The Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) would like the opportunity to respond to the Rhode Island Saltwater Anglers Association (RISAA) opinion piece regarding, in part, the CRMC’s review authorities of offshore wind projects in the Massachusetts and Rhode Island Wind Energy Area written by Rich Hittinger and published Dec. 16 by ecoRI News.

First, CRMC thanks Mr. Hittinger for his many hours of service as a member of the Fisheries Advisory Board (FAB), as well as the other former members. Their expertise and time were invaluable to this lengthy and at times frustrating process of reviewing offshore wind development. Since the inception of the United States’ desire to explore the development of offshore wind, CRMC has enlisted and encouraged the participation of stakeholders, including but not limited to the fishing community: commercial, charter, recreational, shoreside, fisheries research, and fisheries regulatory officials.

Responsible management of the offshore ecosystem is a process that is shared by a wide community. CRMC is grateful for the uncountable volunteer hours that have been donated by the individuals listed in RISAA’s opinion piece and others in that stakeholder group. The state process was the only effort in the early stages of this development to yield a viable project, the Block Island Wind Farm (BIWF). At the time, there were other states attempting to develop a pilot project but only Rhode Island was able to accomplish the goal in large part through extensive stakeholder engagement.

In contrast to the R.I.-led effort to construct BIWF, the projects discussed in RISAA’s piece are located in federal waters, under the jurisdiction of the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). Under this structure, CRMC is limited to only have review authority to apply our coastal zone enforceable policies under a process known as Federal Consistency. It is rare to have this authority in the context of offshore wind development and CRMC has fought for these rights in anticipation of further buildout. However, these permits are granted by BOEM, not CRMC. CRMC has worked within this federal process to use the tools available to try to protect resources and future viability of the habitat and uses to the best of its ability.

Despite the sentiment in the FAB resignation letter, CRMC is still working to engage with the stakeholders for input on existing, current, and potential future projects related to offshore wind development. The public comment period for the proposed transmission cable for the Southcoast Wind project in state waters is nearing its end and can be found here. This is the only project proposing a cable up the Sakonnet River. CRMC would like to take the opportunity to address some of the specific content provided in the RISAA opinion piece.

Specifically, regarding the Southfork Wind (SFW) renewable energy project, RISAA alleges that the CRMC raised “no issue” with Ørsted’s plans to install wind turbines on Cox Ledge in the South Fork Wind Project, including having no issue with the subdivision of the larger Revolution Wind lease area by BOEM in order to accommodate a brand new lease for the SFW wind farm.

Both allegations are incorrect. 

CRMC learned of this action from industry news shortly after the holiday break. CRMC had to contact BOEM and inquire if those reports were accurate. Regretfully, they were. BOEM notified CRMC of its decision to subdivide the lease area into two smaller leases after it had already done so. Wind farm developer Ørsted requested the subdivision of the larger Revolution Wind lease area to create a new wind farm project (i.e., SFW) and BOEM proceeded with that action without consulting any of the involved coastal programs or other agencies.

As soon as we were informed of this decision by BOEM, CRMC raised strong objections, as it clearly and severely limited the council’s ability to propose the relocation of turbines within the now-smaller lease area through the federal consistency review process. It also restricted CRMC’s ability to negotiate project changes with the developer, and to minimize impacts to the valuable and habitat-rich Cox Ledge area. CRMC indicated to BOEM that this was a significant change to the proposed project. BOEM promised to not repeat this adjustment of lease area for future projects but the federal regulator chose to continue the existing process despite complaints from CRMC and other state and federal agencies.

Because there is no hard and fast rule or regulation prohibiting this sort of decision or action — the process was new to federal and state regulators at the time — BOEM just proceeded without notifying any other regulators. CRMC’s ability to react to this was limited because it had already taken place. Another element that was unprecedented was that BOEM notified CRMC of this change while the South Fork Wind project federal review process was already underway.

Regardless, CRMC sent objections to both BOEM and CRMC’s parent federal authority, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Other entities, including the Massachusetts coastal program and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), also objected to BOEM’s decision. While BOEM did not reverse its decision, it stated in correspondence that it would not subdivide any other leases in the future.

Unfortunately, the damage was already done in the case of South Fork Wind.

This subdivision of the lease area was mentioned in CRMC’s comments to BOEM’s Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) document from February 2021:

“Despite the discussion within Table 2.1.5-1 concerning ‘Alternative location in the Lease Area 0486’ and BOEM’s dismissal of this alternative for the reasons explained therein, the reality is that Deepwater Wind South Fork created their own hardship by requesting a new lease area boundary (0517) that is commensurate with the SFW project development area. In fact, the DWSF lease area request dated January 16,2020 was filed 15 months after BOEM issued an NOI [Notice of Intent] for the SFW COP EIS preparation on October 18, 2018. In the RICRMC’s view, despite the stated reliance upon its regulations to grant the lease request, BOEM should have reasonably foreseen that the developer’s request for the 0517 lease area boundary would have ramifications for any meaningful WTG turbine foundation siting alternatives, to achieve the full 15 WTG project. Consequently, the developer may be faced with the elimination of WTG turbine foundation locations and end up with less than the maximum 15 WTG locations due to legitimate fisheries habitat impact minimization concerns.”

In the final CRMC Federal Consistency Decision on the SFW wind farm, CRMC conditioned its approval to require the developer to have a maximum of 12 WTGs (wind turbine generators).

Jeffrey Willis is the executive director of the Coastal Resources Management Council.