Appendix I: Protected Fish Species
This chapter leverages ongoing data collection and research initiatives related to offshore wind and protected fish species funded by a variety of partners (states, federal agencies, industry). For an always up-to-date list of active projects, visit the RWSC Offshore Wind & Wildlife Research Database. Given this ongoing work, as well as previous research on Protected Fish Species and their interactions with wind energy areas in Europe and the United States, the Protected Fish Species Subcommittee is making recommendations for additional research that is both aligned with existing efforts and fills important gaps.
I.1 Background
Marine fish are very diverse. They occupy a wide variety of habitats; have different anatomical features and unique life histories. In the United States, marine fish are managed at both the federal and state levels, depending on where the species most commonly occurs. Regional fishery management councils and NOAA Fisheries federally manage species that predominantly occur in ocean waters beyond the state jurisdictional limit (three nautical miles). The four regional fishery management councils responsible for managing most federal fisheries in the U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean include the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC), and the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC). These regional fishery management councils are responsible for developing federal fishery management plans, regulations, and designating Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), while NOAA Fisheries is responsible for approving and implementing those plans, regulations, or Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) designations. This is not the case for highly migratory species (HMS), which are managed through NOAA Fisheries Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Management Division within the Office of Sustainable Fisheries. This division develops the fisheries management plans (FMPs) and designates EFH for HMS within the FMPs and regulations. NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are the lead federal agencies for implementation of The Endangered Species Act (ESA), which provides a framework to conserve and protect endangered and threatened species and their habitats. Marine species that predominately occur in nearshore or estuarine waters are typically managed by the individual states, while the ASMFC oversees the management of fish species for which there is an interstate management plan. All federal and state agencies responsible for fishery management work in coordination with, and collect input from, other federal partners, state partners, tribal governments, academia, industry, and non-governmental organizations.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is responsible for managing the development of energy on the outer continental shelf. BOEM produces Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) or Environmental Assessments (EAs) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for each offshore wind project. These documents are intended to thoroughly assess the potential impacts on protected fish, both from the individual project, and cumulatively (to include potential impacts from offshore wind development and all other potentially impactful activities). BOEM is also required to complete an EFH Consultation under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) for all activities that may affect areas of designated habitat where federally managed fish spawn, breed, feed, or grow to maturity.
Fish distribution in a marine environment is influenced by a variety of factors and is known to vary seasonally and over time. Spatiotemporal distributions and migration corridors do not just vary by species, but also by contingent/population within a given species. Water temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen levels, food availability, habitat structure/substrate type, and harvest all play major roles in where species are found. As a whole, fish are sensitive to changes in the environment and thus are subject to the impacts of shifting ocean conditions. Climate change, among other anthropogenic stressors, has altered the distribution of many fish species, and is projected to continue to affect fish distribution (Hare et al., 2016; noaafisheries2022b?). NOAA Fisheries conducted a climate vulnerability assessment on 82 fish and invertebrate species in the U.S. Northeast, and determined that of the fish studied, diadromous species exhibit the highest level of vulnerability to climate change induced environmental changes (Hare et al., 2016). Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, and Atlantic salmon are all diadromous protected fish species located in the RWSC study area. Anthropogenic activity such as commercial and recreational fishing, coastal development, pollution, and climate change each contribute to habitat alterations, and thus changing fish distributions. Offshore wind development will spark additional changes to many aspects of the ecosystem, and is likely to hasten certain biological changes including fish distributions.
For the purposes of this document, protected fish will include all species that are listed as Endangered, Threatened, petitioned, candidate, or proposed under the Endangered Species Act. Under the ESA, some species are broken up into Distinct Population Segments (DPS), which are defined as a vertebrate population or group of populations that is discrete from other populations of the species and significant in relation to the entire species. According to the ESA, it is prohibited to take each of these species, and all Federal departments and agencies must seek to protect and conserve listed species and their habitats (“Laws & policies,” n.d.). Fish species listed under ESA are already in a vulnerable state, so are at an even greater risk with respect to anthropogenic impacts and changes to the environment. Therefore, these protected fish species may also be more susceptible to effects from offshore wind development. The subcommittee notes that while this plan focuses on protected fish species, there is also concern about the impacts of offshore wind development on other, non-ESA Listed fish species that overlap with offshore wind development in the western Atlantic.
I.1.1 Focal species and notable recent trends
Table 1 lists the protected fish species in the RWSC Study area which are considered in this appendix.
Table 1. Protected Fish species in the RWSC study area. This table includes Endangered Species Act (ESA) status including Distinct Population Segment (DPS), if applicable.
| Species | ESA Status and DPS | NOAA Fisheries Region |
| Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) | Endangered (Gulf of Maine DPS) | New England/Mid-Atlantic |
| Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) | Endangered (New York Bight DPS, Chesapeake Bay DPS, Carolina DPS, South Atlantic DPS) ESA Threatened (Gulf of Maine DPS) | New England/Mid-Atlantic, Southeast |
| Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) | Endangered | New England/Mid-Atlantic, Southeast |
| Giant Manta Ray (Mobula birostris) | Threatened | New England/Mid-Atlantic, Southeast |
| Oceanic Whitetip Shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) | Threatened | New England/Mid-Atlantic, Southeast |
| Nassau Grouper (Epinephelus striatus) | Threatened | Southeast |
| Scalloped Hammerhead Shark (Sphyrna lewini) | Threatened (Central & Southwest Atlantic DPS) | Southeast |
| Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata) | Endangered | Southeast |
| Whitespotted Eagle Ray (Aetobatus narinar) | 90 Day Petitioned (04/06/23) | Mid Atlantic, Southeast |
Source: NOAA Fisheries Species Directory.
In considering species for inclusion in this chapter, the Subcommittee explored other protected fish listings and other organizations involved in offshore wind and fisheries research where our efforts might overlap. The Responsible Offshore Science Alliance (ROSA) is an organization analogous to RWSC that advances research and monitoring on the potential effects of offshore wind on fisheries in the RWSC study area. While both RWSC and ROSA are engaging in regional coordination and advancement of research and monitoring related to interactions between offshore wind and ecosystems, ROSA’s focus is fisheries (commercial and recreational) and RWSC’s focus is wildlife. Each organization exists because issues related to the intersection of offshore wind and fisheries often differ from those of wildlife and endangered species. The scope of the RWSC Science Plan does not include fisheries or commercially managed fish species. For research needs and considerations on those topics, visit ROSA. To ensure close coordination on issues in the RWSC Science Plan that might relate with ROSA’s work and avoid duplication of efforts, the RWSC Protected Fish Species Subcommittee includes members from ROSA leadership. The RWSC and ROSA have, and will continue to, work closely together to support research and monitoring of fish and offshore wind.
In addition to the federally administered ESA, each state/district compiles a species of concern list. Species of concern for each state may also be listed federally under the ESA. The following table includes state or district websites that feature marine fish species of concern. The Subcommittee wanted to note these species in the Appendix, though they are not included in the scope of the chapter and will not be fully assessed.
Table 2. State/District websites that feature their respective species of concern.
Internationally, the IUCN Red List (“The IUCN red list of threatened species,” n.d.) is a resource that lists the global conservation status for all species, including fish. Each species is sorted into one of nine groups: Not Evaluated, Data Deficient, Least Concern, Near Threatened, Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered, Extinct in the Wild or Extinct. IUCN Red List species are not covered further in this chapter.
The Subcommittee also discussed species that do not appear on any protected species list, but may be impacted by the development of offshore wind. One such group are HMS, including all tuna, swordfish, billfishes, and sharks. There are also prohibited fish in various fisheries, so while not explicitly protected, it can be illegal to target and harvest certain fish. A few additional species brought forth by the Subcommittee for their potential to be impacted by offshore wind are the Warsaw grouper (Epinephelus nigritus) and the speckled hind (Epinephelus drummondhayi), as well as all previously petitioned and listed species. Cusk (Brosme brosme) was very recently removed from the candidate listing, so was not listed under the ESA and does not appear in Table 1. However, this species may be impacted by offshore wind development, particularly in the Gulf of Maine, as its habitat is limited. These species were not included in the scope of this chapter as they are not currently listed under the ESA.
The subcommittee notes that while this plan focuses on ESA Listed fish, concern remains regarding the impacts of offshore wind development on other fish species that overlap with ongoing and planned offshore wind development activities in the western Atlantic. This list of Protected Fish Species in the RWSC Study area will be updated periodically as more research is conducted and more information becomes available.
I.1.1.1 Atlantic Sturgeon
Atlantic sturgeon are anadromous, meaning they hatch in freshwater, migrate to salt water as sub adults, and return to freshwater as adults to spawn. sturgeon distribution and abundance varies by season (Dunton et al., n.d.), and they are bottom feeders, mainly consuming benthic invertebrates and fish close to the seabed. Earlier reported observer catch data showed that Atlantic sturgeon bycatch mostly occurred closest to the coasts, particularly bay mouths and inlets, so likely preferred shallower water with sandy bottom (Stein, Andrew et al., 2004). Studies conducted in more recent years suggest that their habitat and distribution is likely more expansive, and that additional targeted research is needed to fully and accurately assess Atlantic sturgeon habitat (Ingram et al., 2019). Atlantic sturgeon in the New York Wind Energy Area were regularly detected, with peaks from November through January and nearly absent July through September (Ingram et al., 2019). In addition, detections of unique fish decreased with an increasing distance from shore, though they did spread throughout the entire study array. Environmental factors were also explored, and photoperiod was determined to be a consistent trigger for migration while river temperature and discharge were two additional local factors (Ingram et al., 2019). The near-shelf region of Maryland was found to be mainly a transit route for Atlantic sturgeon (Rothermel et al., 2020; Secor et al., 2020). They primarily occupied warmer bottom temperatures, and had the lowest detection rates in the late spring through early fall. Atlantic sturgeon were found to occur year round in the Delaware wind energy area, though abundance peaked in November and December (Haulsee et al., 2020). Distribution shifted seasonally within the WEA from shallower areas in the spring and summer to deeper waters in the fall and winter. Receivers were also deployed in the York River watershed, the Lower James River, the Elizabeth River, the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, and along the Atlantic coast (Hager, C., 2019). These receivers detected sturgeon that were tagged from Maine to Georgia, illustrating that this species is highly migratory and occurs region wide. The Atlantic sturgeon’s distribution throughout the region and frequent detections within WEAs illustrates the need for further research and continued monitoring.
It was previously accepted that Atlantic sturgeon spawn only in the spring, though evidence of fall spawning was documented in the more southern river systems, specifically the Combahee and Edisto rivers, SC (Collins et al., 2000; Farrae et al., 2017), Roanoke River, NC (Smith et al., 2015), James River, VA (Balazik, Matthew et al., 2012; Balazik MT and Musick JA, 2015), and Marshy Hope Creek, MD (Secor et al., 2022). A dual spawning strategy was also described from research suggesting the spawning of two groups at two different times and locations in the James River, adding to the known species level variation (Balazik MT and Musick JA, 2015). A study conducted to inform spatial distribution models of sturgeon concluded that depth, day-of-year, sea surface temperature, and light absorption by seawater were the primary predictors of occurrence in the mid-Atlantic Bight (Breece, M.W. et al., 2018). This model can be implemented to reduce harmful interactions with sturgeon. Even with the increased number of research projects in recent years, the Atlantic sturgeon is still considered a data poor species (ASMFC, 2017). As such, Hager (Hager, C., 2019) indicated the need to expand the understanding of environmental variables that impact sturgeon distribution in order to effectively manage the species.
There are five DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon listed under the ESA. The Gulf of Maine DPS was listed as threatened in 2012, and the other four DPSs (Carolina, Chesapeake Bay, New York Bight, and South Atlantic) were all listed as Endangered. (Hare et al., 2016) conducted a climate change vulnerability assessment for species on the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, and the Atlantic sturgeon received an Overall Vulnerability Rank of Very High with 99% certainty. This study focused on fish from the three DPSs in the northeast, and while not studied, sturgeon researchers in the southeast believe that the impacts identified will likely affect the southern DPSs as well (A. Herndon, personal communication). It is also possible that fish in the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs have adaptations that make them less vulnerable to increasing temperatures because they already live in warmer climates, but this is uncertain (A. Herndon, personal communication).
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission conducts stock assessments on Atlantic sturgeon, the last of which was completed in 2017 (ASMFC, 2017). Population numbers declined greatly from high historical levels in part due to overfishing, of which the population has not yet recovered from (Hilton et al., 2016). The 2017 benchmark assessment concluded that the resource of Atlantic Sturgeon is depleted due to multiple contributing factors including incidental capture in fisheries, habitat loss, and ship strike. That being said, the assessment indicates a positive trend, or a slowly increasing population since 1998 (ASMFC, 2017). Entanglement in fishing gear continues to be a problem, even though Atlantic sturgeon are no longer legal to target. Dunton et al. (Dunton et al., 2015) conducted a study on Atlantic sturgeon bycatch in the New York waters, and using regional observer data found that the majority of bycatch occurred in aggregation areas in bottom trawls and sink gillnets. The large mesh sink gillnet fishery is a major source of bycatch, and as a result of findings and requirements put forth in a Biological Opinion, the Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Working Group developed an Action Plan to reduce sturgeon entanglement in the federal fishery by 2024 (noaafisheries2022a?). Some area closures in existence for other species also benefit Atlantic sturgeon in areas of overlap. The Gulf of Maine Cod Protection Closures and the Large-Mesh Gillnet Mid Atlantic Seasonal closures are two examples, both of which likely provide protection for sturgeon moving to and from their marine habitat into freshwater.
Vessel strikes, EMFs, degraded water quality, noise, and changes in marine habitat may also negatively affect Atlantic sturgeon. There is growing concern about sturgeon vessel strikes especially within the Chesapeake and New York Bight DPSs. A study conducted by Fox et al., (Fox et al., 2020) found that the overall reporting rate of Atlantic sturgeon carcasses was 4.76%. This suggests that vessel strike rates are likely higher than previously thought, as most incidents of vessel strikes are not seen or reported. These impacts tend to be more severe in estuarine and freshwater habitats. Rivers all along the East Coast have been defined as critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon and are shown below in Figure I.1.
Atlantic sturgeon habitat use overlaps with many wind farm lease, planning, and cable areas (Frisk et al., 2019; Haulsee et al., 2020; Ingram et al., 2019; Rothermel et al., 2020) and so they are subject to all potential effects with respect to offshore wind discussed in section 1.2.
I.1.1.2 Atlantic Salmon
Atlantic salmon in the United States are at the southern extent of their range and are found at critically low abundance. Historic populations in southern New England are extirpated, with remnant populations protected under the ESA in Maine (USFWS and NOAA, 2009).
Atlantic salmon are anadromous fish with life histories that involve a variety of habitats. They begin their lives in freshwater rivers, migrate through estuaries to saltwater, and return to freshwater to spawn (Fay, Clem and al., 2006). Restoration, monitoring and research efforts are longstanding within Maine’s coastal rivers, with continued expansion into estuaries and bays (Renkawitz and Sheehan, 2011; Sheehan et al., 2011; USASAC, n.d.). Atlantic salmon encounter many threats because they occupy a variety of habitats. Identifying these threats has been a priority in recent years with particular emphasis focused on the smolt life stage when fish migrate from fresh to salt water and endure a physiological transformation. Baseline telemetry studies in Maine have outlined migration dynamics (Hawkes, J. P. et al., 2017; Kocik, J. F. et al., 2009; Renkawitz and Sheehan, 2011) and set the stage for follow-up investigations. These efforts include quantifying impacts of dams (Holbrook, C. M. et al., 2011; Stevens et al., 2019; Stich et al., 2015), in addition to targeted management actions (Hawkes et al., 2013) to improve smolt survival into the Gulf of Maine.
Beyond monitoring tagged salmon with telemetry in their natal rivers, research has expanded further into the marine environment. A partnership between NOAA and the University of Maine School of Marine Science began in 2005 by utilizing existing marine infrastructure to increase monitoring capabilities. This platforms of opportunity initiative began with oceanographic buoys, but has since expanded to lobster traps and drifters. These data improve our understanding of salmon migration, but also benefit researchers of other tagged animals (Goulette et al., 2021; Goulette GS et al., 2014). In addition to these data collections, the deployment of the Ocean Tracking Network Halifax Array off Halifax, Nova Scotia in 2008 expanded coverage of salmon migration. Information from this array has been used to model behaviors, timing and movements within the Gulf of Maine and beyond, which may be useful to managers (Byron et al., 2014; Moriarty et al., 2016).
The range of Atlantic salmon is mostly in the northern portion of the Gulf of Maine which currently does not overlap with any lease areas. However, BOEM has published the Gulf of Maine Call for Information and Nominations (Call) in the deeper waters of the Gulf for floating offshore wind. This Call is an early step in the regulatory process for commercial leasing of offshore wind. Atlantic salmon critical habitat has been defined in rivers all along the coast of Maine and is shown below in Figure I.2. The range of Atlantic salmon continues east to Canada, so collaboration with international organizations is needed.
Atlantic salmon will likely overlap with all stages of offshore wind development in the Gulf of Maine, so are subject to all potential effects with respect to offshore wind discussed in section 1.2.
I.1.1.3 Shortnose Sturgeon
Shortnose sturgeon are born in freshwater, move between fresh and salt water to feed and migrate, and return to freshwater for breeding (SSSRT, 2010). They spend a majority of their time in estuarine environments and move farther inland to spawn. While it was originally thought that shortnose sturgeon spent little time in the ocean (Kynard, B., 1997), movement between river systems was documented in the Gulf of Maine (Altenritter et al., 2018). The possibility of a similar long range movement was suggested after a shortnose sturgeon from the Chesapeake Bay-Delaware DPS was captured in the James River (Balazik, 2017).
The shortnose sturgeon is distributed all along the U.S. Atlantic Coast, and extends up into Canada. It is listed as endangered throughout its range under the ESA. They were subject to high levels of fishing historically, and though they are no longer targeted, bycatch is still a concern. Other anthropogenic activity involving their freshwater habitat such as power plant operation, pollution, and dams also remain as threats (SSSRT, 2010). Critical Habitat has not been designated for shortnose sturgeon because their listing under the ESA pre-dates the amendment that requires critical habitat to be designated for newly listed species. So, it is currently not a requirement for NOAA Fisheries to designate their critical habitat.
Due to their proximity to shore, overlap with nearshore portions of export cable corridors, landfall sites, and port activities are of particular concern, though they are subject to all potential effects with respect to offshore wind discussed in section 1.2.
I.1.1.4 Giant Manta Ray
The giant manta ray is a cartilaginous fish, and it is the largest ray in the world. Not much is known about its current population size. Internationally, manta rays are captured for their gill rakers (NOAA Fisheries, 2017). In the U.S., mantas are subject to bycatch in recreational fisheries and can become entangled on mooring wires and drown. Vessel strikes also remain a major issue as mantas spend much of their time at the surface. According to unpublished data from the Marine Megafauna Foundation (MMF), 8% of the south Florida juvenile population have been hit by a boat. This is likely an underestimate, as only individuals that survived can be documented. McGregor et al., (McGregor et al., 2019)found that vessel strike injuries heal quickly in the reef manta ray, which illustrates the likelihood for under detection of vessel collisions in the giant manta ray. Mantas are also attracted to light sources, which can thus attract them to vessels and increase the possibility of collision.
Critical habitat has not been identified for the giant manta ray, as NOAA Fisheries has determined that no region within the United States fits the description and so it is not prudent to determine critical habitat at this time (NOAA Fisheries, 2019). However, manta rays are widely distributed along the East Coast of the United States (Farmer, N.A. et al., 2022), and potential nursery habitat (Pate, J.H. and Marshall, A.D., 2020) and reproductive/foraging areas have been identified off Florida’s east coast (MMF, unpublished data). In the Gulf of Mexico, manta rays are known to be associated with offshore oil and gas platforms in some areas (Childs, Jeffrey Nathaniel, 2001), so similar associations with OSW structures could be expected. The reason behind the association is unknown, and ultimately could be coincidental. Working theories are that mantas are attracted to the lights of the oil rigs, or to their prey that concentrate around the lights and the mantas are following their prey. They could also just be curious about the various activities occurring near the rigs such as diving. Due to the similarities between oil and gas rigs and structures associated with offshore wind, it is possible that there may be a similar pattern of association.
Researchers are hoping to learn more about the current population and their distribution in the U.S. Atlantic. Due to their overlap with offshore wind activity, giant manta rays are subject to all potential effects with respect to offshore wind discussed in section 1.2. Impacts of most concern for giant manta rays are vessel strike, noise, EMFs, water quality, changes in marine habitat, offshore lighting, and entanglement from gear utilization or anything that snags on the structures or wires in the water column. In addition, manta rays are planktivorous, so the upwelling and concentration of prey due to changes in hydrography could act as an additional attractant.
I.1.1.5 Oceanic Whitetip Shark
The oceanic whitetip shark is a pelagic highly migratory species globally distributed in tropical and subtropical waters. Little is known about the current population size, especially in the U.S. Atlantic. Historically, the species was widespread and abundant, but experienced a large population decline. However, a recent analysis of observer data in the U.S. Northwest Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery from 1992-2018 showed that the population may have stabilized following the decline, with additional evidence showing potential increases after 2010 (NOAA Fisheries, 2020). They typically occur from the surface to 152m in depth (Bonfil, Ramón et al., 2009), leaving them susceptible to commercial bycatch in multiple types of fishing gear, which remains a primary threat today (Young and Carlson, 2020). Utilization in the international shark fin trade has created additional pressures for the species.
Critical habitat has not been identified for the oceanic whitetip shark as NOAA Fisheries has determined that no region within the United States fits the description, and so it is not prudent to determine critical habitat at this time (NOAA Fisheries, 2020). However, Howey-Jordan et al., (Howey-Jordan et al., 2013) found that while oceanic whitetip sharks are typically found in waters further offshore, they do migrate to and from shallower reefs and exhibit site fidelity. McCandless et al., (McCandless et al., 2023)reviewed and synthesized the potential effects of offshore wind development on HMS. According to the report, the oceanic whitetip shark may be subject to all potential effects discussed in section 1.2., but of particular concern is exposure to EMF, exposure to sound pressure and particle motion, and potential hydrodynamic alterations due to presence of structures. Entanglement, both primary and secondary, will remain a threat to this species. On the other hand, turbines will likely create a fish aggregating device affecting aggregating their prey species. Oil rigs and other vertical structures like wrecks and artificial reefs have been shown to attract HMS. If beneficial enough, and some wind energy areas are planned to be quite large, this attraction could alter migration routes or migration timing for the oceanic whitetip shark which could have cascading effects.
I.1.1.6 Scalloped Hammerhead Shark
The scalloped hammerhead is a highly migratory species found in coastal warm temperate and tropical waters. The Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico DPS, whose distribution encompasses the majority of the RWSC study area, is not listed under the ESA. The Eastern Atlantic DPS and the Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS, which are both listed as Threatened, may overlap with U.S. Atlantic offshore wind activities, though interactions will be limited to Southern Florida and any vessel transits from Europe and the Gulf of Mexico. Research and genetic evidence also suggest that males are highly dispersive, and may be crossing oceans during migration (Daly-Engel et al., 2012). This research indicates that there may be a need to reevaluate the current management strategy for this species (Daly-Engel et al., 2012). Given the current uncertainties, as well as a changing environment, the scalloped hammerhead shark will be further discussed in this chapter. Any research conducted on the scalloped hammerhead can also be used as a test case for other shark species that overlap with offshore wind development in the region. Results and conclusions drawn will likely be representative of expected impacts and associated effects to other shark species.
Today, its main threats are interactions with commercial and recreational fisheries (as bycatch, and also as a target in the shark fin trade), habitat degradation, and vessel mortality. Individuals have also been found to accumulate pollutants (Miller, Margaret H. and al., 2014). Critical habitat has not been identified for the scalloped hammerhead shark. NOAA Fisheries has determined that no region within the United States fits the description of critical habitat (NOAA Fisheries, 2015). As noted above, McCandless et al., (McCandless et al., 2023) explored existing scientific literature on the potential effects of offshore wind development on HMS. Given their findings, the scalloped hammerhead shark may be subject to all potential effects discussed in section 1.2., but exposure to EMF, exposure to sound pressure and particle motion, and potential hydrodynamic alterations due to the presence of structures are of greatest concern. Primary and secondary entanglement will remain threats to this species during activities related to offshore wind development. However, the scalloped hammerhead shark will likely benefit from the presence of structures, as other vertical structures such as oil rigs, wrecks and artificial reefs have been shown to attract HMS. It is anticipated that turbines will similarly create a fish aggregating device effect, aggregating prey species. If the large wind energy areas prove significantly beneficial, this could alter the scalloped hammerhead migration routes and/or timing which could have cascading effects.
I.1.1.7 Nassau Grouper
The Nassau grouper is a reef fish generally found close to shore as larvae, but move into deeper reef areas as they grow. Historical information on its population is limited as fishing records for grouper were not separated by species, though they were known to be very common (NOAA Fisheries, 2013). This species produces sound that is thought to be associated with distress, and this call can be detected on many acoustic monitors.
Critical habitat has been proposed off the coasts of southeastern Florida, Puerto Rico, Navassa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In the RWSC study area, the Nassau grouper is only found in Florida.
Based on available information and the current BOEM Offshore wind lease planning areas, it is not expected that the Nassau grouper will be greatly impacted by offshore wind development on the U.S. Atlantic coast due to its limited distribution in the range of currently proposed development. However, if development expands, the Nassau grouper would be subject to all effects with respect to offshore wind discussed in section 1.2. Also, as a reef fish that has been documented to utilize natural and artificial reefs, the Nassau grouper may benefit from the alteration of soft bottom habitat associated with offshore wind.
I.1.1.8 Smalltooth Sawfish
The smalltooth sawfish is a cartilaginous fish that lives in subtropical to tropical climates. They suffered a decline due to fisheries bycatch and habitat loss, and there is not currently a population estimate for the species (Wiley and Brame, 2018).
The U.S. population of the smalltooth sawfish is listed as endangered under the ESA. Critical habitat for the smalltooth sawfish is currently proposed and shown below in Figure 3. There is a small section overlapping the RWSC study area in southeast Florida. New research, however, suggests that the smalltooth sawfish may be expanding farther north along the U.S. Atlantic into formerly occupied habitats (Lehman et al., 2022). Lehman et al., (2022) used eDNA to verify anecdotal reports of occupancy in the Indian River Lagoon, Florida and near Deer Island in the Mississippi Sound. The smalltooth sawfish is subject to all to all potential effects with respect to offshore wind discussed in section 1.2.
I.1.1.9 Whitespotted Eagle Ray
The whitespotted eagle ray is found in tropical to warm temperate waters and is mostly found close to shore. It was recently petitioned to be listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, with fishing pressure as a major concern and added threats from habitat loss and climate change (Defend Them All Foundation, 2023). It is currently in the 90-day evaluation process.
An assessment to determine critical habitat has not yet been completed. The whitespotted eagle ray is subject to all to all potential effects with respect to offshore wind discussed in section 1.2.
I.2 Potential Effects with Respect to Offshore Wind
As a group with varied distributive boundaries, some protected fish are more likely than others to overlap with leased and planned offshore wind areas including cable routes in the Atlantic Ocean. There are multiple potential impacts from offshore wind development on fish species. Impacts can be direct or indirect, as there may also be changes to: protected fish prey species’ distribution/abundance, local and regional hydrodynamics, or other environmental factors that will in turn effect protected fish. The descriptions of potential effects to protected fish such as underwater noise, vessel collision, entanglement, introduction of new structures, and electromagnetic fields are summarized in the Environmental Effects of U.S. Offshore Wind Energy Development: Compilation of Educational Research Briefs (SEER, 2022) and the Synthesis of the Science (Hogan et al., 2023). The gaps and needs are captured in the Atlantic Offshore Wind Environmental Research Recommendations as well as (Hogan et al., 2023). Due to knowledge gaps regarding protected fish and their life stages, the Subcommittee is aware that there might be unanticipated positive or negative effects.
Offshore wind development will alter benthic habitat as a result of hardening, boulder removal, seabed leveling, dredging, port expansion, and anchoring. Cable placement, scour protection, and the turbines themselves will all create hard structures where there previously was soft benthic habitat or open water. These alterations and associated changes will have varied effects on different species. Loss of large stretches of soft bottom habitat may force species to find new suitable areas to use for habitat, foraging, and other activities. This could result in increased energy expenditures and may decrease individual fitness (Hogan et al., 2023). The additional hard surfaces will also act as artificial reef structures, providing new habitats and shelter, likely attracting structure-oriented fish. The initial increase in fish abundance around structures will likely be from the redistribution of existing individuals rather than an increase in overall abundance. These individuals may then draw in HMS (Degraer et al., 2020). An increase in pelagic predators would increase predation risk for some protected species where previously there had been little or none. The increased concentration around each structure may also expand fishing activity. Higher levels of fishing activity in turn increases the risk of entanglement in fishing gear for protected fish, both primarily by active fishing activity and secondarily through ghost gear that is caught on the hard structures. The structures may also provide the opportunity for non-native species to colonize the area, and potentially facilitate their spread through the stepping stone effect. The expansion of non-native species can have an ecological impact on the area (Adams et al., 2014; De Mesel et al., 2015), and the protected species that use it. The alteration of soft benthic habitat will change the ecosystem, which can have both positive and negative effects on different fish species.
A seven-year study on demersal fish and invertebrates was conducted to determine if the Block Island Wind Farm (BIWF) had any beneficial or adverse effects on fish presence in the area. This was the first research of its kind in the United States, as the BIWF was the first U.S. wind farm to be established. Results varied by species, with structure-oriented species having higher capture rates inside the wind farm compared to the reference area following turbine construction. Little skate catch per unit effort decreased while spiny dogfish catches were higher during construction (Wilber, 2022). An additional study by Wilber et al., (2022) at the BIWF examined the dietary habits of flounder, gadids, and black seabass before construction, during construction, and during operation. They did not find any substantial changes, but noted that mussels and associated mysids were found in fish diets after construction, indicating their presence on the turbines and foraging by fish. Body condition impacts fluctuated from species to species. For example, silver hake had a slightly higher body condition during operations while multiple species of flounder were found to have decreased body conditions during wind farm operations (Wilber, 2022). While none of the species examined in either Wilber et al. study are protected, the studies give insight as to how different species might react to further wind farm development in the U.S. Atlantic and details the need for further research on this topic as developments expand.
There has been more research investigating the effect of offshore wind on fish in Europe. Degraer, S. et al., (Degraer, S. et al., 2018)conducted a study that examined the effects of offshore wind construction and operation on fish communities in the North Sea. Overall, they found an increase in fish abundance during the construction phase compared to the time period before construction. There was also a shift in species, where some became more prevalent and others did not. There was limited data on effects to fish after construction. This study highlights that some fish will be attracted to the newly formed hard structures in the water column and their associated hardening of benthic habitats, known as the reef effect. Others may avoid the area, whether it be due to the presence of noise, predators, electromagnetic fields, alterations to the benthic communities, or other factors.
Fish migration and seasonal habitat selection are intrinsically linked to annual oceanographic patterns that vary latitudinally, and any alterations to these patterns or their resulting ecosystem can have cascading effects on ecosystem function and associated food webs. The presence of structures has the potential to alter oceanographic, hydrodynamic, and atmospheric processes at multiple scales. Wind turbines extract energy from the system, resulting in reduced wind speed downstream and increased turbulence (Christiansen et al., 2022). These are known as atmospheric wakes, which merge together downstream when multiple turbines are clustered together (Christiansen et al., 2022). Increased turbulence can result in changes in circulation and stratification, which has potential implications on primary production and thus may impact fish distribution, including protected fish prey (Berkel et al., 2020; Carpenter et al., 2016; Daewel et al., 2022). The Mid-Atlantic Cold Pool, a mass of cooler bottom waters that forms throughout the Mid-Atlantic Bight in the spring and dissipates as a result of mixing events in the fall, supports marine ecosystems and regulates the migratory behaviors of many fish (Miles et al., 2021). The Cold Pool could be impacted by structure driven changes in stratification. It is therefore extremely important that wind wakes, associated changes to the thermocline and seasonal nutrient mixing are further studied, as changes may have large impacts not only on protected fish species, but also on the entire ecosystem.
Certain anatomical features of different fish species make them more susceptible to different impacts. For example, sharks, rays, and sturgeon have ampullae of Lorenzini, which are electro-receptive organs, linked to prey detection and navigation. Thus, alterations in ambient electromagnetic fields could affect their ability to feed and migrate normally. The effect of EMF emitted by HVDC subsea cables on little skate was examined in a study by BOEM, and though little skate are not protected, this study can help inform the potential behavioral patterns of electro-sensitive species when exposed to EMF introduced by offshore wind farms. The study found that when exposed to EMF, skates traveled further but slower, spent more time closer to the seabed, and made more large turns compared to behaviors observed in the control enclosure (Hutchison, Z. L. et al., 2018). BOEM noted that there is a need to study behavioral responses to higher levels of EMF. Multiple projects have investigated the effects of EMF on salmon. Scanlan et al., (Scanlan et al., 2018) conducted a study on nonanadromous Atlantic salmon, and found that juveniles oriented differently when exposed to varying levels of magnetic treatment. This study demonstrated that Atlantic salmon are able to detect spatial information from the surrounding geomagnetic field. Minkoff et al. (Minkoff et al., 2020), similarly conducted magnetic displacement experiments on Atlantic salmon, but compared two different populations. They found that while the movement of anadromous juveniles supported native migration patterns, nonanadromous salmon did not respond to the displacement. Klimley et al. (Klimley et al., 2017), conducted a study on the effect of distortions in the earth‘s main magnetic field on Chinook salmon smolts and adult green sturgeon which both migrate through the San Francisco Estuary. Both species successfully migrated past the source of large magnetic anomalies, suggesting that the change in magnetic field would not present a strong barrier to their movement patterns. McIntyre, A et al. (McIntyre, A et al., 2016), found that submarine HV cables did not cause any significant behavioral changes in sub-adult Atlantic sturgeon. It is clear through the results of these studies that more research is needed on additional life stages of protected fish species to gain a more thorough understanding of the impact that EMF will have on protected fish.
All stages of offshore wind development create underwater noise, which can result in effects to fish. These activities include, but are not limited to, pile driving, vessel traffic, aircraft, drilling, G&G surveys, jet-plowing, seabed preparation, UXO detonations, and turbine operation. Effects from sound range include non-auditory injury, auditory injury, physiological changes, behavioral disruption, and masking of communication. Impacts will vary depending on intensity of the noise source and detection abilities of the fish. Most teleosts have a swim bladder, which plays an important role in buoyancy maintenance of individual fish. These organs are susceptible to rapid changes in pressure and physical trauma (Gedamke, J. et al., 2016), which can occur through impulsive noise sources which are created during impact pile driving and pre-construction activities such as UXO detonations, HRG surveys, and geotechnical drilling surveys. Popper et al. (Popper AN et al., 2016), studied the effect of seismic air guns on Pallid sturgeon, and found that single pulses were not lethal, though the effects of multiple exposures remains to be studied. As there will be multiple exposures in each wind energy area, and many on a regional scale, this is an important area of continued research. While little research has been done on Atlantic sturgeon specifically, studies have been conducted on Lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens), a similar species. Lovell et al. (Lovell et al., 2005), investigated lake sturgeon hearing and found them to be responsive to particle motion rather than sound pressure. In a study that observed pile driving effects on lake sturgeon, a variety of injuries were reported including a partially deflated swim bladder, renal hematoma, and bruised kidneys (Halvorsen MB et al., 2012). Fleeing and avoidance of areas with active pile driving is likely to occur.
In addition to impulsive noise, offshore wind development will add continuous noise to the environment, mainly through wind turbine operation and increased vessel traffic. While continuous noise has lower pressure levels, so is less likely to cause an auditory injury, it can result in other impacts such as behavioral changes and masking of communication. Fish use sound for a variety of activities, including but not limited to, reproduction, feeding, when under threat, and even swimming (Kasumyan, A., 2009). Noise sources that overlap with the hearing frequency of fish can affect their ability to communicate via sound, and in some cases have direct impacts on their survival. In a study conducted on Ambon damselfish (Pomacentrus amboinensis) by Simpson, S. et al., (Simpson, S. et al., 2016), it was determined that exposure to motorboat sound increased their metabolic rate. This stress response slowed their active response to simulated strikes, and allowed them to be captured by predators at more than twice the rate compared to periods of ambient noise. Size of the turbine and speed of rotation can shift the frequency of created sound. Tougaard, Jakob et al., (Tougaard, Jakob et al., 2020) found that turbine operation source levels have lower frequency than ship noise in the same range, though ships move away from the area and turbines remain stationary for the life of the project. Through modeling, they determined that cumulative levels of turbine noise can be detected up to a few kilometers from the wind farm, with levels shifting in the presence of other loud noise sources (Tougaard, Jakob et al., 2020). Multiple types of turbine foundations are proposed for development in the region, each with different construction requirements and thus different noise related impacts. Marmo et al. (Marmo et al., 2013) investigated the use of jacket, monopile, and gravity foundations in Scotland on multiple species including Atlantic salmon. They concluded that Atlantic salmon are able to detect monopiles at larger ranges than gravity bases, but whether this affects their behavior is yet to be determined. The farther away a fish is from the turbine or wind energy area, the smaller the projected impact from underwater noise. Due to the regional scale development of offshore wind farms in the study area, operational noise impacts should be studied further, with specific regard to any changes that may result in movement and behavior. The accepted acoustic thresholds for protected fish were developed by the Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group (FHWG) (fisherieshydroacousticworkinggroup?)and (Popper et al., 2014), and are presented in the National Marine Fisheries Service: Summary of Endangered Species Act Acoustic Thresholds (Marine Mammals, Fishes, and Sea Turtles).
Plumes of turbid water can be observed as a result of offshore wind development activities such as pile driving, dredging, and port expansion. High levels of suspended sediment in the water column can result in a reduction of dissolved oxygen and altered visibility (Berry et al., 2003). Both decreased oxygen and increased sedimentation in the water can cause physiological stress in marine fish. Berg & Northcote, (Berg and Northcote, 1985) documented behavioral changes in juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) such as decreased capture success, lower percentage of ingested prey, and increased gill flaring when exposed to short-term pulses of suspended sediment. If the period of exposure increases, the effects of increased turbidity can be lethal (Johnson, A., 2018). While mobile fish are able to avoid areas of increased sedimentation, eggs and larvae may be buried when sediment is redeposited on the seafloor. This resettlement can result in a decreased rate of survival (Wilber and Clarke, 2001). Sediment Dispersion Modeling is being conducted and made public to show impacts from sediment resuspension during Project construction activities, such as for Vineyard Wind 1 (Crowley and Swanson, 2018). Dredging may also directly affect sturgeon or benthic prey species through impingement, entrainment or capture.
Any addition of vessels, both in number and in time spent in the area, increases the possibility of vessel strike. Vessel strike of the Atlantic sturgeon and giant manta ray have been extensively documented (Balazik, Matthew et al., 2012; Pate, J.H. and Marshall, A.D., 2020),and is listed as a threat to recovery for shortnose sturgeon. Offshore wind development utilizes various types of vessels that range in size and purpose. Current EISs evaluate vessel strike risk based on the estimated increase in vessel number in the project area. The Subcommittee would like to stress the importance of expanding this to include the increased amount of time vessels will remain in the project area, especially if the propeller is constantly running. Size of wheel, depth, location of vessels, vessel speed and draft should also be assessed with regards to vessel strike in each region over different seasons. An increased number of vessels in the area additionally results in an increased risk of accidental release. This can come in the form of chemical spills, such as fuel and oil, as well as release of other trash and debris. Fluids may also leak from turbines and offshore substations. Exposure and/or ingestion of chemicals and debris can negatively impact protected fish themselves, as well as the water quality surrounding the release.
Listed below based on existing research and Subcommittee expertise are the potential short-term and long-term effects of offshore wind development on protected fish species.
I.2.1 Potential short-term impacts of offshore wind pre-construction activities
Noise from seismic surveys
Increased vessel traffic
I.2.2 Potential short-term impacts of offshore wind construction activities
Sedimentation/plumes in water column at the turbines and along the cable route
Impulsive noise from pile driving and HRG surveys
Non-impulsive noise from construction vessels
Exposure to accidental release
Exposure to lighting
Vessel strike
Disturbance of benthic habitat from possible leveling, anchoring, boulder removal, dredging and port expansion
Discharges/intakes/entrainment
I.2.3 Potential long-term impacts of offshore wind operation and maintenance
Presence of structures in the water column. This includes the piles, turbine masts, scour protection, cable protection, and cables (for floating offshore wind).
Changes to oceanography and local hydrodynamic processes
Potential change of ocean stratification and physical water column properties
Potential impacts to planktonic prey species and/or larval transport
Artificial reef effect
More susceptible to recreational fishing
More susceptible to secondary entanglement
Alterations of benthic habitats because of hardening, cable placement (including export cables), boulder removal, seabed leveling, dredging, port expansion, anchoring.
Continuous noise from turbines
Exposure to accidental releases such as chemical contaminants or marine debris
Exposure to EMF from cables
Interaction with or avoidance of monitoring survey gear
Exposure to lighting
There are additional concerns with regard to project decommissioning and how removing all added structures from the water column and seabed will alter the established environment and associated environmental conditions. These changes will have impacts on species that use created habitat and expose species to new conditions. It is thought that the impacts of conceptual decommissioning on protected fish may be major. As the life span of each project is expected to be 30 years, the Subcommittee will further investigate potential impacts and research needs for the decommissioning stage at a later date. This includes the review of decommissioned oil and gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, the comparison of different methods utilized, and the varying impacts to protected fish populations and their behavior.
The Subcommittee would also like to note that each of these impact producing factors may individually affect protected fish species, but they also have the potential for cumulative and synergistic effects. Impacts need to be assessed at the project level as well as at the cumulative level throughout the region.
I.3 Sources of Regional-Scale Protected Fish Distribution Information
Scientific surveys have taken place region wide for decades. They employ multiple methods, target multiple species, and provide spatial and temporal data for a wide variety of species. These surveys may encounter various protected fish species, where data are collected, samples are taken, and resuscitation is provided if needed. The federal government, state governments, universities, citizen science programs, and other research organizations have supported this long standing and essential data collection. Conventional tag, sighting, and bycatch data are also collected for some protected fish species, and contribute to what is known about each species. These are all crucial to the monitoring of protected fish, especially given their migration patterns throughout the region.
Despite the long-standing effort, much is still unknown about each protected fish species and their life stages. Telemetry, both acoustic and satellite, is a data collection method that is regularly deployed for many species of protected fish as well as other taxa in the region. Fish are acoustically tagged in one location and can be detected for the life of the applied tag on existing arrays. Researchers communicate to discover the source of outside tags detected on their arrays, and to find out where their tagged fish have been detected. This collaboration allows for an increased knowledge on regional fish distribution, migration patterns, and seasonality. Many researchers studying protected species utilize data sharing networks and systems, which are described below, amongst other sources or regional-scale distribution information.
I.3.1 The Atlantic Cooperative Telemetry Network (ACT)
“A grassroots effort to facilitate data sharing between researchers utilizing acoustic telemetry to gain a greater understanding of a wide variety of aquatic species. What started with 15 researchers working on Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon that year has expanded to over 138 from Maine to Florida working with over 95 different species. Researchers maintain their own arrays, so transmitters deployed and array sizes are dependent on seasonal conditions, research needs, and available funding (“The atlantic cooperative telemetry network,” n.d.).” In 2020, the ACT Network merged with the Mid-Atlantic Acoustic Telemetry Observation System (MATOS). Since then, ACT data are housed in the ACT-MATOS database, which is a web-based tool and database for researchers and natural resource professionals to manage acoustic telemetry data in a searchable, secure database. ACT uses OTN data formats and data sharing occurs in collaboration with OTN, FACT and some other regional networks (MATOS, n.d.).”
I.3.2 The FACT Network
“The FACT Network is a grassroots collaboration of marine scientists using acoustic telemetry and other technologies to better understand and conserve our region’s important fish and sea turtle species. The FACT Network originated as the Florida Atlantic Coast Telemetry Network but has since grown to include partners from the Bahamas to the Carolinas and is now known simply as the FACT Network. –It’s purpose is to expand the scale and cost effectiveness of behavioral studies through partnerships and data sharing, encourage new projects and student involvement with an inclusive research atmosphere, and communicate findings to policy makers and the public to guide coastal management decisions (SECOORA, 2023).” FACT uses OTN data formats and data sharing occurs in collaboration with OTN, ACT and some other regional networks.
I.3.3 Ocean Tracking Network (OTN)
“The Ocean Tracking Network (OTN) is a global aquatic research, data management and partnership platform headquartered at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. OTN’s mission is to inform the stewardship and sustainable management of aquatic animals by providing knowledge on their movements, habitats and survival in the face of changing global environments. Since 2008, OTN has been deploying state-of-the-art ocean monitoring equipment and marine autonomous vehicles (gliders) in key ocean locations and inland waters around the world. OTN’s technical capabilities expanded in 2020 with the addition of remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) and side scan sonar systems. Researchers around the world are using OTN’s global infrastructure and analytical tools to document the movements and survival of aquatic animals in the context of changing ocean and freshwater environments (Ocean Tracking Network, 2023).” OTN also supports regional, national, and international data sharing efforts.
I.3.4 NMFS Long-Term Scientific Surveys
NMFS Long-term protected species, fisheries, and ecosystem surveys form the backbone of the scientific monitoring system needed for the management of wildlife, fisheries, habitats, and ecosystems. In order understand potential changes in wildlife and habitats from offshore wind energy development, it is critical that long-term standardized surveys continue to provide timely, accurate, and precise data on wildlife, habitats, and ecosystems. The need to fully implement the NMFS and BOEM Survey Mitigation Strategy (Hare et al., 2022) is critical to putting site and regional level studies in the context of population trends and ecosystem conditions. The Strategy calls for the development of a Northeast Survey Mitigation Program. This is largely unfunded, but it is highlighted as a significant priority for the region and protected species science. Similar mitigation strategies will need to be applied in the southeastern U.S. as offshore wind development advances.
I.3.5 Regional Passive Acoustic Monitoring Network
The RWSC Marine Mammal Subcommittee has been coordinating around the planning and implementation of a regional passive acoustic monitoring network for understanding effects of offshore wind on large whales (e.g., displacement or attraction, changes in behavior). Not all fish make noise, but those that do would be detected on some acoustic systems deployed to detect large whales. Of the ESA listed fish in the RWSC study area, the Nassau grouper produces sounds that are thought to be made in a period of alarm. Though it is not well understood, Atlantic sturgeon also make noise. More research should be dedicated to sturgeon sound production so that PAM can be better utilized to study them. In addition, many small fish that serve as prey species make sounds that are detected on passive acoustic monitors, and can give a better understanding of the whole ecosystem. Many of the deployed PAM instruments have also been outfitted with acoustic receivers, including all deployed by the NEFSC. The Protected Fish Species Subcommittee should coordinate with the Marine Mammal Subcommittee to make this information more readily available to both groups.
I.3.6 Observer Data and Reports
In the RWSC study area, there are multiple observer programs that collect data from commercial fishing vessels and fish processing plants. The Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) and Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) trains and supports federal observers for their respective regions. Some states also support their own observer programs and data collection. Observer data are essential for the monitoring and conservation of NOAA trust resources, and are used to support stock assessments and fishery management, reduce bycatch, document species, and support the research community. Observers do come into contact with some protected fish species, and record biological information, locational data, and may collect samples depending on the species.
I.3.7 ESA 5-Year Reviews
Every five years, the status (i.e., threatened or endangered) of ESA-listed fish is reviewed to ensure they maintain the appropriate level of protection under the ESA. The reviews assess whether a species’ status has changed since the time of its listing or its last status review, and whether it should be classified differently or delisted. Information gathered during those reviews can help inform management activities intended to support species recovery.
I.4 RWSC Study Area
The RWSC study area is organized by subregion along the U.S. Atlantic coast, roughly aligned with current offshore wind development planning areas. RWSC subregions and map are described on page 2 of Chapter 2: Science Plan Organization. Many protected fish are distributed across multiple subregions, and it is important to gain a regional perspective on the changing environments. The Subcommittee would like to stress that in all subregions, fine-scale baseline data on protected fish and their life stages are still needed. Without established baselines, assessing and mitigating effects of offshore wind will be challenging.
The Gulf of Maine, where offshore wind projects are still in the planning phases, has a range of marine habitats from deep sea canyons to rocky intertidal zones. These habitats support a wide variety of marine organisms including multiple species of protected fish. The Gulf of Maine also connects rivers that are the only remaining wild habitat for Atlantic salmon. More robust baseline data about the occurrence, distribution, and movement of protected fish species and their life stages in this region are needed. These data should be collected via telemetry and eDNA and paired with classic methods such as trawl surveys. All efforts, regardless of tool/method should use consistent data collection protocols in consultation with the Protected Fish Species Subcommittee. Oceanographic variables such as temperature, currents, tides, salinity, and other contextual information (e.g., quantifications of vessel traffic, EMF) should be co-collected or obtained from collaborators (e.g., NERACOOS, Rutgers, MARACOOS) to provide context and help identify drivers of species’ distribution and movement. Wind projects in this region will utilize floating structures. Many of the same impacts from traditionally anchored piles will apply to floating offshore wind, though floating offshore structures incorporate new technologies such as mooring lines that span the entire water column. The subcommittee would like to test how these lines will impact protected fish species, such as their potential to cause secondary entanglement. The University of Maine’s VulturnUS 1:8 floating turbine was energized and monitored, and no change to detection frequency was seen for tagged Atlantic salmon, Atlantic Sturgeon, or shortnose sturgeon on receivers near the turbine (Brady, 2015). Focal species in these regions include Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon and shortnose sturgeon. The oceanic whitetip shark and giant manta ray may also be found in this region.
Southern New England and NY/NJ Bight has a variety of habitats that are used as spawning, feeding, and migration corridors for many species. The Cold Pool is a key oceanographic feature of the MAB that supports many fish species. In southern New England, offshore wind development has already begun. While small in scale, the Block Island Wind Farm (BIWF) became the first in the U.S., and construction has begun for additional projects. Existing baseline data collected using multiple tools such as acoustic telemetry, satellite telemetry, eDNA, and trawl surveys need to be integrated to characterize protected fish species’ distribution and movement pre-offshore wind construction. It is also essential to emphasize the continuation of data collection and monitoring throughout all phases of development. Additional data collection activities should also explore the potential impacts from floating wind in the deeper waters along/off the shelf break. These analyses should leverage characterizations of the potential stressors of interest, including quantifications of vessel traffic changes, EMF, sediment resuspension, and entrainment. Close collaboration between researchers and developers is needed to avoid duplication of efforts. Focal species in these regions include Atlantic sturgeon and shortnose sturgeon. The oceanic whitetip shark and giant manta ray are also found in this region.
In Central Atlantic and Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, baseline data collection on the occurrence, distribution, and movement of protected fish is still needed. There is an emphasis to begin monitoring activities in the Central Atlantic, as projects in this subregion are farther along in the development process. The Central Atlantic is home to the Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, and giant manta ray. The whitespotted eagle ray is also found in this region. These species are also distributed in the southeastern U.S. Atlantic, as well as the listed Central & Southwest Atlantic distinct population segment of scalloped hammerhead shark, Nassau grouper, and smalltooth sawfish, though offshore wind development in the Southeastern U.S. Atlantic is still in the planning process.
I.5 Research Recommendations: Protected fish and Offshore Wind in the U.S. Atlantic Ocean
Efforts to address fish and offshore wind have already begun. The following research recommendations aim to build on existing research to fill data gaps and advance the understanding of protected fish species. The Subcommittee curated research recommendations around four major research themes that were decided upon by the RWSC Steering committee: understanding the environmental context around changes to wildlife and habitats, detecting and quantifying changes to wildlife and habitats; mitigating negative impacts that are likely to occur and/or are severe in magnitude; and enhancing data sharing and access. These recommendations fall into three categories: data collection, data analysis, and data management. The Subcommittee would like to note that assigning causality to observed changes may not be possible, especially with the lack of baseline data on many protected fish species in a rapidly changing environment. Collecting long-term data series before, during, and after construction will aid in the ability to distinguish shifts caused by different factors such as natural variation and climate change, though this task remains challenging.
I.5.1 Data Collection
Several entities are requiring, funding, and/or advocating for protected fish species research and data collection activities with respect to offshore wind. All ongoing and pending activities, including protected fish species monitoring that is being required by agencies, are captured in the RWSC Offshore Wind & Wildlife Research Database. Individuals and entities should consult with the Protected Fish Species Subcommittee prior to collecting protected fish species data with respect to offshore wind to ensure that any new data collection does not duplicate existing efforts and is consistent with the tools and approaches already in use. Any individual or entity may join public Protected Fish Species Subcommittee meetings by obtaining meeting links on the RWSC website, where past meeting materials are also available
To address the potential effects of offshore wind development on protected fish, a variety of methods are currently being employed. A combination of methods is recommended to provide the most complete information and context. The table below describes data collection methods utilized to study protected fish.
Table 3. Data Collection Methods and Descriptions. This table summarizes data collection methods that are currently being used to study protected fish species.
| Data Collection Method | Description |
| Acoustic telemetry | Includes deploying acoustic transmitters on animals and deploying receivers to detect tagged animals. |
| Satellite telemetry | Satellite tags are attached to animals, GPS and various environmental data are collected. |
| Conventional tagging | Various types of non-electronic tags can be attached to protected fish both internally and externally. |
| eDNA | Environmental DNA (eDNA) is shed by an organism and can be picked up in the environment via water sample collection. It is currently used to assess presence/absence and gather high level assemblage information (USGS, 2018). |
| Nets, tows, lines, and traps | Multiple long standing surveys are conducted along the coast utilizing various types of fishing gear. |
| Aerial surveys | Standard survey technique. Can be used to count individuals/species and/or to quantify abundance via manned planes or uncrewed vehicles. Of the protected fish, this is mostly utilized for manta rays. |
| Boat-based visual surveys | Standard survey technique. Can be used to count individuals/species and/or to quantify abundance. |
| Opportunistic visual surveys | Surveys that serve another purpose or target other species that opportunistically allow for data collection on protected fish. |
| Holographic camera system | Records full-field, high resolution distortion-free images in situ. Machine Learning algorithms have been developed and are being used to identify Atlantic sturgeon larvae in the Central Atlantic. |
| Acoustic imagery sonar | Side scan sonars, split beam sonars, multibeam sonars and DIDSON/ARIS systems emit beams which result in backscatter that results in seabed imaging. |
| Baited Remote Underwater Videos Stations (BRUVS) | Deployed in water column or at seafloor and provide visual record of species presence. Some systems can also collect length information. This tool is nondestructive and can be used in harder-to-sample areas (e.g., on scour protection). |
| Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) | Hydrophones deployed to record and archive sound produced by animals in the environment. Hydrophones can be stationary or mobile. Reporting can be done in real time or stored and archived. |
| Salvage operations | Respond to reports of stranded animals (dead or alive/in distress) and take the appropriate steps given the condition of the animal. |
| Biological sampling and measurements | From captured individuals, collect body measurements and/or samples of biological material such as fin clips. Physiological measurements including stress hormones from blood, blow, mucus, tissue, fecal samples, etc. Proper animal handling protocols should always be used when collecting samples and taking measurements. NOAA Fisheries and the AZA are two entities that provide safe handling guidelines. |
| Water quality and oceanography | In-situ measurements of abiotic properties including salinity, dissolved oxygen, temperature, etc. |
Most offshore-wind-specific monitoring to-date of protected fish species in the U.S. Atlantic is occurring in Southern New England and the NY/NJ Bight on Atlantic sturgeon, with the goal of characterizing baseline distribution and movement. There are also significant and ongoing data collection efforts in estuaries and coastal areas throughout the United States. While most of these efforts are not explicitly related to offshore wind, their findings can be used to augment the baseline understanding of protected fish species in the region. Via cooperative and collaborative networks, these independent efforts will help build a larger understanding of fish movement, abundance, and use of the region over space and time. This, in turn, will help to detect changes resulting from the development of offshore wind.
As previously noted, NMFS long-term scientific surveys are a critical monitoring system for the management of wildlife, fisheries, habitats, and ecosystems. In order to understand potential changes in protected fish species and their habitats from offshore wind energy development, it is essential that these long-term standardized surveys continue to provide timely, accurate, and precise data. The need to fully implement the NMFS and BOEM Survey Mitigation Strategy and apply a similar strategy to the southeast region is highlighted as a significant priority for regional protected fish research and monitoring.
The Subcommittee lists the following priorities and recommends associated data collection activities, noting that these recommendations are to be reviewed and updated on a regular basis:
Collect information on distribution, abundance, behavior, health, reproduction, and other vital population rates of protected fish at all life stages. This includes estuarine and freshwater habitat if distribution expands into those environments. It is imperative to gain a better spatiotemporal understanding of protected species and their migration patterns to assert when and how they are most likely to use WEAs. Due to the differing ecosystems across the region, and migration patterns of multiple species of protected fish, it is important that data is collected on a region-wide scale. All life stages should be examined. To study early life stages, dispersal models and plankton cameras should be utilized. This includes attraction/avoidance, residency, feeding, use of area. Data collected will be used to understand changes to the environment resulting from offshore wind development.
Deploy fine-scale acoustic receiver arrays in and around leased and proposed Wind Energy Areas and associated cable routes. Pair deployments with acoustic and satellite tagging of protected fish. Note that tags have limited operating time, so tagging operations will need to continue over the life of the project.
Plan and implement telemetry data collection activities in a consistent way, such that data and metadata from individual projects is standardized and interoperable.
Utilize additional data collection methods such as conventional tagging (i.e. non-electronic), eDNA, and others in collaboration with telemetry to aid the identification of changes in residency or usage of the area.
Expand projects like Buoys of Opportunity across the region to co-locate acoustic receivers to structures already in/going in the water.
- Facilitate coordination with other entities such as federal agencies, states, researchers, fishermen, industry, eNGOs, etc. to know when and where receivers can be installed.
Evaluate the presence and stability of current acoustic receiver arrays and design new infrastructure to ensure spatial and temporal coverage of wind energy areas and other important habitat areas for protected species.
- Encourage industry to make participation in regional networks a condition of funding.
Couple on-bottom deployment of acoustic receivers with bottom temperature measurements to the extent possible.
Require that all new tags/groups submit their data to the Animal Telemetry Network and/or appropriate regional nodes in an agreed upon time frame to allow for archiving, securing, and publishing.
Ensure that monitoring begins prior to pre-construction activities and continues throughout all phases of development, including after decommissioning.
Design a distributed region wide system of receiver arrays that serve as the backbone for projects throughout the region. This includes receivers offshore/along the shelf which are limited in the current project landscape.
Ensure that this system has sustained investment for operation and maintenance.
Require that all new tags/groups submit their data to the Animal Telemetry Network and/or appropriate regional nodes in an agreed upon time frame to allow for archiving, securing, and publishing.
Implement and fund survey mitigation recommendations articulated in the NOAA Fisheries & BOEM Federal Survey Mitigation Strategy (Hare et al., 2022).
Support the successful completion of objective 1.2.3 of the Strategy to develop an inter-agency resource plan to support a survey mitigation program.
- Funding and resources will need to be given to address project level and cumulative effects of offshore wind farms to scientific surveys.
As offshore wind development expands into different regions, a strategy for the southeast will be developed. We will also support its implementation.
Collect biological samples, body measurements and additional metrics on captured protected fish.
Collect as part of directed studies or opportunistically when a protected fish species is captured on a survey.
- Provide a more thorough understanding of each species and life stage.
Conduct field studies to fully document giant manta ray migration
- Utilize multiple methods such as aerial surveys, boat-based surveys, and external tagging to fully understand the difference in habitat use, and resulting threats to, the two species of manta ray to aid in their conservation.
Collect and analyze data to support development of an adult distribution model for smalltooth sawfish.
Collect and analyze data to support development of larval and adult connectivity/distribution models for Nassau grouper.
Evaluate the risks of known impact producing factors to protected fish from offshore wind development.
Develop tools and monitoring mechanisms to better understand coastal transfer of protected fish species, if/when vessel strikes occur, and what vessels are typically involved. It is important to understand the change in vessel traffic in offshore wind farm project areas with emphasis on shallower waters close to ports and estuaries, in known migration corridors, and other areas of spatiotemporal overlap. The scope of current studies on risk of vessel strike needs to be expanded. Instead of focusing only on the number of additional vessels, studies should target the amount of time propellers are spinning in place, different wheel sizes, and different depths where vessels are present for each OSW project.
Coordinate with state agencies for recorded information on protected fish sightings, incidental catches, and beach strandings, particularly for Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon and giant manta ray.
- Ensure sufficient human and financial resources to support local salvage operations. Stranding hotlines and programs already exist for some protected fish species. However, these programs are largely underfunded, and lack the personnel and resources to attend to all reports. Fully studying strandings, both dead and alive, will give researchers a better understanding as to what is affecting the populations in each region and insight as to how to best mitigate these effects.
Coordinate with the RWSC Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Subcommittees to develop a reporting system for protected fish strandings similar to what is being done for marine mammals and sea turtles.
Encourage voluntary reporting and data collection for known vessel interactions with protected fish, particularly sturgeon.
Create and test mitigation measures to prevent vessel strikes.
Measure the amount and type of noise and produced by each vessel and how these change over time.
Conduct further laboratory and field studies of EMF effects on protected fish species, especially Chondrichthyes and sturgeons to assess potential impacts, such as any change in migration patterns, feeding, or behavior.
Directed studies in situ of effects of EMF from transmission cables on protected fish species occurrence, movement, behavior, and feeding patterns.
The Subcommittee would like to build upon existing research and use their recommendations such as exposing animals to higher levels of EMF.
Prioritize conditions similar to where full cable burial is unable to be achieved.
Prioritize Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, giant manta ray, and Atlantic salmon, particularly in the adult and smolt life stages.
Conduct similar directed studies on protected fish prey species.
Conduct in situ examinations of noise impacts to protected fish species.
- Conduct studies on all impulsive and continuous noise sources such as impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving, boat noise, turbine operational noise, aircraft noise, HRG surveys, cable laying activity, etc.
Assess both primary and secondary entanglement risk to all protected fish species associated with offshore wind. There is the potential for increased recreational fishing near wind turbines which would lead to primary entanglement, as well as an increased possibility of secondary entanglement due to ghost gear and debris attaching to structures in the water. Risk should be assessed for structures associated with both standard and floating offshore wind technologies.
- In the southeast region, giant manta ray should be prioritized.
Collaborate with other subcommittees to maximize data collection efforts and gain a more thorough understanding of whether or not/to what degree turbines and other structures alter the hydrodynamics, benthic habitat distribution, food resources, stratification and mixing both at the local level directly behind the wind farm and at the cumulative regional level.
Marine Mammal: Maintain a shareable database and/or map of the acoustic telemetry receivers that may be co-located with bottom-mounted PAM hydrophones.
Sea Turtle: Ensure that sea turtle researchers are able to utilize telemetry to arrays if desired.
Technology: Test and implement any technological advancements that may be required to continue long-standing data scientific surveys and data collection in areas that are no longer accessible or are accessible in a limited extent that will influence continuity of surveys.
Habitat and Ecosystem: Work with the Habitat & Ecosystem Subcommittee to ensure that key oceanographic and habitat data are collected and available to use in coordination with studies on protected fish.
- Identify oceanographic and habitat variables of interest with respect to mapping and modeling of protected fish distribution and movement.
Technology advancements to improve protected fish research and monitoring:
Develop and test telemetry tags with further miniaturization for use with smaller individuals.
- Evaluate the use of open protocol telemetry equipment for new studies at offshore wind energy areas.
Improve data resolution and positional accuracy of telemetry tags and test adding sensors (magnetometers, sound, DO, chlorophyll, etc.) to existing tags.
Investigate the use of eDNA to accurately measure fish species abundance in addition to occurrence.
Test methods to make lines in the water more visible to megafauna and more rigid to mitigate entanglements.
Mantas do not see well, so anything that would make the cables easier to see will be beneficial.
Continue to support and fund research and testing of ropeless gear to limit the vertical lines in the water column.
Improve or develop machine learning or AI detection for soniferous protected fish (Nassau grouper, potentially Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon) in Passive Acoustic Data sources. PAM is being utilized by NOAA and wind developers in the region, so ongoing passive acoustic monitoring will maximize this available dataset to both capture changes in the soundscape and detect selected protected fish species.
I.5.2 Data Analysis
Data analyses should characterize oceanographic and habitat drivers of protected fish species distribution, abundance, and behavior, seek to assess whether offshore wind is causing any observed changes, and inform where new data collection is needed. Individuals and entities should consult with the Protected Fish Species Subcommittee prior to conducting analyses of protected fish species data with respect to offshore wind to ensure that the study leverages all available data and contributes to addressing the key issues described below. The following data analysis activities are needed:
Identify and use historical data collections from multiple sources to generate a baseline of distribution and abundance of protected fish species.
- Determine/describe useful baseline parameters to be used where thorough abundance and density data are not available.
Develop best practices for integrating data from multiple methods (telemetry, eDNA, trawl surveys, aerial surveys) across scales to model baseline species’ distribution and movement using oceanographic variables and other contextual information (e.g., quantifications of vessel traffic). The modeling framework should be applicable to individual projects and at regional scales such that consistent approaches are used across projects, and eventually in other subregions of the RWSC study area. This is a primary analytical goal, as it is overall unclear how data from multiple efforts will be analyzed, interpreted, and/or synthesized to develop spatial representations of species occurrence, occupancy, and other potential metrics. It is similarly unclear how species data will be analyzed with environmental data to identify drivers of presence, movement, and/or behavior.
- Assess what technology best suits studies for each protected species and life stage.
Develop standardized data products for protected fish movement data that can be replicated throughout the region.
Analyze existing plankton camera data for presence of early life stages of protected fish and protected fish prey. Use this data to develop dispersal models.
Leverage currently deployed instrumentation and design new studies to examine the effects of impact producing factors derived from construction and operation activities such as pile driving and G&G surveys.
Attempt to determine the causality of any changes in protected fish abundance, distribution, or behavior. This includes disentangling effects related to offshore wind development from those due to climate change, natural variability, or other causes.
Ensure that protected fish species are included in risk modeling that is similarly being applied to other species, e.g., Project WOW.
Population Viability Analyses
Population Consequences of Disturbance (PCOD)
Population Consequences of Multiple Stressors (PCOMS)
Model potential impacts of intake and entrainment from HVDC cooling systems to protected fish species.
Evaluate mitigation techniques to limit exposure of sedimentation.
- Model predicted patterns of sedimentation/resuspension to estimate potential impacts to protected species. These can be used to advanced current mitigation measures and investigate the development of new measures.
Continually evaluate the performance of existing models and statistical frameworks. Models should be updated as new information becomes available.
- Use validation and evaluation results to continually inform and advance the model/framework development and application. Models should be updated as new information becomes available.
Develop analyses of vessel and protected fish species co-occurrence that model nearshore vessel traffic as well as other areas of spatiotemporal overlap with protected fish such as known migration corridors.
I.5.3 Data Management
The Protected Fish Species Subcommittee will work with individuals and entities who collect data relevant to protected fish studies to ensure that data are collected and stored in consistent formats. This will enhance comparisons and pooling across individual projects in the RWSC study area to conduct regional-scale assessments and to develop and maintain regional-scale data products. The following table lists the existing centralized or accepted repositories and standards that should be used and identifies data types for which no or limited data management capacity (i.e., repositories and standards) currently exists.
The Subcommittee will develop guidance specific to protected fish species telemetry data to reconcile (or appropriately leverage) any redundancy among the various existing telemetry data repositories (Movebank, ATN, and the regional telemetry data nodes).
Table 4: Data Methods, Repositories, and Existing Standards. This table summarizes data collection methods, the existing repository for each method, and describes whether standards exist for that method or need to be developed.
| Method(s) and data type(s) | Repository | Existing Standards |
| Observational surveys; telemetry data; acoustic monitoring; photo identification; oceanographic data products; model outputs | OBIS-SEAMAP(Ocean Biogeographic Information System – Spatial Ecological Analysis of Megavertebrate Populations |
|
| Satellite tagging data; acoustic tagging data through the regional nodes Atlantic Cooperative Telemetry (ACT) and FACT networks | Animal Telemetry Network (ATN) |
|
| Acoustic tagging data | FACT Network |
|
| Acoustic tagging data | Atlantic Cooperative Telemetry Network(ACT Network Data are managed in the ACT-MATOS database following the merger of ACT and MATOS in 2020). |
|
| Satellite tagging, Acoustic tagging, VHF tagging, other tagging | Movebank |
|
| High-definition aerial imagery | None; records of observations from photos go to OBIS-SEAMAP |
|
| eDNA | None – needs development |
|
In addition, the Subcommittee recommends the following:
Leverage ROSA’s work to standardize offshore wind fisheries monitoring plans and trawl surveys so that protected fish species data are accessible for use in RWSC’s and partners’ analyses and research.
Cross taxa: Convene an Offshore Wind & Acoustic Telemetry Data Collaborative with goals to coordinate on the deployment of acoustic telemetry receivers and acoustic and satellite tags on protected fish, and other species of focus within RWSC (e.g., sea turtles), and ROSA (e.g., highly migratory species, Atlantic cod) and in the context of offshore wind development. Include and build on existing work by partners including ATN, FACT, ACT-MATOS Network, OTN, and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. The Data Collaborative would ensure that data are collected and stored consistently such that data can be pooled to develop a set of standardized data products that represent metrics such as distribution, abundance, occupancy, movement, etc.
Ensure that data are collected and stored in consistent formats that allow comparisons and pooling across individual projects in the RWSC study area to conduct regional-scale assessments and the development of regional-scale data products.
Develop or adopt existing best practices for acoustic telemetry data collection, QA/QC, management, storage, and sharing/accessibility and require their consistent use across taxa/projects.
Ensure sufficient human resources to support project planning, manage acoustic telemetry databases, collaborate with ATN and OTN on data sharing, and facilitate data compilation and synthesis.
Make recommendations available to funders to communicate the need for sufficient resources
Support regular evaluation of infrastructure as more and more data are collected.
Characterize the acoustic telemetry receiver network with the purpose of integrating multiple individual efforts into a coordinated and intentional regional network for offshore wind studies that addresses gaps in coverage. Develop maps that show the receiver network in the RWSC study area over time with attribution/contact information for receiver owners. Make maps, to a certain degree, available to the research community and public.
It is important to note how long each receiver will be in place, as there may be gaps for short term arrays.
A priority is to identify critical locations for receiver arrays to be placed long term and identify funding institutions to purchase, deploy, and maintain the arrays.
- Ensure funding for sufficient human resources to support the development and maintenance of maps.
Coordinate the co-location of receivers with other ocean-deployed sensors (e.g., with the RWSC Marine Mammal Subcommittee and regional IOOS associations).
Work with researchers and industry to develop a reasonable time frame for data to be submitted.
- Create process for requesting time extensions on data submission.
Coordinate with national laboratories and other organizations to develop a database on all research regarding protected fish and offshore wind. Regions that are further behind (time-wise) in offshore wind development can use existing knowledge to advance technologies and practices to limit negative effects on protected fish.
Compile existing data from the hydropower industry to see how all life stages of fish are impacted with particular emphasis on impingement and entrainment of the early life stages.