BOEM just extended comment period an additional 15 days
EDITOR’S NOTE: The Ocean Wind 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 45-day public comment period has now been extended by 15 calendar days, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Project Manager Will Waskes announced Wednesday afternoon. The comment period was supposed to end Aug. 8, as the story below notes. “BOEM is extending the comment period based on requests from the public and a technical correction to the Ocean Wind 1 Construction and Operations Plan (COP) and DEIS. Details on the technical correction can be found on the BOEM DEIS webpage. BOEM will receive public comments on the DEIS through 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 23, 2022,” Waskes wrote in an email.
“BOEM’s DEIS for the proposed Ocean Wind 1 Offshore Wind Farm analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project as described in the Ocean Wind 1 COP and the alternatives to the proposed plan for constructing and operating a wind energy facility offshore New Jersey. Public comments and input are critical in informing BOEM’s decision-making process,” Waskes wrote. For more information, including instructions for how to comment on the DEIS, go to:https://www.boem.gov/ocean-wind-1.
OCEAN CITY – Protect Our Coast NJ, a group dedicated to stopping the Ocean Wind 1 wind turbine project, has weighed in on the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement, pointing out the areas the 1,400-page document shows dangers to the region.
Meanwhile, Ocean Wind said it is finalizing comments that it plans to publicly release on points the project developers believe should be addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. A statement released Monday said it has already taken steps to minimize the project’s impact.
The public comment period on the draft statement, or DEIS, was to close Aug. 8, but BOEM extended it until Aug. 23. (See editor’s note, above). BOEM has conducted a series of public hearings on the DEIS, with many commenters not addressing the substance of the report and arguing they haven’t had time to get through it all in a timely manner with a limited 45-day comment period.
Most commenters either roundly supported the job creation they expect from Ocean Wind 1 and a series of other wind turbine projects off the coast, or they attacked the project for the harm they believe it will cause to marine mammals and the tourism, commercial fishing and recreational fishing industries.
Protect Our Coast NJ (protectourcoastnj.com) weighed in with a more detailed critique in a public handout in late July.
Critics, including those in Ocean City and other shore communities from Brigantine to Stone Harbor, have argued the massive electricity-generating wind turbines – up to 98 in Ocean Wind 1 alone – will cause visual pollution that would harm the view on which tourism is partly based and impact property values as well. They also argue the construction phase would be especially disruptive to life at the shore.
The group cites the DEIS showing the blade tips of the wind turbines visible from the beach up to 39.6 miles away on clear-day conditions. The towers holding the turbines would have a navigation light 531 above the surface of the ocean and the tips of the blades reach 906 feet. The wind farm begins 15 miles off the coast and stretches for miles beyond that.
The group cites the scenic and visual resources conclusion: “BOEM anticipates that the overall impacts associated with the proposed action when combined with the impacts from ongoing and planned activities including other offshore wind development would be major. The main drivers for this impact rating are the major visual impacts associated with the presence of structures, lighting, and vessel traffic.”
On commercial fishing, the group notes with Cape May being a major fishing port, there is expected disruption to one of the county’s major industries during two years of construction of the project. Safety zones during construction would force fishing vessels to “either forfeit fishing revenues or relocate to other fishing locations.” The latter choice would incur additional costs to boats for crews and fuel.
Coast Guard operations and navigation and radar would be adversely affected by the project, Protect Our Coast NJ argues, citing the DEIS report.“BOEM anticipates that the overall impacts … would be major” and the project could create a moderate impact with “a large geographic area of degraded radar coverage that could affect multiple radars.”
Protect Our Coast NJ says the financial impact of the wind farm remains unknown and the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities has still not released its ratepayer costs in the state Master Energy Plan. The group also asserts that because Ocean Wind 1 has been formed as a limited liability corporation (LLC), that means the company – a joint venture between Danish firm Ørsted and PSEG – would be able to avoid financial responsibility in case of a failure.
Another unknown is the impact of the electromagnetic fields (EMF) generated around the cables running under the sea floor to carry the power from the project to connect to the power grid at the former Oyster Creek nuclear station in Ocean County and former B.L. England generating plant in Beesleys Point, Upper Township. That impact also remains unknown for the cables running through land – including from the 35th Street beach in Ocean City, beneath city streets and out Roosevelt Boulevard to Upper Township.
Ocean Wind: Already trying to minimize environmental impact
Although officials from Ocean Wind 1 did not offer public comments on the DEIS, as requested by the Sentinel, it offered the following statement.
“Ocean Wind is currently finalizing comments, which will be public, on key points that should be addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”),” according to Maddy Urbish, Ørsted’s head of government affairs and policy for New Jersey.
“Ocean Wind looks forward to continuing to work with BOEM during the development of the FEIS and on BOEM’s DEIS. We’re pleased that BOEM’s proposed action alternatives have no materially different environmental impact than what the project designed and proposed.”
“Prior to the DEIS, Ocean Wind already took steps to minimize impacts, adjusting the layout of turbines based on input from commercial fishing interests, installing an Aircraft Detection Lighting System, advocating for a federal commercial fisheries mitigation plan, and adjusting our cable route through Barnegat Bay to avoid sensitive habitats,” Urbish said.
“Ocean Wind has always welcomed robust public engagement in the development of our project. The DEIS and the public comment period are part of the collaborative process necessary to responsibly develop a sustainable offshore wind industry here in New Jersey. We look forward to stakeholder dialogue and community participation as the public comment process moves forward,” Urbish said.
To learn more about the project from the developers, go to oceanwindone.com.
By DAVID NAHAN/Sentinel staff
i would like to know if they are approved, how much does the homeowner Saveon their electric bill
No savings. In addition to the billions in federal subsidies we are paying a foreign country and companies, NJ Ratepayers will see an increase of at least $1.47 per month per wind farm. Ten are planned so we could see an increase of $14.70 per month. Commercial ratepayers will see an even bigger increase according to Orsted. We are actually being charged to destroy our environment! Protectourcoastnj.com