Offshore wind turbines would have negligible impacts on birds, fish and marine mammals in a swath of the ocean off the Jersey Shore, according to a state statement released today.
The state Department of Environmental Protection released the draft final report on “Ocean/Wind Power Ecological Baseline Studies” launched more than two years ago.
The studies focused on birds and marine life 3 to 20 nautical miles offshore, from Seaside Heights to North Wildwood.
Several companies want to build wind turbine farms off the Jersey Shore, ranging from about 8 to 20 miles off Atlantic or Cape May counties.
Activists with the New Jersey Environmental Federation, Environment New Jersey and the Sierra Club’s New Jersey Chapter welcomed the draft report’s findings.
“This is an important step in transforming New Jersey’s economy into a 21st century clean energy-driven green engine,” said David Pringle, campaign director for the New Jersey Environmental Federation, in a statement.
“This top notch report provides the scientific baseline needed to advance offshore wind and thereby effectively combat climate change, create jobs, grow the economy and protect public health,” Pringle said.
But Tim Dillingham, executive director of the American Littoral Society, a Sandy Hook-based coastal conservation group, said nothing in the report supports the conclusion that offshore wind turbines would have a minimal environmental impact.
“It confirms that there’s a great risk that if offshore wind projects aren’t sited correctly, that there could be negative impacts to the ocean and to the resources that live there,” he said.
“I think clearly the Christie administration has got behind offshore wind,” he said. “There are large numbers of developers that want to see it happen, so I think that they were overreaching in terms of presenting what the science is actually saying, so it was more politics than science.”
Gary Buchanan, manager of the DEP Office of Science, which sponsored the study, said it “shows that we don’t anticipate any major impact” and a project “could be mitigated so the impacts are on the low end.”
The study shows there are areas where the expected impact would be minimal, he said. Other areas may have the potential for greater impacts, but that doesn’t mean projects couldn’t be built there, he said.