment: We have consulted with regional local government staff regarding this project. Based 

on this review, the proposal appears to be consistent with local and regional plans and policies. 

Response: Comment noted. Under Energy Policy Act of 2005, BOEM will continue to 

coordinate and consult with the Governor of any state or the executive of any local government 

that may be affected by a renewable energy lease, easement, or right-of-way on the OCS. 

Southern Environmental Law Center 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0040) 

Comment: There are significant information gaps in the draft EA, and if theses gaps are not 

going to be filled in the final EA then they must be filled through the data-gathering process 

associated with site characterization and assessment activities and analyzed prior to approval of a 

COP. 

Response: The best scientific information available was used in this EA to assess the reasonably 

foreseeable impacts of site characterization and assessment activities in and around the WEAs 

offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. The purpose of conducting site 

characterization surveys and installing meteorological data collection devices is to assess the 

wind resources in the lease area and to characterize the conditions of the water column and 

seabed. BOEM regulations require that a lessee include the results of these surveys in its 

application for COP approval (30 CFR 585.626(a)). 

Comment: The draft EA relied on the NJ Baseline study for many of the conclusions reached 

regarding the project’s impacts on biological resources, but the study itself contained significant 

data gaps, especially with regard to the migratory patterns and foraging behaviors of marine 

mammal, sea turtles, and marine birds. 

The draft EA relied on the New Jersey baseline study and the Nature Conservancy’s 

Northwest Atlantic Marine Ecoregional Assessment (NAM ERA); these studies leave significant 

gaps in information regarding the presence of marine mammals in the WEAs, especially with 

regard to the migratory behaviors of these species. 

The final EA must assess the risks of entanglement and collision resulting from 

displacement, especially in areas such as the Virginia WEA, which is located near large 

commercial ports, commercial fishing area, and military facilities. Further, BOEM must assess 

marine mammal response to acoustic exposure at various frequencies so that a more thorough 

320 
assessment of these responses may be performed before construction and operation commences.

We urge BOEM to explain in the final EA whether sub-bottom profilers should be treated 

as a continuous noise source and whether additional mitigation measures should be implemented 

to reduce the behavioral disturbance or harassment of marine mammals at the lower 120 dB 

level. We urge BOEM to implement mitigation measures that prevent exposures at these lower 

levels, provide additional protection form vessel strikes and acoustic noise and include a 10 knot 

speed limit for all ships 65 feet or longer throughout all WEA at all times. We urge BOEME to 

include the measures identified in Appendix [B] and any additional appropriate mitigation 

measures as stipulations to any leases issued. In addition, BOEM needs to fully discuss and, to 

the degree possible given the best available science, demonstrate that the mitigation measures 

will be effective in protecting endangered and at risk species. 

Response: BOEM used the best available information to inform the analysis in this EA. BOEM 

agrees that there are some site specific data gaps regarding biological resources in the midAtlantic. One of the purposes of the site characterization activities, the impacts of which are 

analyzed in this EA, is to collect site-specific data. This requirement comes directly from the 

regulatory requirements found at 30 CFR Part 585.626(a)(3). Appendix A has been updated with 

data from all seasons from the NAM ERA dataset and one season’s data from AMAPPs. The 

available data is sufficient for BOEM to draw sound conclusions based upon the information 

submitted to BOEM through comments and consultations as well as review of applicable 

literature. 

 The mandatory project design criteria in Appendix B of this EA will be included as 

conditions of any leases and/or SAPs issued or approved under this action. It should be noted 

that, in its September 20, 2011 concurrence letter, NMFS determined that Alternative A, when 

implemented according to the mandatory project design criteria detailed in Appendix B, is not 

likely to adversely affect listed whales or sea turtles. See discussion of NMFS Concurrence, 

Section 5.2.1 of the EA. 

Comment: BOEM must require both in the final EA and in the lease instruments themselves – 

that the marine mammal surveys are conducted pursuant to a single protocol to ensure that the 

information is comparable across agencies and amongst individual leases. 

Response: With input from the NFMS and MMC, BOEM is in the process of developing survey 

protocols for marine fauna, such as marine mammals. These guidelines would provide 

recommendations for complying with the biological survey information requirements of 

BOEM’s renewable energy regulations at 30 CFR 585.610(b)(5) for a SAP and 30 CFR 

585.626(a)(3) for a COP. 

Comment: The final EA and individual lease instruments must require that lessees perform bird 

surveys year-round, on multi-year basis, and in a comprehensive and comparable manner. 

Response: With input from the USFWS and NOAA, BOEM is in the process of developing 

recommended survey protocols for avian resources. These guidelines would provide 

recommendations for complying with the biological survey information requirements of 

BOEM’s renewable energy regulations at 30 CFR 585.610(b)(5) for a SAP and 30 CFR 

585.626(a)(3) for a COP. 

321 
Comment: It is important that BOEM clarify the nature of the leases that it intends to issue for 

these WEAs. We urge DOI to share the basic lease form it proposes to use with the public and 

take comment. 

Response: On September 6, 2011, BOEM published in the Federal Register the proposed 

renewable energy commercial lease form (76 FR 55090). The Federal Register notice opened a 

30-day comment period. BOEM is currently reviewing all submissions and will publish a final 

version of the form in the coming months. 

Comment: The draft EA included a very short section on migratory birds, citing Section 4.2.9.3 

of the Programmatic EIS for the full list of migratory birds that may be impacted in the MidAtlantic WEAs. The final EA should assess the likelihood of migratory bird presence for species 

known to be present in the WEAs. Also, the draft EA fails to identify any areas of high bird 

concentrations in the Mid-Atlantic, and BOEM must investigate whether there are areas of high 

bird concentration offshore. This information must be included in the final EA so that potential 

impacts on bird species can be fully assessed. 

Response: The EA analyzes impacts associated with leasing and site characterization activities 

within the mid-Atlantic WEAs. This analysis was based on the best available information. 

BOEM is aware that there are information gaps in the distribution and abundance of migratory 

birds, as well as other species and resources. Under the renewable energy regulations, lessees 

are required to submit the results of biological surveys (which include bird surveys) with its 

SAP. These survey efforts will help fill in site-specific information gaps, such as the 

identification of areas of high bird concentrations. 

Comment: The draft EA provides no rationale for such a large exclusion (Alternative E). The 

AWO should work with the Coast Guard and other Virginia Task Force members to resolve this 

concern while minimizing its impact on the Virginia WEA. Leasing should proceed in the 

proposed WEA, and any necessary adjustments for barge shipping can be worked out during the 

site assessment phase. 

Response: BOEM is not excluding or closing any area of the OCS from potential leasing. 

Rather, “exclusion” in this case, means exclusion from high priority leasing consideration. 

Applicants may apply to obtain a lease for any area of the OCS. Alternative E has been modified 

to exclude from priority consideration at this time full OCS blocks 6111 and 6161, and partial 

OCS blocks 6011, 6061, 6110, and 6160 on the most western edge of the Virginia WEA, rather 

than the eight OCS blocks identified in the draft EA (see Sections 2.5 and 4.5). The rationale for 

this exclusion is provided in the EA itself. 

James and Denise Sipple 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0042) 

Comment: We respectfully request that, when siting offshore wind projects, you chose the most 

viable areas with special attention to environmental impact. Alternative A – “The Propose 

322 
Action” (pg., 14 and 49 of EA), with enhanced protection for endangered North Atlantic right 

whale (pg. 165 of EA, encompasses these standards (pg. 70-71 of EA). 

Response: Thank you for your comments, which have been noted and will be considered in the 

decision-making process. 

Ocean Conservancy

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0045) 

Comment: The EA must adhere to the CMSP principles outline in the Final Recommendations 

of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force Adopted by Executive Order 13547. The draft EA 

and “Smart from the Start” process as a whole must incorporate core CMSP principles. 

Response: As announced by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, in November 2010, BOEM is 

building an environmentally responsible offshore renewable energy program that is identifying 

Wind Energy Areas for potential leasing. The activities over the past 9 months are consistent 

with the tenets of this initiative as well as the nascent CMSP effort, especially by coordinating 

with local, state and federal partners and public participation. BOEM will make best efforts to 

adhere to CMSP principles, as it expects other Federal and State partners will. 

Comment: BOEM sent out requests for information regarding WEAs and received a number of 

responses. However, the draft EA does not adequately address the input that was provided: for 

example, information provided by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Fisheries Management Council and 

NMFS. For stakeholder participation to be meaningful, it is essential that it be clear how and 

when information will be considered. Therefore, BOEM must clarify how the “Smart from the 

Start” process will solicit and respond to stakeholder and public input and how it will coordinate 

with other government entities. 

Response: BOEM has convened Intergovernmental State-Federal Renewable Energy Task 

Forces that have been established for all the states affected by Alternative A. In total there have 

been 16 meetings to date between these states and Federal agencies to discuss issues including 

siting and environmental impacts. These meetings have been open to the public, and typically 

BOEM holds a Q&A session with the public shortly after the Task Force meeting has adjourned. 

Additionally, information has been received through public solicitations in BOEM’s RFIs 

(Delaware and Maryland) and a Call offshore New Jersey. Through these meetings and 

submission of comments, BOEM has received valuable information from the NMFS and the 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. BOEM most recently met with the Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council during their April 2011 meeting and will continue to work closely 

with the Mid-Atlantic, and other Regional Fishery Management Councils throughout this 

process.

Comment: BOEM must take a precautionary approach regarding potential impacts to marine 

life. For instance, it must consider information about movement patterns of migrating animals, 

prey relationships, cumulative impacts on marine mammals and other species, and the effects of 

scaling up offshore renewable energy operations over time. In addition, critical baseline 

information is needed and should be collected as soon as possible. 

323 
Response: BOEM agrees that there are some site-specific data gaps regarding biological 

resources in the mid-Atlantic. One of the primary purposes of the site characterization activities, 

the impacts of which are analyzed in this document, is to collect such data. This requirement 

comes directly from the regulations at 30 CFR 585.626(a)(3). In addition to the site specific site 

characterization work that would be conducted by the lessee, BOEM has an environmental 

studies program that has several projects collecting regional avian, bat, marine mammal, and sea 

turtle data (e.g., AMAPPS). BOEM has solicited input from NMFS, USFWS, and MMC 

regarding draft survey and monitoring guidelines for lessees. In addition to that ongoing effort, 

BOEM has contracted three separate studies that will be developing survey and monitoring 

protocols that will be incorporated into BOEM’s guidelines to lessees once they become 

available. 

Although BOEM concludes that there would be temporary displacement of animals as a 

result of animals avoiding sound sources, this displacement is anticipated to be largely localized 

to the area around the sound source. Migratory corridors inshore (west) and offshore (east) of 

the action areas, including the Virginia WEA, which sightings data (see Appendix B) indicate are 

currently utilized corridors, would remain as they are currently which includes vessel traffic and 

fishing effort. After review of your comments and the relevant literature, BOEM concludes 

given the spatial scale of impacts and timing such activity, and the mandatory project design 

requirements in Appendix B, that the reasonably foreseeable impact of the proposed action and 

the alternatives on marine mammals would not be significant. For additional information on the 

timing of these activities see Section 3.1.2.4. 

Acoustic sonar work is considered a non-continuous noise source, not because of the 

pulse frequency, but because the sound source is in continuous motion ensonifying a different 

area as the vessel moves in a forward direction. This determination was made by the NMFS as 

part of its obligations under the MMPA and the ESA. The mandatory project design criteria 

included in Appendix B have been updated to reflect comments and consultations received 

following the release of the Draft EA. The edits to Appendix B include speed restrictions for 

vessels 65 feet or greater operating between November 1 and April 30. Discussion regarding the 

use of noise reduction technologies with respect to pile driving has been added to Chapter 4. 

It should be noted that, in its September 20, 2011 concurrence letter, NMFS determined that 

Alternative A, when implemented according to the mandatory project design criteria detailed in 

Appendix B, is not likely to adversely affect listed whales or sea turtles. See discussion of NMFS 

Concurrence, Section 5.2.1 of the EA.[

Marine Mammal Commission

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0047) 

Comment: Monitoring of buffer zones is a standard measures for all other sources. However, it 

is not clear whether the lessee would be required to monitor the 7-km buffer zone for pile driving 

and, if so, how the lessee would do so effectively. 

Recommend BOEM use exclusion zones to protect both listed and non-listed marine 

mammals. 

Response: Several edits have been made to Appendix B to clarify that monitoring of the 7-km 

buffer zone is required, and to specify how such monitoring must be conducted. In its September 

324 
20, 2011 concurrence letter, NMFS determined that the proposed lease issuance, associated site 

characterization, and subsequent site assessment activities, , when implemented according to the 

mandatory project design criteria detailed in Appendix B (including monitoring of the exclusion 

zone), are not likely to adversely affect listed whales or sea turtles. See discussion of NMFS 

Concurrence, Section 5.2.1 of the EA. 

 Offshore Wind Development Coalition 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0048) 

Comment: In Section 3.1.3.2, buoys are described only as being an alternative to fixed met 

towers, but they should also be described as a potential complement. In other words, a lessee 

may desire to use both a tower and a buoy (or two). This possibility ought to be allowed; as 

currently written, it could be implied that the two are mutually exclusive. 

Response: Text has been added to Section 3.1.3.2 clarifying that the EA contemplates the use of 

meteorological buoys in conjunction with meteorological towers.

Comment: In Section 3.1.3.3, both LIDAR and SODAR are described as “ground-based” 

remote sensing technologies. Of course, they can be deployed offshore too, either on fixed 

platforms (stub towers (steel support for windmills) or met towers) or floating ones (buoys). 

Curiously, the deployment of these technologies offshore is not included in the EA, even though 

a few companies are developing floating LIDAR systems to complement or replace fixed met 

towers. 

Response: The term “ground-based” was removed from Section 3.1.3.3, Meteorological Data 

Collection. This section acknowledges that measurement devices may be mounted on towers or 

buoys. 

Comment: 12,000 is the estimated number of vessel round-trips required for site 

characterization activities. While justification for this number is provided, BOEM sometimes 

uses it without consideration for the operations involved. For example, 12,000 vessel trips are 

unlikely to result in 12,000 anchoring operations. We understand this figure is a conservative 

upper-end estimate, but request that BOEM provide clarification that this is the case so it is not 

used elsewhere without this context. 

Response: As explained in Section 2.1, this EA assumes that the entire area of each WEA 

would be leased and the maximum amount of site characterization surveys would be conducted 

in the leased areas of the WEAs. Thus, the conclusions in the EA represent the maximum 

amount of environmental effects that could be associated with the proposed action and 

alternatives. This clarification was added throughout Chapter 4 of this EA when discussing the 

12,000 anticipated vessel trips. Rather than assuming all 12,000 vessel trips would result in an 

anchorage, Section 4.1.1.2.2 was revised to clarify those vessel trips associated with bottom 

sampling, construction and decommissioning, which would account for half of the anticipated 

traffic, could result in anchorages. 

325 
Comment: The last paragraph of the Lighting and Marking section on page 40 states that if

BOEM were to receive a SAP for a met mast greater than 199 feet (just taller than 60 meters) 

beyond the boundary of Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) jurisdiction 12 nautical 

miles from shore, “additional NEPA analysis and the imposition of additional mitigation 

measures may be necessary prior to approval.” It is not clear why the additional NEPA analysis 

cannot be performed and the impacts, believed to be insignificant, analyzed as part of this EA. 

Response: This language has been removed from Section 3.1.3.1, Lighting and Marking. As 

explained in Section 1.4.2, in the event that a particular lease is issued, and the lessee 

subsequently submits a SAP, BOEM would then determine whether this EA, adequately 

considers the environmental consequences of the activities proposed in the lessee’s SAP. If 

BOEM determines, in coordination with other agencies, such as FAA if appropriate, that the 

analysis in this EA adequately considers these consequences, then no further NEPA analysis 

would be required before the SAP is approved. If, on the other hand, BOEM determines that the 

analysis in this EA is inadequate for that purpose, BOEM would prepare an additional NEPA 

analysis before approving the SAP. 

Comment: The EA assumes, on page 38, that scour control systems will be installed on the 

ocean floor around the base of a met tower, but this assumption may be too broad. Met towers 

are intended as temporary structures for the collection of data, and the installation of scour 

protection can add significant expense to projects. Some lessees may opt to avoid the use of 

scour protection systems and instead design the structure to accept the predicted scour over the 

expected lifetime or choose an alternative mitigation method. 

Response: Section 3.1.3.1 acknowledges that a scour control system may be required based on 

potential seabed scour anticipated at the site. As part of its SAP, the lessee would provide to 

BOEM information on the condition of the proposed site, which would include an assessment of 

the magnitude of potential seabed sour anticipated at the site (30 CFR 585.610(b) and 

585.611(b)(1)). Based on this information BOEM may require the installation of a scour control 

system as a condition of SAP approval. A scour system may also be required to be installed later 

if significant scour is discovered during monitoring. A discussion to this effect has been added 

to Section 3.1.3.1.

Comment: In these particular locations, we agree that a one nautical mile buffer from Traffic 

Separation Schemes (TSS) is an acceptable assumption for this EA, but buffers should be 

determined in each instance using site-specific risk analyses, and areas should not be further 

removed from consideration until this work is done. 

Response: Thank you for your comment, which has been noted and will be considered during 

the decision-making process. 

Comment: The AIS Vessel Count Data presented in Figure 4.7a of the EA shows that the 

equivalent of six lease blocks within Category B have the minimum number of vessel counts 

(less than 75 per aliquot) at the same level as the Category C blocks, which are not being 

excluded from the WEA. Therefore, there is no substantive basis for removal of over half of the 

Category B area. The current draft of the EA does not note the absence of vessel counts when 

326 
comparing potential impacts of Alternative A and C, but should do so to show that the relative 

impact and risk of Alternative A is not substantial. Furthermore, the proposed extension of the 

current TSS illustrated in Figure 1.3 also would not add any traffic to the 10 Category B blocks. 

Therefore, we believe there is no current factual basis for excluding any of the Category B 

blocks. 

Response: The comparison of vessel counts for Category B and C areas has been incorporated 

into the analysis of Alternative C presented in Section 4.3, Other Uses of the OCS, of this EA. In 

Sections 2.3, 2.5, 4.2 and 4.5, additional text was added to clarify that under these alternatives 

areas would be excluded from this initiative; BOEM is not “closing” any area of the OCS to 

renewable energy leasing. Nothing precludes BOEM from considering an application to lease 

any area on the OCS. 

Comment: The conclusion and proposed mitigation measures for benthic habitat on page 70 are 

too broad and restrictive and could potentially exclude significant areas. 

Response: BOEM’s primary mitigation strategy is avoidance of sensitive benthic resources. 

This policy is part of BOEM’s Record of Decision in Appendix B of the PEIS and reflected in 

BOEM’s regulations for renewable energy at 30 CFR Part 585.627(a). However, this strategy 

does not preclude BOEM from siting projects in areas where these resources exist provided that 

the lessee’s SAP demonstrates that doing so would yield environmental consequences consistent 

with this EA. 

Regarding the impacts to the benthic environment, it is necessary to assume the largest footprint 

of a project in order to not underestimate the potential impacts. Section 3.1.3.1 acknowledges 

that a scour control system may be required based on potential seabed scour anticipated at the 

site. As part of its SAP, the lessee would provide to BOEM information on the condition of the 

proposed site, which would include an assessment of the magnitude of potential seabed sour 

anticipated at the site (see 30 CFR 585.610(b) and 585.611(b)(1)). Based on this information 

BOEM may require the installation of a scour control system as a condition of SAP approval. A 

scour system may also be required to be installed later if significant scour is discovered during 

monitoring. A discussion to this effect has been added to Section 3.1.3.1 of this EA.

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0049) 

Comment: In a letter dated August 11, 2011, NMFS responded to the assessment of impacts to 

EFH contained in the Draft EA. As a result of that consultation, NMFS recommended 

implementing four conservation recommendations. The conservation recommendations and 

BOEM’s response to the recommendations are detailed below. 

1. BOEM should remove important fishing grounds known as the "Old Grounds", "Mussel Bed", 

"Inside Mud Hole", "Middle Mud Hole", "Triple Wrecks", and "Outer Mud Hole" from 

consideration for leasing to protect key habitat for federally managed species.

327 
Response: BOEM shares NMFS’ concern regarding impacts to fishery resources. BOEM is 

committed to working with NMFS and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council to better 

delineate these areas and evaluate a range of alternatives to accomplish the objective of 

conserving essential fish habitat in all WEAs, including the Delaware WEA. The results of the 

site characterization activities in the Delaware WEA will provide more data on the fishing 

grounds identified in Freeman and Walford's 1974 “Angler's Guide.” BOEM requires any lessee 

interested in construction of offshore wind energy facilities in an area to acquire specific data on 

the benthic habitat and fish abundance during their site characterization activities (see 30 CFR 

585.626(3)). The results of that site characterization work may lead to additional mitigation 

measures during BOEM’s review of any future plans for the Delaware WEA, such as no 

structures being placed in the identified areas (see Section 4.1.2.2.2 of this EA). 

2. BOEM should undertake the proper analysis, and work with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council and NMFS to identify and preserve other areas ecologically important to 

production of fish resources and traditional fishing grounds throughout the geographical range 

covered by the proposed NEPA action.

Response: BOEM is committed to working with NMFS and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council throughout its offshore renewable energy planning process. NMFS 

participates in the BOEM State-Federal Task Forces and has recently signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding with BOEM covering the Coordination and Collaboration Regarding Outer 

Continental Shelf Energy Development and Environmental Stewardship. Although members of 

the Regional Fishery Management Councils are not Federal entities exempt from the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and thus cannot participate in BOEM’s Task Force meetings, 

they are invited to observe all Task Force meetings and their comments are specifically solicited 

for our planning documents. The information provided by NMFS, the MAFMC, and other 

stakeholders are taken seriously and evaluated in BOEM’s planning and assessment documents. 

3. BOEM should develop a consistent approach to the SAP process, including guidance on 

studies and methodologies for site characterization activities. NMFS should be included in the 

development of this guidance to ensure NMFS trust resources are adequately characterized 

within the lease sites.

Response: BOEM is in the process of developing guidance documents for site characterization 

and monitoring for offshore renewable energy projects. In early 2011 BOEM developed and 

sent out draft guidelines for review by NMFS and USFWS. BOEM has received the comments 

and is working on developing final guidelines. However, BOEM has two additional contracted 

studies, and an interagency agreement with NOAA that will also be providing recommendations 

on survey and monitoring protocols. Once BOEM has the opportunity to evaluate the results of 

those projects, the final guidelines will be released. 

4. BOEM should submit each individual SAP to NMFS for review and comment. Upon review of 

each SAP, additional site specific EFH conservation recommendations may be provided, as 

appropriate. Each SAP should include information and analysis on how fisheries resources will 

be characterized, including but not limited to benthic habitats, seasonal species presence, 

migration patterns, spawning activity, and commercial and recreational fishing activities in the 

328 
area. Such biological surveys will provide the necessary information to ensure impacts to 

sensitive habitats are avoided. 

Response: BOEM understands NMFS concerns regarding consultation on a programmatic 

document versus and actual site-specific site assessment plan. BOEM will review each SAP in 

the context of this, or other appropriate NEPA document, MSA and ESA consultations. BOEM 

will coordinate with NMFS where necessary on individual SAPs to determine if the activities in 

the SAP are wholly consistent with the NEPA analysis and Federal consultations (see Section 

1.4.2 of this EA). 

Comment: NOAA recommends that BOEM coordinate with NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), specifically the Northeast Region’s contacts prior to approval of a lessee’s 

SAP. 

Response: See response above. 

The Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center Foundation 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0050) 

Comment: Recommends BOEM implement an inter-organization, ecosystem-based adaptive 

management plan to guide the regulatory process associated with offshore wind energy 

development in the mid-Atlantic region, authorized by 30 CFR Part 585. 

Response: BOEM intends to use adaptive management practices to help ensure that renewable 

energy activities are conducted safely. Such a strategy relies on demonstrating and validating 

actual operating performance. To the extent possible, BOEM will require adjustments to survey 

and monitoring activities, as well as operational procedures for those activities on a case-by-case 

basis based on these operating experiences. This strategy is evident in 30 CFR 585.615, which 

requires lessees to submit a report following the conclusion of site assessment activities that 

identifies and describes any mitigation measures and monitoring methods and their effectiveness. 

If measures were not effective, the lessee must include recommendations for new mitigation 

measures or monitoring methods. These same provisions are required for construction and 

operations phases.

Comment: Critical gaps in biological data exist and need to be addressed prior to the site 

assessment plan (SAP) approval. The development management plan should incorporate a 

comprehensive survey program designed to close these gaps. Regional, cumulative impact 

analysis should be a cornerstone of the monitoring program.

Response: This EA uses the best information currently available. BOEM agrees that there are 

some site specific data gaps regarding biological resources in the mid-Atlantic. BOEM requires 

the results of site-specific surveys, including biological surveys, with the submission of a 

lessee’s SAP (30 CFR Part 585.610(b)(5)). In addition to the site specific site characterization 

work that would be conducted by the lessee, BOEM has an environmental studies program that 

has several projects collecting regional avian, bat, marine mammal, and sea turtle data (e.g., 

AMAPPS). BOEM has solicited input from NMFS, USFWS, and MMC regarding draft survey 

329 
and monitoring guidelines for lessees. In addition to that ongoing effort, BOEM has contracted 

three separate studies that will be developing survey and monitoring protocols that will be 

incorporated into BOEM’s guidelines to lessees once they become available. 

NRG Bluewater Wind

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0051) 

Comment: In Figure 2.1, a 1 nautical mile buffer of the Traffic Separation Scheme (“TSS”) is 

indicated in the graphic. NRG Bluewater supports the clarification that this buffer is to illustrate 

the U.S. Coast Guard’s precautionary recommendations pending completion of the PARS in 

20112. Specifically, that no meteorological towers or buoys would be located within 1 nm of 

any TSS boundary until further analysis and the PARS is complete. Further, that this 

meteorological tower and buoy buffer would not apply to site characterization activities and 

would not presuppose any buffer for the lease area prior to site-specific study, beyond the 

existing 500 meter nearest point of the Delaware Wind Energy Area and the TSS. 

Response: BOEM, in consultation with the USCG, has included the proposed mitigation 

measures listed in Section 4.1.3.2.7, Proposed Mitigation Measures, of this EA due to concerns 

raised by the USCG of locating meteorological towers and buoys close to Traffic Separation 

Schemes (TSSs). Initial AIS data analysis by BOEM and the USCG indicates there are high 

amounts of vessel traffic occurring within TSSs and the approaches to access the TSS lanes for 

Delaware Bay. In order to avoid potential impacts of Alternative A on navigational safety, the 

following proposed mitigation measure, ‘No meteorological tower/buoys will be located within a 

TSS or within 1 nm of any TSS boundary until further analysis and the Atlantic Coast Port 

Access Route Study (ACPARS) is completed by the USCG,’ was included in the EA for 

consideration by the decision-maker. Text has been added to Section 4.1.3.2.7 stating this 

proposed mitigation measure would not preclude site characterization activities within 1 nm of a 

TSS boundary, and that the adoption of this measure is not necessary to support the conclusions 

regarding the effects of Alternative A.

The Nature Conservancy 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0052) 

Comment: The Conservancy requests that BOEM include a more descriptive account of live 

bottom habitats that are found in the near-shore waters of the Mid-Atlantic. The current 

description of benthic habitats in the draft EA recognizes that natural reefs may exist, but, as 

presented, it perpetuates the incorrect assumption that Mid-Atlantic benthic habitats are sand 

dominated and inhabited primarily by polycheate worms that will recover quickly after 

disturbance. 

In the Final EA, we request BOEM make the following additional adjustments to the use 

and characterization of this data. First, BOEM should either display marine mammal maps for all 

seasons (the draft EA only includes summer) or not the omission. Second, please also include 

the disclaimer that Ten Minute Squares that do not include sighting data for marine mammals or 

sea turtles may not indicate a lack of these animals but instead simply reflect a lack of adequate 

survey effort in those particular areas. Lastly, the marine mammal and sea turtles data 

330 
summarized for the NAM ERA project show that many Ten Minute Squares received no survey 

effort for one or more species and this should be noted and symbolized on maps where relevant. 

Response: BOEM appreciates the Nature Conservancy’s constructive feedback and information 

provided throughout the offshore wind energy planning process. Section 4.1.2.2.1- Biological 

Features- has been edited to include benthic invertebrates that have been documented on live 

hardbottom, including natural and artificial reefs, of the mid-Atlantic. Throughout the document, 

references to the NAM ERA data have been updated to include the caveats/disclaimers to the 

data as requested. Lastly, Appendix B has been updated to make the sightings information more 

clearly understood and to include information from all species for all seasons where data is 

available.

Comment: Request that BOEM make clear that the final mitigation measures will be 

stipulations of leases and SAPs in the final EA. We ask that BOEM be more transparent 

regarding the basis of proposed mitigation measures for marine mammals and sea turtles in the 

Final EA. At a minimum, should cite its sources, whether they be a paper published in peer 

reviewed journal or simply an acknowledged expert’s best professional judgment. 

Response: The project design criteria required by BOEM (see Appendix B and Section 5.3.1 of 

this EA)are intended to reduce or eliminate the potential for adverse impacts to marine mammals 

(USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 2011c). These measures will be mandatory conditions of any lease 

and/or SAP issued or approved under Alternative A. 

The mandatory project design criteria identified in Appendix B are based upon the best 

available scientific information. Although offshore pile driving is new to U.S. Atlantic waters, 

high resolution geological and geophysical surveys are not. The alternatives considered in this 

EA were developed utilizing the expertise of the natural resource agencies and within BOEM to 

put forth a reasonable range of alternatives to be considered to ensure that the impacts associated 

with the proposed action and alternatives are minimized. That said, no operating procedure has a 

guaranteed effectiveness nor a proven quantitative means to measure the effectiveness. BOEM 

may refine operating procedures as necessary in response to monitoring reports received from 

the field.

Comment: We also request that BOEM address these issues concerning the validity of the 

exclusion zones in the Final EA. BOEM should both limit peak sound pressure levels to 160 dB 

within exclusion zones for pile driving, or require mitigation measures when this sound pressure 

level is exceeded. BOEM should strongly recommend the use of vibratory hammers as the 

preferred pile driving technique for met tower as this has been shown to significantly reduce 

peak sound pressure levels compared to conventional impact-pile driving techniques. 

Response: Regarding the use of vibratory hammers, BOEM has updated the discussion in 

Section 3.1.3.1 describing the installation of foundations for met towers. Specifically, this 

discusses vibratory and impact hammering methods. Since vibratory hammers do not use force 

to drive the piles, the bearing capacity is not known and the piles must often be “proofed” with 

an impact hammer. This involves striking the pile a number of times with the impact hammer to 

ensure that it meets the designed bearing capacity. As a result of this the mitigation measures 

regarding impact hammers are still necessary. Vibratory hammers are encouraged to be used 

331 
where appropriate as the duration of higher sound pressure levels associated with impact 

hammers would less, even though the total installation time may slightly increase. Other noise 

reduction measures for pile driving; primarily cofferdams and foam sleeves (see Nehls, 2007 and 

USDOI, BOEMRE, 2010) have been shown to be effective. However the feasibility of requiring 

these technologies in the offshore environment needs further exploration and may be appropriate 

on a case-by case basis for full commercial-scale construction projects where the total duration 

of pile driving activities would be greater than that for a single meteorological tower. It 

should be noted that in its September 20, 2011 concurrence letter, NMFS determined that 

Alternative A, when implemented according to the mandatory project design criteria detailed in 

Appendix B (including the extent of the exclusion zone), is not likely to adversely affect listed 

whales or sea turtles. See discussion of NMFS Concurrence, Section 5.2.1 of the EA. 

Comment: It is imperative that BOEM, in conjunction with NMFS, develop stringent criteria 

for the qualifications and credentials of trained observers hired to accompany survey vessel. The 

draft EA does not describe the qualifications necessary to be an observer except to say 

monitoring of exclusion zones will be conducted by “qualified NMFS-approved observer.” 

Recommend that BOEM work with NMFS to develop specific criteria for marine 

mammal and sea turtle observers and incorporate these criteria into the endangered species 

mitigation measures in the Final EA. 

Response: Appendix [B].1.2, Visual Monitoring of Exclusion Zone, of this EA, includes the 

requirement for qualified NMFS-approved PSOs. PSOs must be able to show proper training in 

at-sea protected species observations and familiarity with protected species in the action area. 

The NMFS has expertise in evaluating the credentials of PSOs and working with companies that 

train and employ these PSOs. For example, dredging projects along the Atlantic seaboard often 

require PSOs approved by NMFS, not to mention the formal observer program run by NMFS for 

fishery observations. 

Comment: The proposed mitigation for potential vessel collisions with marine mammals in 

WEAs is inadequate and must be strengthened by the Final EA. BOEM assumes in the Draft EA 

that the risk of vessel strikes to whales will be mitigated by an existing rule passed by NMFS in 

December 2008 to implement speed restrictions to reduce the threat of ship collision with North 

Atlantic right whales (50 CR Part 224.105). The seasonal management areas (20 nautical mile 

buffer around major ports) do not overlap fully with the WEAs as currently delineated. The 

NMFS regulation has a sunset provision of December 2013. If no further action is taken, the rule 

will then expire. The timeframe for activities covered under the draft EA is five and a half years 

or until 2017. BOEM must address these shortcomings in the Final EA by mandating speeds of 

10 knots or less for site assessment vessels approaching and entering WEAs from November 1 

through April 30 at a minimum. 

Response: BOEM’s mandatory project design criteria include that “all vessels 65 feet in length 

or greater operating in the November 1 – April 30 time frame must operate at speeds less than 10 

knots.” (see Appendix B of this EA). In its September 20, 2011 concurrence letter, NMFS 

determined that Alternative A, when implemented according to the mandatory project design 

criteria detailed in Appendix B, is not likely to adversely affect listed whales or sea turtles. See 

discussion of NMFS Concurrence, Section 5.2.1 of the EA. 

332 
Comment: Organizations, like The Nature Conservancy, are currently engaged in projects with 

various partners, to collect and assess data that is relevant to the Wind Energy Areas outlined in 

the Draft EA. As the commenter described, these projects take into account a CMSP guiding 

principle of using an “ecosystem-based management approach that addresses cumulative effects 

to ensure the protection, integrity, maintenance, resilience and restoration” of marine 

ecosystems. 

Response: BOEM appreciates The Nature Conservancy’s effort to bring these projects to our 

attention and BOEM looks forward to reading the results when they become available and 

incorporating the results into subsequent environmental reviews, as appropriate. 

Comment: Following the CMSP principle regarding “frequent and transparent broad-based, 

inclusive engagement of partners, the public and stakeholders,” BOEM has obviously stepped up 

its efforts to reach out to stakeholders. However, BOEM can increase outreach to ensure 

renewable energy projects are compatible with other uses and conservation efforts. 

Response: BOEM recognizes the value of public participation and embraces an approach which 

includes coordination with task forces that include federal, state, local and tribal representatives. 

Section 5 of the Draft EA outlines the Consultation and Coordination that BOEM undertook 

prior to publishing this EA. BOEM looks forward to participating in the evolving and increasing 

CMSP efforts through the Regional Planning Bodies as it prove informative to further WEA 

refinement through public participation with the Regional Planning Bodies.

OffshoreMW 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0053) 

Comment: An additional level of protection would be provided to marine mammals, further 

negating the need for a blanket seasonal prohibition of activities (per Alternative D). The 

protection measure referred to is called forward looking sonar, developed by a company call 

FarSounder. We encourage BOEM to further investigate this technology and company as part of 

this EA process. FarSounder’s technology was developed with the support of NMFS and was 

originally used as a means to study whale behavior. 

Response: The current mandatory project design criteria do not preclude the ability to use new 

technologies to aid visual observations. In fact, these requirements have been updated to reflect 

this if the lessee desires to conduct activity outside of times of good visibility and a calm sea 

state they may request the use of new technologies in order to facilitate this activity. Active 

sonar, such as the FarSounder, would detect all animals with a reflective signature in the 

direction the sonar was pointing. Additional technologies to aid shipboard endangered species 

observers are not seen as required elements for the activities analyzed in this assessment. 

Lessees are encouraged to use additional tools at their disposal to aid shipboard endangered 

species observers in identifying endangered species and avoiding impacts to them (see Appendix 

B of this EA). 

333 
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0054) 

Comment: While CMSP plans are not yet in place, CMSP principles can still be brought to bear 

on the process. 

Response: As announced by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, in November 2010, BOEM is 

building an environmentally responsible offshore renewable energy program that is identifying 

WEAs for potential leasing. The activities over the past year are consistent with the tenets of this 

initiative as well as the nascent CMSP effort, especially by coordinating with local, state and 

federal partners and public participation. Data needed for ecosystem-based management and 

support to NOC CMSP Regional Planning Bodies (especially Mid-Atlantic) continues to be a 

priority in order to evaluate potential WEA leasing. Additionally, the WEA EAs will play a 

crucial role in informing the CMS Plans that the Regional Planning Bodies will develop. BOEM 

will make best efforts to adhere to CMSP principles, as it expects other Federal and State 

partners will. 

State of New Jersey 

Department of Environment Protection 

Natural & Historic Resources Historic Preservation Office 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0055) 

Note: This letter is a response to BOEM’s request for consultation with the State Historic 

Preservation Officers (SHPOs), as required by Section 106 of the NHPA (see Section 5.3.4 of 

this EA). 

Comment: The draft EA states that sea floor disturbance related to archaeological and 

geophysical surveys by lessees for the installation of meteorological data collection structures 

will avoid or minimize impacts on historic properties. The Historic Preservation Office (HPO) 

concurs with this assessment. 

Response: Comment noted. 

Comment: The draft EA also states that the visual impacts of the meteorological structures will 

not adversely affect any historic properties, because, “Any visual impacts to onshore cultural 

resource would be limited and temporary in nature and would consist predominantly of vessel 

traffic, which most likely would not be distinguishable from existing vessel traffic.” The HPO 

concurs with this assessment. 

Response: Comment noted. 

Narragansett Indian Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0056) 

Comment: Recent archaeological evidence confirms that those ancestral relatives of the 

Narragansett inhabited the continental shelf and coastal lands in the proposed wind energy areas 

334 
of offshore NJ, DE, MD, and VA. As BOEM moves forward with its mid-Atlantic 

Environmental Assessment, the Narragansett recommends that, for the purpose of gathering oral 

history indicators of the presence or absence of submerged settlements, BOEM form a panel of 

federally-recognized Tribal historic preservation advisors comprised of Atlantic coastal THPOs 

and augmented by state-recognized coastal Tribes. The panel would provide data to BOEM that 

could be incorporated into a database of likely areas that should be investigated by sub bottom 

profiling in search of scientific evidence of submerged settlements. The results of these surveys 

would provide known areas of cultural sensitivity guiding planning activities and avoidance 

areas for development activities. 

Response: Section 4.1.3.1 of this EA discusses the potential impacts of Alternative A on 

potential submerged pre-contact archaeological sites. While it is impossible to determine actual 

impacts to archaeological resources without first having identified those resources, information 

generated from the lessees’ initial site characterization activities would serve to identify them. 

Avoidance and mandatory project design criteria in this EA, as well as the consultation processes 

identified through consultation with parties to the Section 106 process, including the 

Narragansett, under the Programmatic Agreement referenced in Chapter 5 of this EA, would 

minimize the possibility of adverse effects to historic properties that are identified during site 

characterization activities. 

BOEM will continue to conduct government-to-government consultations with potentially 

affected federally-recognized tribal nations in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA through 

approval of Site Assessment Plans. Furthermore, BOEM has proposed a study to be funded in 

FY 2012 that will develop protocols for reconstructing submerged paleocultural landscapes and 

identifying ancient Native American archaeological sites in submerged environments. This study 

includes a large Native American participation component and is designed to develop 

scientifically proven, standardized, “best practices” methodologies for identifying submerged 

relict landscapes and pre-contact archaeological resources. The results of the study will inform 

standards for all future surveys.

 

Virginia Offshore Wind Development Authority 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0057) 

Comment: We understand and appreciate the interest in preserving safe inclement weather 

navigation for offshore barge traffic, and it is critically important that development of Virginia's 

offshore wind resource avoid interference with important commercial shipping interests. 

However, eliminating the eight lease blocks as proposed in Alternative E would split the Virginia 

WEA into two separate parcels, which would undermine the commercial value of the area by 

creating logistical and economic challenges for commercial developers, reducing the economies 

of scale necessary to attract supply chain interests, and ultimately increasing the cost of power 

that will be generated by offshore wind development. We believe the concerns addressed by 

Alternative E can be accommodated effectively in the leasing and development process, without 

the necessity of withdrawing entirely the eight identified blocks from the commercially available 

wind area. 

335 
Response: Alternative E has been modified to exclude leasing and site assessment in full OCS 

blocks 6111 and 6161, and partial OCS blocks 6011, 6061, 6110, and 6160 on the most western 

edge of the Virginia WEA, rather than the eight OCS blocks identified in the draft EA (see

Sections 2.5 and 4.5). 

Comment: Virginia supports and is actively pursuing an "all of the above" strategy for 

expanding energy production in Virginia. This includes strong support and energetic efforts to 

promote development of Virginia's offshore wind resources. Therefore, we urge BOEM to adopt 

Alternative A as described in the draft EA, and encourage every available effort to accelerate and 

streamline the leasing and permitting process. 

Response: Thank you for your comments, which have been noted and will be considered in the 

decision-making process.

J. Capozzelli 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0058) 

Comment: I strongly support your efforts to advance offshore wind energy off the Mid-Atlantic 

coast in a manner that is protective of our coast and marine wildlife. 

Response: Thank you for your comment, which has been noted and will be considered in the 

decision-making process. 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0059) 

Comment: A full EIS is necessary to address the fisheries issues associated with this type of 

project and other issues related to marine mammals, migratory birds, endangered species, 

transportation, safety, and security. Recommend an EIS be conducted at this time before any 

further activity is undertaken. 

Response: The purpose of this EA is to determine whether or not the impacts of the proposed 

action and alternatives would have reasonably foreseeable significant environmental 

consequences. If it is determined that there are significant impacts, then an EIS will be prepared. 

Comment: The value of Mid-Atlantic fishery resources (hundreds of millions of dollars) is not 

adequately described in this EA. The EA contains one and a half text pages (pg., 107 and 108), 

one table (Table 4.9), and an incomplete list of species managed by the three Atlantic Councils 

and the Highly Migratory Species Division of the National Marine Fisheries Service. 

The reference Table 4.9 is nearly 30 years old, the information for shortnose sturgeon and 

Atlantic sturgeon is incorrect, and the statement referring to Habitat Area of Particular Concern 

(HAPC) for sandbar shark and transiting vessels also applies to summer flounder HAPC. 

Response: The list of managed species in Section 4.1.2.7.1.2 is not meant to be a complete list 

of managed species but a list of managed species with EFH in the area that may be affected by 

Alternative A. This table has been updated to reflect information received from NMFS as part of 

336 
the consultation on impacts to EFH. BOEM has updated Section 4.1.2.7.1.2 to reflect that 

summer flounder HAPC overlaps with native species of macroalgae, seagrasses, and freshwater 

and tidal macrophytes in any size bed, as well as loose aggregations, within adult and juvenile 

summer flounder EFH which was indicated by the MAFMC as being the same as sandbar shark 

HAPC (MAFMC 2011 and http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/summerflounder.htm). The 

information regarding Atlantic sturgeon has been updated in Section 4.1.2.7.1.1. Although Table 

4.9 was first developed in 1984, it provides a very good overview of demersal fish assemblages 

in the mid-Atlantic. This conclusion is supported by the NMFS (2004) which compared the 

findings to broadscale studies in 1998 and 1992. 

Comment: The EA does not adequately describe how BOEM’s processes will intersect in a 

cohesive and comprehensive manner with Executive Order 13547, which is the National Ocean 

Council to establish a comprehensive, integrated national policy for the stewardship of the 

Nation’s ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes and provides a process for the development of 

ecosystem described within the recommended framework, CMSP would take a regional 

approach to the development of these plans, including planning for multiple existing and 

emerging uses, such as offshore wind energy facilities. However, BOEM’s current process is 

being conducted on a state-by-state basis and is focused on only offshore wind facilities. 

Response: BOEM has adopted many of the principles of coastal and marine spatial planning, 

such as comprehensive interagency coordination, and will provide information that can be 

referenced in future decision-making regarding wind power development. Specifically, BOEM 

has convened Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Forces that have been established for 

all the states affected by Alternative A. In total there have been 16 task force meetings to date 

between these states and Federal agencies to discuss issues including siting and environmental 

impacts. These meetings have been open to the public. Additionally, information has been 

received through public solicitations in BOEM’s RFIs (Delaware and Maryland) and a Call 

offshore New Jersey. Through these meetings and submission of comments BOEM has received 

valuable information from the NMFS and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 

BOEM most recently met with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council during their April 

2011 meeting and will continue to work closely with the Mid-Atlantic, and other Regional 

Fishery Management Councils throughout this process. Formal consultations with states and 

other Federal agencies required by statute (e.g. ESA, MSA, CZMA) are discussed Section 5.3 of 

this EA and are not repeated in this response. 

Additionally, BOEM has solicited the cooperation from state and Federal agencies on the 

preparation of this assessment. Section 5.3 of this EA describes the agencies that have agreed to 

cooperate on this environmental assessment. Three agencies, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy have been 

consulted for their expertise in relevant subject matters and have provided feedback on previous 

drafts of the assessment. 

337 
Karen Guglielmo 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0060) 

Comment: It is important to address any concerns about the safety of our migratory birds in the 

flyway off our coast. Wind turbines have been responsible for bird strikes and we must be sure 

we continue to insure their safety. 

Response: The potential impacts to migratory birds from offshore wind turbines would be 

addressed in a separate NEPA document, if and when a COP is submitted (see Section 1.4.2). 

Comment: The closer the wind farm the greater affect on the view from shore. 

Response: The potential impacts to viewsheds from offshore wind turbines would be addressed 

in a separate NEPA document, if and when a COP is submitted (see Section 1.4.2). 

Comment: Another important issue is the overall economic impact, not only to Ocean City, but 

to all taxpayers in our state. 

Response: In Section 4.1.3.3 of this EA, the economic data for the shore adjacent counties of 

New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia that would host onshore activities associated with 

Alternative A is presented in Table 4.12. Alternative Ais expected to have negligible, but 

positive impacts on the population and employment of coastal counties of Virginia, Maryland, 

Delaware and New Jersey that would provide support services for Alternative A. The reasonably 

foreseeable economic impacts from a commercial wind facility would be addressed in a separate 

NEPA document, if and when a COP is submitted (see Section 1.4.2). 

Chesapeake Audubon Society and 

Maryland Conservation Council 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0061) 

Comment: Monitoring of exclusion zones and enforcement of related mitigation measures 

hinge almost entirely on the number and the skill of the observers. Request that the EA stipulate 

that if qualified observers are not available for any given activity, then the activity will be 

postponed until observers are available. In context, we suggest that “shall” be replaced by 

“must” to assure that if qualified observers are not available the work will not proceed. 

Response: In the context of Appendix B of this EA, “shall” means “must.” The ultimate 

binding requirements will appear as contractual language in any lease issued under Alternative 

A. 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0062) 

Comment: Reservations concerning Alternative E (Removal of Inclement Weather Diversion 

Areas Offshore Virginia). Eliminating the eight lease blocks as proposed in Alternative E would 

split the Virginia WEA into two separate parcels, which would undermine the commercial value 

of the area by creating logistical and economic challenges for commercial developers, reducing 

338 
the economies of scale necessary to attract supply chain interests, and ultimately increasing the 

cost of power. The concerns addressed by Alternative E can be effectively accommodated in the 

leasing and development process. 

Response: Alternative E has been modified to exclude leasing and site assessment in full OCS 

blocks 6111 and 6161, and partial OCS blocks 6011, 6061, 6110, and 6160 on the most western 

edge of the Virginia WEA, rather than the eight OCS blocks identified in the draft EA (see

Sections 2.5 and 4.5). 

Comment: Recommend the Final EA include (or require project-proponents provide) a detailed 

description of site-specific Biological Monitoring protocols and further coordination with federal 

and state resource agencies to develop and implement site-specific pre- and post-construction 

Biological Monitoring protocols. 

Response: BOEM appreciates the comments suggesting additional survey and monitoring 

protocols. These will be considered as we develop the final guidelines for lessees. In addition to 

the site specific site characterization work that would be conducted by the lessees, BOEM has an 

environmental studies program that has several projects collecting regional avian, bat, marine 

mammal, and sea turtle data (e.g., AMAPPS). BOEM has solicited feedback from NMFS, FWS, 

and MMS regarding draft survey and monitoring guidelines for developers. In addition to that 

ongoing effort, BOEM has contracted three separate studies that will be developing survey and 

monitoring protocols that will be incorporated into BOEM’s guidelines to lessees once they 

become available. 

Comment: Recommend the Final EA include a detailed description of proposed lighting 

specifications for MET towers. 

Response: Section 4.1.2.5.2 includes proposed mitigation measures intended to reduce or 

eliminate adverse impacts to birds. The first proposed mitigation measure provides a detailed 

description for lighting of meteorological towers. 

Comment: Recommend the Final EA specify that acoustic bat monitoring devices (e.g., Anabat 

detectors or other comparable remote bate detection devices) be deployed on all meteorological 

towers. 

Response: Recommendation noted. 

Comment: Recommend the Final EA specify that one or more existing MET towers in areas 

where wind development occurs be left in place to provide post-construction monitoring data, 

based on site-specific monitoring protocols. 

Response: Since regulations at 30 CFR Part 585.902(a) would allow a lessee up to two years 

following termination of a lease to decommission all structures, including meteorological towers, 

this recommendation could not be considered.

339 
Comment: Recommend the Final EA specify decommissioning of a MET towers occur within 6 

months (rather than within one year) after cancellation, expiration, relinquishment, or other 

termination of the lease and the use of a Met tower design that would result in minimal impact 

and be removed without explosives. 

Response: See response above. 

Comment: Recommend the Final EA include a detailed description of proposed HRG and 

ADCP survey equipment specifications and address potential impacts to marine Mammals. 

Response: Anticipated survey equipment is described in Section 3.1.2.1 of this EA and acoustic 

Doppler current profilers (ADCPs) are described in Section 3.1.3.3. Impacts to marine mammals 

and sea turtles from the noise that could be generated by this equipment is discussed in detail in 

Sections 4.1.2.3.2 and 4.1.1.4.2. Section 3.1.2 discusses BOEM’s guidelines for geological and 

geophysical surveys, including some specifications for equipment performance. Section 3.1.2 

also includes an internet link to BOEM’s latest guidance documents. 

The American Waterways Operators 

(Document ID BOEM-2011-0053-0063) 

Comment: AWO supports the adoption of Alternatives B and C.

Response: Thank you for your comment, which has been noted and will be considered in the 

decision-making process.

Comment: Alternative E represents a modification of the Virginia coast lease blocks. This 

alternative was proposed by AWO in May 2011. After further review and consultation with 

AWO members familiar with the area, AWO believes our previous comments were incorrectly 

drafted and wish to revise them here as follows. AWO’s previously submitted comments 

indicated that certain leasing blocks off the Virginia coast should be removed from wind energy 

projects because those areas regularly used by tugboats, barges and ATBs during inclement 

weather. That recommendation suggested a route that bisected the proposed developed area and 

placed obstructions on both sides of the vessel traffic lanes. AWO believes that it would be 

preferable instead to create a channel on the most western edge of the leasing blocks by 

eliminating a column of parcels on the western edge of the proposed area [full OCS blocks 6111 

and 6161, and partial OCS blocks 6011, 6061, 6110, and 6160]. This change will preserve an 

area currently used by members during inclement weather while making a large block of 

undeveloped ocean available for alternative energy development. 

 

Response: Alternative E has been modified to instead exclude the two full and four partial OCS 

blocks identified by the AWO (see Sections 2.5 and 4.5 of this EA).

Comment: AWO strongly recommends BOEM refrain from moving forward with leases until 

after the PARS study is completed, the results are analyzed by and discussed with the navigation 

industry, and fairways are established. 

340 
341 

Response: Thank you for your comment, which has been noted and will be considered during 

the decision-making process. 
The Department of the Interior Mission

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility 

for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering 

sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; 

preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; 

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses 

our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best 

interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. 

The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities 

and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Mission 

As a bureau of the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM’s) 

primary responsibilities are to manage the mineral resources located on the Nation's Outer Continental 

Shelf (OCS). 

The BOEM strives to fulfill its responsibilities through the general guiding principles of: (1) being 

responsive to the public's concerns and interests by maintaining a dialogue with all potentially 

affected parties and (2) carrying out its programs with an emphasis on working to enhance the 

quality of life for all Americans by lending BOEM’s assistance and expertise to economic 

development and environmental protection.