Mid-Atlantic Offshore Wind Power and Fisheries Prof. Jeremy Firestone Alison Bates University of Delaware College of Earth, Ocean & Environment August 13, 2013

STATE of the World Offshore Wind Industry Figures and Tables Source: EWEA

Substructures Cumulative www.theengineer.co.uk

European Substructures 2012

New Generation Turbines Siemens 6MW, 154m rotor Alstom, 6MW, 150m rotor Areva, 5MW, 135m rotor Repower, 5MW, 128m rotor Vestas, 7MW, 164m rotor (planned) Mitsuhishi, 7MW, 165m rotor (planned)

Spacing Moving toward 8x8 rotor diameters Moving toward 1.2 km to 1.3km between wind turbines (0.65 - 0.7 nautical miles) www.vestas.com

Example offshore system layout from: Søren Juel Petersen, Rambøll Wind Energy (talk at UD, 2 Oct 06)

Nysted Offshore Wind Farm, Denmark – Nov. 2006

Offshore wind in the United states planning for conflicts and compatibilities

The largest shallow offshore resource in US is in the Mid-Atlantic 330,000 MW Average current use: 73,000 MW Kempton, et al 2007

Mid-Atlantic Offshore Wind Projects New York (NYPA/LIPA/Con-ed) up to 700 MW100 turbines, preliminary stage New Jersey 1100 MW “Planned” NJ BPU denies approval of Fishermen’s Energy Demonstration Project Delaware (Bluewater, 230 MW) Has federal lease, but long-term power purchase contracts abandoned. Maryland Minimum 200MW planned per state legislation Virginia Lease sale on September 4, 2013 Research leases North Carolina

Offshore Wind Planning Areas Department of Energy Goals 10GW by 2020 54GW by 2030 Department of the Interior early planning for wind development Wind Energy Areas in the Mid-Atlantic

Marine Spatial Planning More extensively used in Europe to assist in planning for offshore wind projects and other existing ocean uses National Ocean Policy signed in 2010 Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Body State, Federal & Tribal representatives Stakeholder input

MSP: How to simply? How to Quantify Tradeoffs? In an increasingly crowded ocean, where uses evolved organically without regard to other users, how do we put aside our parochial interests, and advance the wider public interest? Start be examining ways in which we might re-arrange the deck chairs Examine where there are potentially large gains from “trades,” particularly, where costs are minimal Easiest is to look at just two uses at a time Samoteskul, et al 2013

Mid-Atlantic Vessel Traffic Density and potential Wind Energy Areas (Purple) if Ships continue status quo transits

Wind Energy Areas that could be developed if Ships transit further from shore

Redirected Traffic Route and New Wind Energy Areas

Cost-Benefit Considerations Commercial Vessel Costs Offshore Wind Power Benefits Greater labor costs Greater fuel costs Earlier ship replacement Greater social costs (e.g., carbon and SO2 emissions) Lower materials and installation costs & lower debt payments True, even with less power generation per installed MW, leading to more turbines Decreased O&M costs Smaller transmission losses Lower social costs

Commercial Fishing How to account for commercial fishing as a valuable existing ocean use Look for ways for the two industries to be compatible Evaluate the effects of wind development on both fish species and on fishing as an industry Image: Coonamessett Farm Foundation

Artificial Reefs Scour protection materials are installed at the base of turbine foundations Potential for attraction or habitat creation for fish species by adding seafloor complexity Material selection can in part determine the species assemblages that will be formed Synthetic Fronds Gravel Protection Boulders www.dongenergy.org

Electromagnetic Fields Cables connect between wind turbines and to shore Electric fields are shielded, magnetic are not Many fish and crustaceans are sensitive to magnetic fields; elasmobranchs use EM fields for hunting prey Several species have exhibited behavioral changes in response underwater cables Altered swimming patterns Congregation near cable Avoidance to cross cable www.futurelab.com

Noise Noise mitigation measures can reduce the impact on fish Fish use sound for communication, orientation, identification or predators and prey, and to find conspecifics Noise can be generated during wind farm construction, operation and decommission Vessels Pile driving Blades Cutting and removal of foundation Impact depends on many factors Behavior Prior exposure Hearing capability Stress, altered behavior, avoidance, changes in growth/reproduction, injury, mortality Noise mitigation measures can reduce the impact on fish Image: HYDROTECHNIK LÜBECK

The European Experience Horns Rev (Denmark) – species richness and abundance increased after installation, likely due to more prey availability (Dong Energy, 2006) OWEZ (Netherlands) – overall fish species richness and CPUE were unchanged, although some species showed an increase (e.g. sole, whiting) and others decreased (e.g. lesser weaver) (Lindeboom et al., 2011) Bligh Bank (Belgium) – significant decrease in benthic fish density one year after construction; neighboring Thorntonbank significant density differences in only part of project area (Coates & Vincx, 2010) Lillgrund (Sweden) – no major effects on diversity or abundance of benthic fish communities (Bergtstrom et al., 2013) From a conservation perspective, impact on populations more important than impact on individual fish; long-term, cumulative impacts on fish populations is an ongoing focal point of research (Hawkins, 2011)

Wind/Fisheries Research at UD Identify gear/fishing classifications to look at the industry impacts Quantify the economic impact of conflict areas by assuming levels of ‘de-facto’ exclusion due to gear restrictions or safety Suggest areas for wind development that would be least conflicting both spatially and economically as the MSP process moves forward

Thank you jf@udel.edu abates@udel.edu www.carbonfree.udel.edu www.ocean.udel.edu/windpower