Were New Jersey strandings associated with offshore wind surveys?

Photo credit: Assateague Island National Seashore

We’ve received a lot of activity around the recent spate of whale strandings on New Jersey South Shore beaches.  Seven strandings in as many weeks, mostly humpbacks, but also two sperm whales; an infant and a juvenile, and possibly an associated short-beaked common dolphin.

What singles out these strandings is that there are concurrent acoustical surveys being conducted in the area, characterizing the sea floor for offshore wind leases. What raises my eyebrow is that New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, in his biological wisdom, stated that the surveys were not at cause for the strandings, allowing the surveys to continue.

State Senator Vince Polistina, and Rep. Jeff van Drew (both Republicans), in their political wisdom, called for a halt to the surveys until the causes are known.

NOAA, with more substantial bona fides, may have informed the Governor, and they are stating that “There is no evidence that sound generated during high-resolution geophysical surveys – which are used to map the sea floor for offshore wind farms, harms marine mammals.” But an absence of evidence does not mean an absence of harm.

The tools used for these shallow benthic surveys would typically not produce mortal damage to whales. But were other technologies being used? In any event, the precautionary principle would dictate putting the pencils down on the project and wait for the necropsy results before dismissing these strandings as “not being associated with the survey activities.”

But necropsy results don’t just crawl off the beach unadorned. While there are a number of authorized stranding response teams in the area, there are also a few levels of necropsy reporting details – from observing and commenting – “whale was struck by a vessel” (Level A), to “whale had plastic loads in its intestines (Level B), to “whale’s auditory organs were engorged with blood” (Level C).

Each of these reporting levels cost money, and germane to this discussion, they take time. A Level A report may take only a few weeks; a Level B report may only take six months. But the Level C (and maybe a Level B report) could take a couple of years, if the reports (which are proprietary) are used to build an argument for a published paper or Doctoral dissertation on the event.

But as we have previously indicated, there is a significant push to get “steel in the water” on all offshore wind projects. This includes development enthusiasm from the regulatory agencies, which are otherwise lugubrious on large infrastructure projects, but are operating like greased lightening on moving the offshore wind projects along.

This wouldn’t be so contentious if everyone was basically on the same page with offshore wind. But there are a lot of crosscurrents that are muddying the water. While the preponderance of the terrestrial fossil fuel industry is salivating over proof that wind energy is bound to fail, many of the offshore wind leases are being picked up by fossil fuel companies like BP, Shell, Equinor, and  Orsted.

There is similar disharmony in the eNGO business. The full-throated endorsements of big national NGOs on offshore wind, who don ‘t want to be perceived as “Whale-huggers obstructing progress” by industry, are being given the stink-eye by many of the smaller, local groups who have to report to constituents they know by name, and are concerned about whales washing up on their beaches.

Lost in all of this hash is the thought that we might be able to cut to the chase on these “decarbonization” conflicts by using less energy. Getting “steel in the water” could be replaced by “getting steel on the tracks;” by high-speed rail and local public transit. (It takes five times more energy to fly or drive a person across the landscape than it does to move them by rail.)

So yes, this energy could come from offshore wind – or local rooftop solar, or any number of other carbon neutral energy sources. But the most efficient and most cost-effective way toward a carbon-free energy future is using less of it.

This would diminish environmental pressures on all habitats, and perhaps the associated contentions as well.