August 14, 2019 — The following was released by the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance:
In light of the recent decision by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to perform a cumulative impacts analysis regarding the proposed Vineyard Wind project, and the recently released communications between that agency and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), RODA would like to clarify certain statements and representations.
The RODA Board of Directors particularly notes the citation of its statement regarding turbine spacing and orientation in BOEM’s response to NMFS’ letter of nonconcurrence. To provide the full context of this statement, which is not readily apparent from BOEM’s letter, it is posted here in its entirety.
RODA has not taken a position to specifically support or oppose any offshore wind energy development. We have repeatedly stated in multiple formats that decisions on any new uses of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) that have the potential to affect commercial fishing must be based on a deliberative process and scientific record that fully incorporates the input of diverse fishing communities and avoids and minimizes such impacts to the maximum possible extent; and where impacts cannot be avoided effective mitigation strategies are developed to achieve co-existence.
During the development of the Vineyard Wind Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), RODA signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with BOEM and NMFS in order to collaborate on the science and process of offshore wind energy development on the Atlantic OCS. We value the relationships and progress we are advancing with both agencies as well as those with developers, including Vineyard Wind, through cooperation on our Joint Industry Task Force and the Responsible Offshore Science Alliance.
The size, pace, and scope of proposed offshore wind energy projects on the Atlantic OCS demand that lawmakers, regulators, developers, and the public all employ due caution to ensure that these developments can coexist with our traditional and historic fisheries. It would be unacceptable to put at stake hundreds of thousands of skilled fishing jobs, healthy and sustainable seafood, important traditional ecological knowledge, and the very fabric of our coastal cultures in a rush to welcome a new industry before the trade-offs are fully considered. In many early natural resource-based industries—including the fishing industry—a race to develop without adequate science and planning has resulted in avoidable resource catastrophes. We would like to avoid those outcomes, and taking time to understand the cumulative impacts of multiple imminent industrial projects is critical to doing so.