7

Effects and Benefits of Offshore Renewable Energy

This chapter describes potential interactions with ORE development across commercial, Tribal, and recreational fishing, shipping, other maritime activities, and Coast Guard operations related to commercial fishing vessels. It builds upon the previous chapters, which described the current and potential future state of maritime activities, shipping, fisheries, and Coast Guard operations. Both benefits from and burdens caused by ORE development, as well as possible mitigation strategies, are explored. The chapter concludes with recommendations.

OFFSHORE RENEWABLE ENERGY AND FISHERIES INTERACTIONS

Effects on the California Current Ecosystem

An area of concern around FOW development is the impact projects may have on oceanographic processes, such as upwelling and primary production along the West Coast. Wind turbines extract wind energy from the atmosphere, cause wind wake effects (see Chapter 5), and thereby inherently affect wind-driven upwelling and circulation. The magnitude of these effects, and effects on the ecosystem, including fish and fisheries, merit continued study (Jacox, 2025; Raghukumar et al., 2023). As discussed in Chapter 3, the CCE is highly dynamic, and much of the primary production that supports fisheries relies on upwelling of cold, nutrient-rich waters. To date there are no operational FOW projects of similar size to those proposed offshore California, which have the potential to install at least 4.6 GW of capacity in the Humbolt and Morro Bay lease areas. The effects of large capacity FOW arrays on ocean dynamics, including coastal upwelling, have not been measured.

However, results from recent modeling studies that consider the effects of energy generation from up to 8 GW of installed capacity off California indicate that while FOW could have significant local effects on upwelling, both positive and negative, there would likely be minimal net impact to upwelling measured across a wind lease area (Jacox, 2025; Raghukumar et al., 2023). Further modeling has suggested lesser effects on nutrient supply to surface waters and primary production (Jacox, 2025). These studies suggest that while ORE installations yield local effects, these changes would be dispersed and not significant given the considerable natural variability and changing ocean conditions at the level of FOW installation modeled. California’s strategic plan to install 25 GW of FOW capacity by 2045 would exceed current modeling considerations.

Conclusion 7-1: Current modeling (that considers up to 8 GW of installed floating offshore wind capacity) indicates upwelling, nutrient supply, and productivity may be affected locally, but impacts likely will not be significant for the U.S. waters off the West Coast more broadly, particularly when compared to natural variability and the changes associated with climate change. However, ongoing monitoring and updated modeling is needed to confirm whether and how upwelling, nutrient supply, and productivity may be affected in the future.

The environmental effects of ORE are addressed in a compilation of educational briefs as part of the U.S. Offshore Wind Synthesis of Environmental Effects Research project (SEER, 2022) and reviews (Farr et al., 2021; Harris et al., 2025). Subjects include bats and birds, vessel collision, entanglement, underwater noise, fish ecology, electromagnetic fields, and benthic disturbance.

Effects of ORE on the movement of fish (e.g., tuna) or marine mammals (e.g., gray and humpback whales) on the U.S. West Coast are unknown. Limited data exist for the effects of ORE on marine species in waters off the United Kingdom where the effects have been found to be negative (UNEEP-WCMC, 2024). Similarities may be drawn between possible marine mammal habitat disruption from ORE development on the West Coast and the habitat compression seen during the 2014–2016 northeast Pacific marine heatwave where some whales moved closer to shore. The 2014–2016 habitat compression increased interaction between marine mammals and Dungeness crab fishing gear, impacting the fishery (Santora et al., 2020), but to date no studies have examined possible marine mammal habitat compression from ORE development. Demersal fish, such as hake, are less likely to be affected by ORE development.

While marine birds are not a focus of this study, they have been an important consideration in the development of ORE elsewhere in the world and are likely to be important in its development on the U.S. West Coast, particularly for endangered species or those covered by international migratory bird treaties. Several studies have documented the distribution and abundance of marine birds off the U.S. West Coast in the context of ORE (Leirness et al., 2021; Wallach et al., 2025). New methods are being used to study the vertical distribution of marine birds near offshore wind turbines (Schneider et al., 2024). Most marine birds are found below the swept area of the rotors of wind turbines, with only 8 percent of birds above 10 m at any given time (Wallach et al., 2025). Certain species such as the sooty shearwater, which migrates higher above the sea surface to make use of the higher wind speeds, are expected to be exceptions to the 10 m standard. The opportunity exists to alter the operation of wind turbines during periods of high exposure to marine birds or bats.

Electrical transmission cables that connect FOW arrays to shore create EMFs which may affect some species of marine organisms (SEER, 2022). Cresci and colleagues (2022) found no effect of EMFs on sand eel larvae, whereas Guillebon and colleagues (2025) found that EMFs affect some behaviors of larval cod and haddock. Female shore crabs were found to respond strongly to EMFs via altered behavior such as lingering near cables and attraction to high-EMF zones (James et al., 2025). The same study also highlighted possible disruption to crab population dynamics relating to “migration, mating, and larval release” (James et al., 2025). However, due to their local occurrence, EMFs are likely to be less of a concern for ORE development than other environmental effects.

Research shows that marine mammals are at a low risk of primary entanglement with FOW mooring lines and inter-array cables, and at unknown risk of secondary entanglement with fishing gear that may become caught on mooring lines and inter-array cables or tertiary entanglement when already entangled and caught on mooring lines and inter-array cables (SEER, 2022; Farr et al., 2021; Harris et al., 2025). It appears that primary entanglement is not a significant concern for ORE because mooring and transmission cables are sufficiently large to be detected and avoided by marine organisms. More data is needed to fully understand the likelihood of secondary and tertiary entanglement. There could also be risks of marine mammals striking the FOW platforms, anchors, or inter-array cables, but the committee found no literature addressing this topic.

ORE will create noise in the environment during all stages, from site investigation through decommissioning, but particularly during installation. Nonoperational noise (e.g., from pile driving) will be quieter and at greater depth for floating wind turbines than for bottom-mounted wind turbines like those on the East Coast, while operational noise is similar for floating and fixed wind turbines, with the exception that the floating wind turbines produce transient noise associated with their moorings at high wind speeds (Risch et al., 2023). Operational noise has been measured near FOW turbines associated with two projects in Scotland: Kincardine which has five turbines, each

operating at 9.5 MW, and Hywind with five turbines, each operating at 6 MW (Risch et al., 2023). For a 15 m/s wind speed, underwater operational noise exceeded ambient noise up to 4 km away from the array center. During this assessment, porpoises were observed to avoid the arrays. Harbor porpoises have also been observed to avoid tidal turbines (Gillespie et al., 2021; Palmer et al., 2021).

Fishing Within or Near Offshore Renewable Energy Sites (Commercial and Recreational)

As noted in Chapter 5, FOW platforms are a newer technology with few operational arrays on a global scale as of 2025. Of the projects that do exist, none are in water depths comparable to the lease areas off California, at 500–1,300 m. According to a report released in 2024 by NREL, fishery-specific interactions will depend on the floating structures and their respective layouts (i.e., spar, semi-submersible, or tension-leg platform; Cooperman et al., 2024). Important considerations will include the watch circle radius (100–350 m), the peak displacement of the floating hull from its installed location, seabed contact area (up to 75 acres), the extent of the mooring system at the sea floor, and inter-array cables connecting turbines and substations that will likely sit about 60 m below the surface. Additionally, every lease would be expected to have between two and eight buried export cables delivering energy from the offshore substation or converter station to shore. Details for California FOW projects, including platform type, anchor systems, inter-array cable connection, and export cable arrangement, have not been decided.

Without an operational FOW project in water depths such as those in the lease areas off California, we are left to make informed assumptions about the ability to fish in and around an ORE site. Some studies anticipate that mooring structures and inter-array cables will have the largest impact on fishing methods that rely on mobile gear, due to various obstacles such as navigation challenges and risk of entanglement (Haberlin et al., 2022). Commercial vessels using gear such as trap and trawl fisheries, groundfish longline, or purse seining would likely be more affected than those participating in surface fisheries.

De facto exclusion of certain fishing activities in and around ORE installations should reduce fishing mortality in those areas, particularly for the gear types that would be precluded from operating in and around the installations. However, fishermen displaced from an area may leave the fishery or move to different fishing grounds, which may result in gear compaction, crowding and impacts to fishermen and fishing communities outside of the lease site. To the extent ORE installations act as fish aggregating devices, like the ones observed with bottom-mounted turbines, they could also keep fish from being available to commercial fisheries. The net effect on fish mortality on a larger scale is uncertain but likely small.

A 2022 study by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found that offshore wind projects can interfere with a ship’s navigational radar, which is used to avoid collisions, posing challenges for safe maritime navigation. This has raised concerns about potential exclusions from or increases in premiums for insurance coverage for commercial and recreational fishermen, and operators of commercial fishing vessels (Marvasti and Werner, 2024).

Conclusion 7-2: Offshore renewable energy projects could result in an area that is effectively closed to most commercial fishing, which might, depending on the fishery, reduce catch or the amount of fish available to be caught (e.g., species with high site fidelity) or increase fish stock recruitment and abundance.

Wave and tidal energy projects would likely also restrict fishing activity. The California Energy Commission’s SB 605 Draft Consultant Report on Sea Space Analysis considered suitable depths for wave energy converters to potentially extend to a maximum depth of 200 m (CEC, 2024). Many fisheries such as the purse seine fisheries for CPS, including squid, operate in waters potentially suitable for wave energy projects off California and are greatly affected by wind and current. According to presentations received by the committee, that fishing activity likely would not be feasible within a wave or tidal energy project that had components either on the surface or the sea floor (Henkel, 2025). This functional closure could extend up to a mile around the facility for some fisheries, depending on their operational needs, and wind and current patterns.

Conclusion 7-3: The expected ratings of individual wave and tidal devices is in the kW range, with arrays in the MW level involving single to tens of devices, i.e., orders of magnitude less than wind arrays, and such arrays are likely to be placed much closer to shore than offshore wind turbines. As such:

Finally, dependent on the location of where the offshore wind array cables come ashore, there could be temporary impacts on recreational surf-based fishermen or near shore fisheries such as those who fish from kayaks. For example, on the East Coast U.S. Wind’s cables are proposed to come ashore beneath 3Rs beach in Delaware Seashore State Park resulting in a one-time off-season recreational fishery closure (DNREC, 2024).

Tribal Fishing Impacted by Offshore Renewable Energy Development

Tribal fishing occurs along the West Coast in places that are both culturally and resource significant. With minimal uncertainty, ORE development would likely impact Tribal fishing, so Tribal collaboration and consultation is needed to assess those possible impacts, both direct and indirect. The development could cause fishermen

and fisheries to be displaced from fishing locations or require fishermen to change gear types to accommodate the presence of ORE projects and ancillary components. The same development could result in fish aggregation, which could reduce species diversity as fishing practices target the aggregated species. In addition to direct impacts to fishermen and fisheries, the presence of ORE along the coast could cause Tribal fishermen to experience changes in their available catch or fishing locations, increased fishing activity within the Tribal usual and accustomed areas by displaced non-Tribal vessels, or changes in gear type options if marine mammal migration patterns or movement corridors are altered due to ORE platforms, electrical service platforms, cables, and anchorages.

Tribal fishing is an usufructuary right, meaning it is the legal right of Indians to hunt, fish, and gather from the land. In United States v. Washington,¹ the Supreme Court ruled that the treaties between the United States and certain Tribes in the Pacific Northwest include reserved right to fish and include the right to have the fish habitat protected from human-caused degradation. It is possible that ORE development would impact the Tribal usufructuary right by disrupting the habitat that fish rely on. As a result, Tribes that have adjudicated treaty fishing rights could articulate the impacts from ORE projects under the above ruling, United States v. Washington, and for the Columbia River Tribes, United States v. Oregon, the Belloni Decision (see Chapter 3). For those Tribes in particular, as well as other affected Tribes, proposed ORE projects should be clearly presented in advance of construction to provide time and opportunity for both the federal government and Tribes to reasonably ascertain potential impacts on fish habitat, and any underlying usufructuary right to take fish.

Beyond the mentioned impacts on Tribal fisheries and a Tribe’s capacity to secure fish, many Tribes experience spiritual and cultural ties to the marine environment and species that come from it (NOAA Fisheries, n.d.). Tribes have relied on species such as salmon, halibut, lamprey for “thousands of years for use for Tribal religious/cultural ceremonies, subsistence, and commerce” (NOAA Fisheries, n.d.). Because of these ties, certain areas suitable for ORE development may be considered traditional cultural properties which are properties subject to the NHPA (DOI, 1992). Under the NHPA, projects seeking permitting would be required to include a process to identify and mitigate project effects as they relate to historical and cultural resources. ORE projects should undergo an evaluation for potential impacts on spiritual and cultural interests. An example of traditional cultural properties considerations for the offshore marine environment is when all of Nantucket Sound was recognized as a traditional cultural property because of its cultural significance to the Wampanoag Tribes in 2010 (DOI, 2010).

Conclusion 7-4: Tribal fishing is likely to be impacted by ORE development; therefore, tribal collaboration and consultation is needed early in the project planning and evaluation process to assess possible impacts and mitigation methods.

Harbor Access, Marina Space, and Landing Obstructions

The California Offshore Wind Draft Programmatic EIS identifies possible staging and integration ports along the coast, including the Port of Humboldt, Port of Long Beach, and the Port of Los Angeles (BOEM, 2024b). Many of these ports would require additional funding and development to accommodate large-scale wind projects. For example, the Port of Long Beach’s plans for the Pier Wind Project would create space for the assembly of wind turbines on the shoreside that could then be towed offshore to sites as far as central and northern California (Plezia, 2025).

Each of the ports mentioned above are important to California’s commercial and recreational fishing communities, who are dependent both on the infrastructure at the docks and on dockside and land-based support businesses. In response to California Assembly Bill 525, the PFMC provided information on how the development of offshore wind could impact both small ports and the fisheries they accommodate (PFMC, 2024). Its concerns relate to limited space and crowding in fully developed harbors, because berths and other harbor spaces accommodate both local fishermen and coastal-traveling vessels. The lack of available space and continuous operation of these harbors at full capacity could lead to potential safety issues during bad weather, as they would no longer be able to operate as harbors of refuge.

___________________

¹United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (1974)

Beyond spatial competition within harbors, the PFMC raised concerns about environmental conditions and harbor access limitations for fisheries. Elevations in turbidity or pollution as a result of harbor enhancements or ORE developments could have local effects on the harbor ecosystem. During deployment of turbines and other wind elements, harbor entrances may be closed to all vessel activity, including fishing vessels and pleasure crafts, for the duration of the event (Plezia, 2025; Lim, 2025). Fishermen based in Eureka, California, have been told they should expect closures of the entrance to Humboldt Bay, due to the narrowness of the harbor entrance and size of an assembled turbine, when turbines are being towed out to the lease sites during construction, and when turbines are being towed in and out of port for maintenance activities.

Impacts on Fisheries Management

ORE areas may affect the management of fisheries in various ways. First, the behavior, distribution, abundance and productivity of fish may change in response to ORE installations due to factors such as wind turbine platforms acting as fish aggregation devices (Jech et al., 2023). Second, changes in behavior, distribution, abundance, or production of fish may affect fishing locations or catch and effort levels. Third, lease areas and their infrastructure may inhibit surveying, disrupting long running fishery independent surveys utilized in management decisions (Lipsky et al., 2024; see Table 3-1 and Figure 3-2).

Models developed using historical fishery and fishery independent data could be impacted leading to less accurate predictions in fish stocks. Under the precautionary approach utilized in the fishery management process,² the higher the degree of uncertainty in a stock assessment, the more precaution is incorporated into catch targets and limits. Cumulatively, such effects may justify consideration of adaptive management, including new or revised observation methods, models and rules. In 2024 NMFS developed The West Coast Offshore Wind Energy Strategic Science Plan identifying areas more research is needed to understand the effects of FOW turbines on West Coast fish, fisheries, and fish habitats. The plan emphasizes that the deep waters off the U.S. West Coast will require technology that is not yet deployed at large commercial scales anywhere around the world. To understand potential future effects research activities are needed to explore habitat impacts, physiological and physical effects, species abundance and distribution, socioeconomic impacts to fisheries and fishing communities, ecosystem and climate interactions, and impacts to NOAA’s NMFS scientific surveys (NMFS, 2024).

Conclusion 7-5: There is a need for additional data and research to understand and assess the potential impacts from offshore renewable energy development on the distribution, abundance, and production of fish and how those changes may affect Tribes, fisheries, and fishing communities.

In 2022 NOAA and BOEM developed the NOAA Fisheries and BOEM Federal Survey Mitigation Strategy–Northeast U.S. Region to mitigate impacts from ORE development in the Northeast on NOAA Fisheries Surveys. This strategy was in response to major adverse impacts to fisheries surveys identified by NOAA during the environmental review for Vineyard Wind 1 project in 2021 (Hare et al., 2022). NOAA experimented with autonomous research vessels supporting stock assessments in areas, like WEAs, that are increasingly difficult to access or sample using traditional shipboard survey methods (NF Staff, 2025).

Conclusion 7-6: The installation of offshore renewable energy projects will likely prevent the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from conducting fish surveys, particularly those that use trawl gear or have fixed survey stations that overlap with ORE sites, and gathering other relevant datasets using traditional methods, so it will need to modify survey plans or identify new ways of assessing fish stocks to inform catch limits.

___________________

²50 CFR 600.350(d)(3)(ii).

Impacts on Fishery Treaties

In 1981, the United States and Canada signed the Treaty between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America on Pacific Albacore Tuna Vessels and Port Privileges.³ Historically, the treaty has benefited Canadian harvesters by allowing them access to the U.S. EEZ to harvest albacore and benefited U.S. harvesters by allowing them access to Canadian ports for maintenance projects and other purposes.

FOW projects off the West Coast are planned in depth that overlap with important fishing grounds and habitats for North Pacific albacore. As more leases are auctioned, and more important fishing grounds are potentially lost, one of the primary benefits of the treaty to Canadian harvesters will be diminished. U.S. fishery participants report Canadian harvesters are already asking questions about the scope and scale of potential developments and possible implications to the albacore fishery.⁴ This could result in either termination or amendment of the Treaty in terms that are less favorable to U.S. harvesters.

Use of Spatial Suitability Model for Identification of Call Areas

In May of 2025, the DOI’s solicitor issued a memorandum withdrawing Solicitor’s Opinion M-37067 and reinstating M-37059. This memorandum provides the solicitor’s interpretation of 43 USC 1337, leases, easements, and rights-of-way on the Outer Continental Shelf, and states that when evaluating proposals for new activities that could conflict with existing uses, preference should be for activities that “[err] on the side of less interference rather than more interference” (DOI, 2025). As it relates to ORE, the proper siting of energy facilities is an example of a method that can result in less interference with existing uses, such as fishing and vessel transit.

To help identify areas of opportunity for aquaculture development, NOAA’s NCCOS developed “whole-ecosystem and regional-scale spatial suitability models” for the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and Southern California Bight (NCCOS, n.d.). Following their success, NCCOS has since partnered with BOEM to draft a WEA siting for the Oregon call areas, using a similar spatial suitability model, in support of designating final WEAs in Oregon (See Chapter 3; Carlton et al, 2023).

The Oregon suitability model incorporated dozens of data layers representing major ocean characteristics from government agencies, universities, non-government agencies. These layers were used to develop five distinct submodels: constraints, industry and operations, fisheries, wind, and natural resources. The layers and submodels were then weighted accordingly to help identify conflicting interests to determine areas most suitable for development.

One limitation to that suitability model was that it was restricted to the call areas and did not take a holistic view of Oregon’s entire EEZ. Additionally, concerns were raised regarding the types of fisheries data that were included, a lack of transparency around the weighting of data layers, and insufficient engagement with ocean users and Tribes who may be impacted by ORE (PFMC, 2023).

Conclusion 7-7: Spatial suitability models that are not artificially constrained in the geographic space, incorporate all available data and produce straightforward and transparent outputs, engage interested parties, and provide sensitivity analyses on the weights selected, would increase the likelihood of siting ORE facilities in a manner that prevents interference with reasonable uses.

Conclusion 7-8: In identifying call areas, BOEM did not adequately consider or account for current or future ocean uses, including commercial, recreational, and Tribal fisheries and the habitats they depend on, such as through a broader, transparent process that included spatial suitability modeling on a regional scale.

___________________

³Treaty between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America on Pacific Coast Albacore Tuna Vessels and Port Privileges, May 26, 1981, S. Treaty Doc No. 97-13.

⁴Communication between U.S. albacore fishers and Canadian albacore fisheries.

EFFECTS OF OFFSHORE RENEWABLE ENERGY ON MARITIME ACTIVITY AND SHIPPING

Port Interactions

ORE activities are expected to require port facilities that can support 3 general types of activities:

1. Manufacturing and fabrication (M&F) of components, including those for platforms, nacelles, towers, and blades
2. Staging and integration (S&I), including assembly of foundations, and integration of wind turbines and foundations ready to be towed to site
3. Operations and maintenance (O&M) throughout the life of the project, involving transporting personnel and equipment to the site for maintenance and inspections

The planning of these activities and assessment of port infrastructure assumes that S&I activities will take place in a port or other sheltered area, rather than in the open ocean, and only fully assembled foundations with wind turbine generators attached will be towed to their final locations from the port facilities.

As part of the strategic planning for future development, California authorized, via Assembly Bill 525, a study of ports in the state and their readiness to accommodate ORE activities. The limiting factor for ORE development was ports that can support the S&I phase of FOW projects. The Port of Humboldt, Port of Los Angeles, and Port of Long Beach are the only ports with existing harbors suitable for integration activities. Plans at these ports to create large areas (hundreds of acres each) devoted to S&I and M&F activities (referred to as a marshalling port) would provide sufficient S&I capacity to allow the state to meet its 2045 offshore wind energy development goal of 25 GW (CEC, 2024). The California Energy Commission, as required by Assembly Bill 3,⁵ is currently developing a second-phase plan for seaport readiness for offshore wind development which is due by December 31, 2026.

The Assembly Bill 525 Port Readiness Plan notes that although it is not necessary for all M&F activities to take place within the state, home-basing all M&F activities would maximize the in-state economic benefits of FOW development (Lim and Trowbridge et al., 2023). It is estimated that with the planned development at the ports mentioned above and additional capacity at the Port of San Diego, the state would have the ability to support all M&F activities and reach its 2045 targets.

O&M sites have the most flexibility since the requirements are focused on sufficient berthing for vessels rather than developing new acreage for heavy manufacturing and construction. To meet the 25 GW target, the study estimates that 9 to 16 berths will need to be developed (Lim and Trowbridge et al., 2023). The locations of these berths will be dependent on operational considerations more than port facility capabilities.

Even in ports where new infrastructure is planned to accommodate some of the ORE activities envisioned, other port users may be displaced or restricted, either permanently or during a particular phase of ORE development. For example, when floating turbines are towed to site, access to the port may be restricted to ensure safety of the operations and limit risk of damage to the turbines and vessels (Plezia, 2025). When inspection campaigns are undertaken for a wind project, an increase in vessel traffic from O&M sites could limit access for other traffic such as fishermen.

Shipping and Coast Guard Maritime Geospatial Planning Considerations

The marine transportation system is vital to the U.S. economy, and the Coast Guard’s PARS are an important MSP effort to preserve vital commercial and navigational uses. Port access route studies will be a critical element of future maritime activity siting decisions, because of the important information about shipping and maritime activity they gather. The Coast Guard’s MSP practices regarding maritime commerce and Tribes have been successful at de-confliction of competing waterway uses. This is likely due to a clear procedural doctrine and local units that hold recurring forums for continuous engagement with the maritime community. Expanding MSP pro-

___________________

⁵Assembly Bill 3, Zbur, Chapter 314, Statutes of 2023.

cedures to include considerations such as those for cable permitting and licensing and other related maritime uses can leverage the advantages from the Coast Guard’s process.

As discussed in Chapter 2, the Coast Guard’s PAC-PARS recommended fairways to accommodate shipping activity. Although the use of fairways is voluntary, a vast majority of vessels have historically conformed to the recommended lanes. During the PAC-PARS, the Coast Guard involved federal and state agencies, maritime community representatives, environmental groups, Tribes, and commercial and recreational fisherman from inception through formal consultation. During the committee’s open sessions, representatives from the Tribes and commercial fishing communities expressed satisfaction with how the PAC-PARS study was conducted.

Conclusion 7-9: The Pacific Area Port Access Route Study was conducted using an inclusive and effective process, and the Coast Guard followed a clear procedural process of continuous engagement beginning at the inception of the study effort.

When the PAC-PARS results and associated recommendations are finalized, they will establish clear, defined shipping lanes along the West Coast. These will be very important as new maritime activities make siting decisions. Without clear, defined shipping lanes, new maritime projects could create a maze for commercial ships, much like in the Gulf of Mexico. On the West Coast, the PAC-PARS was finished after WEAs on the West Coast were identified, causing portions of the shipping lanes to be modified to account for ORE development. This stresses the need to consider navigation early in the ORE development process, especially given the projected increases in the volume of commercial shipping.

Conclusion 7-10: The timely enactment of the Pacific Area Port Access Route Study recommended fairways will promote waterway safety and help inform future studies assessing the competing uses of waters off the West Coast.

The scope of this study is limited to the U.S. West Coast, so the committee did not make any formal recommendations for other parts of the United States. However, given the importance of identifying shipping lanes before new maritime development begins, it will be important for the Coast Guard to conduct PARSs for other federal waters before maritime activity sites are selected for ORE or other new projects, such as subsea mining. New PARSs may be appropriate for areas around Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands.

Transit Corridors Through Offshore Renewable Energy Projects

Academic studies, government guidance, and developer navigation risk assessments consistently frame the question of transits by avoiding the assumption that vessels must be excluded from ORE arrays. Instead, developers, permitting agencies, and regulators characterize vessel traffic and operational scenarios specific to the development area; quantify and compare risk with and without the ORE project; and decide whether in-array transit, dedicated transit corridors, or routing measures (e.g., precautionary areas, traffic lanes, areas to be avoided) are warranted (Maritime and Coastguard Agency, 2023; USCG, 2023). Transit corridors are justified to mitigate navigational risk when they reduce one or more of the following: (1) allision or collision risk (ship–turbine or ship–ship), especially under degraded visibility, heavy weather, or high traffic complexity (Milin, 2025); (2) traffic compression effects created when multiple projects “stack” and squeeze ships into fewer safe routes, raising encounter rates (Milin, 2025); or (3) emergency response constraints (SAR access, towing, maneuvering room) and navigational system performance issues (notably radar/clutter and situational awareness) (NASEM, 2022). The Coast Guard emphasizes mariner lookout, small craft/commercial towing vessel/ORE support vessel traffic, cable awareness, and anchoring avoidance inside ORE arrays as the primary factors determining the safety of “through-transit” (USCG, 2023).

In fixed-bottom ORE arrays, the obstacle field is geometrically stable: turbines are fixed points; the main navigational issues are spacing, visibility or radar effects, traffic density, and emergency maneuvering room (Milin, 2025; Maritime and Coastguard Agency, 2023). Transit corridors in these circumstances address high baseline

traffic density and constrained sea room; multiple adjacent projects creating pinch points; safety-of-navigation concerns under worst-case scenarios (e.g. drift, grounding, allision); or the need to preserve established approaches or fairways and predictable routing. FOW arrays differ in that developers, permitting agencies, and regulators cannot evaluate transit through the array by ORE turbine spacing alone, because floating systems add moving, extended subsurface infrastructure that changes the hazard profile (NASH Maritime and OspreyCSL, 2024). FOW platforms have mooring lines and cables extending outside the visible turbine location creating a snagging risk. Further, FOW turbines motion includes pitch, yaw, heave, surge, and sway affects radar returns and vessels navigating in or near FOW arrays. Similar to fixed-bottom ORE projects, adjacent lease areas can create cumulative vessel traffic pinch points.

In 2022 BOEM awarded five lease areas off California covering 583 sq mi with an expected minimum capacity of 4.6 GW. The PAC-PARS characterized commercial fishing vessel and commercial towing vessel density in the existing lease areas off California as low or low to medium. Neither BOEM’s Pacific offshore wind leases nor the final environmental assessments for the Humboldt and Morro Bay WEAs concluded that dedicated vessel transit corridors through the WEAs were required. Instead, BOEM relied on existing and proposed Coast Guard routing measures (PAC-PARS fairways) and project-level navigation safety risk assessments to manage navigational risk. Where multiple adjacent ORE leases exist, however, they could create a barrier to through transits. And achieving California’s goal of installing 25 GW of offshore wind power generation by 2045 may require many additional WEAs and over 3,000 sq mi dedicated to offshore wind arrays. Concerns have been raised about the ability to safely transit through these extensive arrays of wind platforms.

Conclusion 7-11: If the offshore energy goals established by the West Coast states come to fruition, thousands of square miles of offshore waters will be dedicated to wind installations. Further analysis and engagement with interested persons are needed to ascertain whether transit corridors through and between lease sites are justified.

Search and Rescue and Coast Guard Interactions

This section focuses on the interaction of FOW platforms with Coast Guard operations because wind technology is the most suited and advanced ORE technology for commercial scale projects. Other ORE technologies, such as tidal and wave energy projects, would have different interactions with Coast Guard operations. Because FOW platforms can be places of refuge for mariners in distress, and because accidents and security demands will occur on those platforms, Coast Guard operations will require close-quarters navigation around them and may involve docking to them. FOW arrays are anticipated to interact with navigation safety and Coast Guard operations in four important ways:

1. Surface vessel navigation,
2. Aviation operations,
3. Search planning tools, and
4. Demand for Coast Guard operations.

These four interactions yield a variety of likely burdens, possible mitigation strategies, and benefits to navigation safety and Coast Guard operations.

Surface Vessel Navigation

Coast Guards cutters, boats, and aircraft will inevitably have to perform missions inside FOW arrays. FOW arrays present obstructions to formerly open ocean space and could cause restricted maneuverability of Coast Guard assets operating within and near them. Coast Guard cutter and small boat crews will have to take precautions to reduce the risk of allisions with platforms, potentially including enhancing navigation watches (USCG, 2020) while operating in the vicinity of FOW projects. Coast Guard towing, cutter-boat launch and recovery, and

helicopter launch and recovery require specific wind/wave geometry to avoid collisions. The ability to align with that geometry inside the array will be constrained by the space available between platforms (Harrison, 2025). In addition, FOW projects can be configured differently from one lease area to the next, requiring area-specific navigation precautions, familiarity with multiple emergency response plans, and recurring crew training/familiarization regimes (Pedersen and Ahsan, 2020). In these situations, Coast Guard units must use operational risk management to determine unacceptable risk and appropriate mitigation (USCG, 2018) for all operations, including those that would take them in or near FOW arrays.

The mooring system catenaries and any inter-array cables likely do not present a subsurface hazard to Coast Guard surface navigation and operations under most environmental conditions. This is the case in Gulf of Mexico operations around floating offshore production platforms with catenary mooring systems, where the primary concern appears to focus on vessels over 100 ft in length, towing vessels,⁶ and fishing vessel trawls (ABSG Consulting Inc., 2015).

Offshore wind turbines affect marine vessel radar in different ways based on a variety of circumstances. The most common impact is radar display clutter from an increase in strong, reflected energy off the turbine, which can lead to complications in navigation decision making (DOE, 2023; Ling et al., 2013; NASEM, 2022). Installing improved radar signal processing equipment (NASEM, 2022) would lessen radar scatter from turbines and mitigate the impact on navigation. In Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 03-23 the Coast Guard requires that each corner platform on the edges of an array adjacent to a fairway, or used to identify a designated vessel transit route through the array, be identified by a properly encoded AIS Message, providing additional mitigation for radar clutter and possible positional confusion (USCG, 2023).

The proliferation of industrial internet of things (IIoT) sensors onboard offshore wind platforms may create radio frequence spectrum management challenges that require systematic consideration. Industry analyses document offshore wind projects scaling from hundreds to thousands of wireless sensors supporting supervisory control and data acquisition systems, structural health monitoring, predictive maintenance, and real-time operational data transmission, while simultaneously deploying multiple wireless communication technologies (George, n.d.). A previous National Academies report on marine vessel radar (NASEM, 2022) found electromagnetic interference phenomenology, spectrum management challenges, and the need for comprehensive electromagnetic compatibility assessment. The 2022 report suggested further analysis of radio frequency (RF) spectrum management considerations may be necessary given the proliferation of IIoT wireless networks. The U.S. established the interagency Wind Turbine Radar Interference Mitigation Working Group involving the Departments of Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, FAA, NOAA, and BOEM to coordinate research and mitigation activities for wind turbine electromagnetic interference such as the IIoT proliferation and RF spectrum management issue.

Lighting and marking of offshore wind platforms fall under multiple regulatory authorities. Aviation obstruction lighting requirements for structures within 12 NM of shore are established by FAA,⁷ and extended by BOEM permitting guidelines to structures beyond 12 NM of shore. The Coast Guard has authority over marking structures and obstructions that pose a hazard to safe navigation of vessels.⁸ BOEM (2021) summarizes guidance for lighting, markings, sound signals, and AIS transponders on offshore wind platforms, and the agency considers these factors when approving a SAP, COP, or general activities plan from a lessee. The arrays will also be required to follow Coast Guard Private Aids to Navigation rules (USCG, 2023). BOEM evaluates the safety and impact of proposed lighting and marking in consultation with the FAA and Coast Guard to reduce the risk that lighting creates more dangerous situations. To help identify outer edges of arrays, corner platforms and others at significant locations along the boundary will be marked with different lights than interior, internal platforms (USCG, 2023). In addition to lighting, the Coast Guard has recommended each platform in an array be marked with its unique alphanumeric character, a NOAA-charted designator, enabling quick recognition and reference (USCG, 2023).

Rules for lighting during construction, wet-storage, and installation vary slightly from those above; during the construction phase of offshore wind turbines, the FAA requires temporary steady-burning red lights once structures

___________________

⁶33 CFR § 147.2, and 147.801 through § 147.813.

⁷14 CFR part 77.

⁸33 CFR part 64.

reach 200 ft in height, and developers cannot use a Notice to Airmen to justify delaying lighting installation (FAA, n.d.). The Coast Guard requires quick-flashing yellow obstruction lights visible at 5 NM on temporary structures, requiring notification but not a full Private Aids to Navigation permit until final installation (BOEM, 2021). These distinct requirements reflect the transition from temporary obstruction marking to permanent marine and aviation infrastructure integration (BOEM, 2021).

BOEM and the Coast Guard have recommended array configuration factors to mitigate the navigation, operations, and training/familiarization burdens. The Coast Guard recommends each wind array be configured in a grid pattern of straight rows and columns with two or more lines of orientation. The grid pattern proposed by the Coast Guard allows mariners to transit through the array on a single course heading. The Coast Guard also recommends an ideal spacing for SAR within an offshore wind array of at least 1 NM between turbines, although this is largely based on helicopter safety considerations. The ORE industry is likely to use remotely operated subsurface vehicles for various functions, including platform, catenary, electrical cable, and mooring inspection. Coast Guard subsurface operations are, by contrast, limited at present. Unmanned, autonomous surface vessel technology is developing rapidly (Matos et al., 2017), but is not likely at sufficient technological readiness level for at-scale use for Coast Guard missions in offshore wind energy arrays. Should the Coast Guard become more involved in maritime security or energy security roles, it may have to increase subsurface operations, requiring close coordination with remotely operated subsurface vehicle operators and operations centers, as in the Gulf of Mexico.

Low-Altitude Aviation Operations

As with cutters and small boats, Coast Guard helicopters will inevitably enter offshore wind energy platform arrays at low altitude for reconnaissance, visual, and surface-search radar searching, hoist-based swimmer deployment, and victim rescue/recovery. Towers and blades can present air collision hazards, obstruct radar signals, and create downwind wake effects while they are in motion (discussed in Chapter 5). Turbulence from downwind wake effects of operational wind turbines would impede air navigation, hover and hoist operations (Jackson, 2025). As a result, Coast Guard operational risk management will likely prohibit low-altitude air operations in the immediate area until turbines are shut down, requiring a well-refined emergency shutdown procedure coordinated between the Coast Guard and offshore wind energy platform array operators.

When turbine rotation is secured, hover and hoist operations immediately adjacent to the towers still present a risk of air collision and hoist-cable entanglement, but these risks are managed with operational and environmental parameter controls, as evidenced by regular maintenance and medevac hoists from the top of nacelles in other areas. Nevertheless, risk mitigation measures likely suggest moving a vessel away from the base of a platform before hoisting, particularly in adverse weather. Low-altitude air operations have not been unduly impeded, in early operations, in and around European and East Coast offshore wind energy platform arrays, but they do require extensive air crew familiarization and training due to the differences in configuration, prevailing weather, and operators with whom the crew must cooperate. Experience from rescues in European offshore wind energy arrays suggests that while the use of helicopters in SAR remains indispensable, it is best paired with a surface rescue boat response (Brown, 2005).

BOEM (2021) will review offshore wind energy platform lighting during the permitting process. Lighting is designed to increase navigation safety in and around FOW arrays, but it presents a risk of air navigation light confusion (such as confusing these lights with vessel lights) and of night-vision-goggle-enabled flight “blinding” for air crews at close range to lights (FAA, 2009). BOEM, in consultation with FAA and DOD, is considering the use of aircraft detection lighting systems, sensor-based systems that automatically turn on and off obstruction lights, or similar technologies that will minimize impacts from lighting (FAA, n.d.). This risk is commensurate with the risk of night-vision-goggle-enabled flight around Gulf of Mexico offshore platforms and Atlantic fixed ORE platforms. At present the Coast Guard is not pursuing an intermittent detection-based system for marine navigation lights like aviation aircraft detection lighting systems, raising the opportunity for future research on the need for such a system to protect night-vision-goggle-enabled flight or surface operations.

In 2021, the Coast Guard, BOEM, Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind LLC, and others convened for a SAR Risk Assessment Workshop to review potential SAR hazards and discuss mitigation methods (BOEM, 2024a).

Recommended mitigation measures from this workshop included VHF direction finding equipment to help pilots navigate into arrays, emergency response procedures for turbine shutdown and rescue, high-resolution thermal or infrared detection systems, training regimes, making offshore wind energy platform lights compatible with night-vision goggles, passive monitoring of offshore wind energy maintenance personnel location and status, limiting vessel access to offshore wind energy platform arrays during heavy weather, standard communication protocols for emergency situations, limiting aircraft operations in offshore wind energy arrays, limiting the total time any single aircraft spends in the array during SAR or other operations for Crew Resources Management purposes, creating dedicated helicopter corridors, training pilots for offshore wind energy platform helipads, using substation helipads as safe havens for Coast Guard helicopters, and stationing weather instruments in the wind array to provide real-time environmental condition data (BOEM, 2024a).

Offshore wind array operators appear to be considering air-based medevac, maintenance, and resupply operations, which would involve hoists from the nacelle of secured turbines (Helicopter Express, n.d.), and use of helicopter pads on a floating platform in or on the edge of the array. The Coast Guard will still need to ensure that its asset modernization, particularly for the helicopter fleet, has sufficient capacity and capability to perform SAR operations for fishing vessels and other vessels operating in and around the ORE installations, considering the services provided by the operators.

Conclusion 7-12: The Coast Guard and BOEM have implemented various measures to enhance safety in and around offshore wind arrays including establishment of standards for lighting, marking, and installation of AIS transponders on platforms. They have also made recommendations for array configuration and minimum spacing between turbines.

This collaborative effort should continue, taking into consideration the unique aspects of the proposed West Coast projects (for example, floating platforms in deeper waters further offshore) and evolving technologies.

SAR Planning

Coast Guard SAROPS software (discussed in Chapter 4) cannot currently model specific drift obstructions, such as FOW platforms, which will generate inaccurate drift models as if the array was not there. In addition to inaccurate probabilities of where the object may have drifted, SAROPS may also output search patterns that take a vessel or aircraft directly through or over the array. There appears to be a gap in sensitivity analysis research on SAROPS drifts, given the very localized effects on wind and currents around specific offshore wind energy (OWE) platforms. Where uncertainty exists during a search, Coast Guard crews deploy self-locating data marker buoys to transmit real-time data to SAROPS. To address this, the Coast Guard has sponsored two multiyear efforts to modify ocean and meteorological models to include wind turbines, to collect data to validate this modeling, to further assess wind turbine interference in HF radar, and to refine radar interference mitigation strategies.⁹ These projects are ongoing, and findings have not been finalized or released.

Shore-based HF radar is one of several sources of environmental data used to create accurate drift predictions and search patterns; while not currently in full use on the West Coast, future shore-based HF radar would experience significant radar shadow seaward of the FOW platforms nearest to shore. To mitigate these limitations FOW operators could install HF radar, acoustic doppler current profilers, or other sensors to provide real-time wind and sea-state measurements. OWE array operators could realize significant cost savings and efficiency increases using sensors and remotely operated technology not only for maintenance but also for environmental sensing. But any new sensor data stream comes with considerable variation in data quality and compatibility that must be taken into consideration before use by Coast Guard in SAROPS. NOAA also recognizes that cooperation, not competition, with private sector best serves the public interest. NOAA considers private sector data capabilities, opening questions of wider use of OWE array data.

___________________

⁹Communications to the committee from USCG, September 2025.

Demand for Coast Guard Operations

The presence of OWE industry maintenance personnel at FOW arrays would be an increase in personnel working in the maritime environment. Their presence offshore presents a predictable increase in air medevac for industrial accidents, falls (including into the water), and emergencies arising from natural causes. The industry intends to use contract helicopter capacity for its employees, but evidence from European offshore wind projects suggests the Coast Guard air medevac will still be required for high-acuity cases and for those cases occurring either in heavy weather or when contract resources are overwhelmed with simultaneous demands. As part of their rescue response capabilities, operators would need to consider the medical equipment and crew expertise and training needed to respond to high-acuity cases, a capability the Coast Guard does not normally provide. Additionally, high-acuity cases require careful planning and coordination between Coast Guard and contract assets responding to the emergency.

The OWE industry will employ significantly more Coast Guard–inspected vessels during assembly and installation phases, will maintain additional crew and service vessels during the operations phase, and may require safety zones during port transits in the installation phase and offshore while attaching to moorings. The Coast Guard can account for these incremental workload increases using its Sector staffing model but would need to give special attention to the cognitive workload increases on watch standers, including both monitoring and responding to increased human activity offshore and interactions with new stakeholders including OWE command centers.

Response time is critical for falls overboard or from OWE platforms into the cold waters of the Pacific, given the limited functional and survival times in cold water. Crews working on ORE are required to wear specific safety and survival gear, which increases survivability and identification to SAR assets. Diverting service and crew support vessels that are present in the OWE array will frequently result in arrival on scene more quickly than dispatching shore-based Coast Guard boats, cutters, or aircraft. Also, OWE array operators are equipping their vessels and contracting aircraft with capability relevant to assisting in Coast Guard operational missions, most directly SAR. Additional actions, such as requiring OWE personnel to wear personal locator beacons or similar emergency location and alert devices while working offshore would help to minimize response time during industrial accidents, falls, and medical emergencies.

Conclusion 7-13: Although Coast Guard air medivac will be required for high acuity cases in special circumstances, the Coast Guard does not normally have the equipment, expertise, and training to medically respond to high-acuity cases. Additionally, the distance between current OWE areas and Coast Guard rescue assets will normally result in response times that exceed cold water functional and survival times.

It is difficult to anticipate which activities will be displaced from the OWE lease areas into new areas, and what new human activity—for example, offshore recreational fishing excursions—will be drawn to the ORE platform arrays. FOW arrays may displace some human activity to new areas outside the arrays, and the degree of displacement is difficult to predict except for bottom-trawl and other bottom-tending commercial fishing activities. Beyond monitoring for increased demand for service in the OWE array, the Coast Guard episodically studies maritime activity outside the OWE array area as part of the port access route studies and in waterway analysis.

RECOMMENDATIONS

As described in Chapter 6, commercial-scale ORE development in U.S. waters was slowed considerably with the issuance of Donald Trump’s January 20, 2025, presidential memorandum, “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects.” Acting on the directive in that memorandum, several federal agencies paused the issuance of wind energy authorizations. The January 20 memorandum was followed by Executive Order 14315, “Ending Market Distorting Subsidies for Unreliable, Foreign-Controlled Energy Sources,” on July 7, 2025, and the implementing of Secretary of the Interior Order 3437, “Ending Preferential Treatment for Unreliable, Foreign-Controlled Energy Sources in Department Decision Making,” on July 29, 2025. In accordance

with these directives, on July 30, 2025, BOEM rescinded all designated, and unleased, WEAs on the U.S. OCS,¹⁰ effectively removing the designation of federal waters previously targeted for offshore wind development. On December 8, 2025, a federal judge found the federal agency actions that indefinitely paused authorizations were unlawful and vacated those actions.¹¹

While the timeline for ORE development in U.S. waters remains uncertain, there are steps that can be taken to prepare for the possible future implementation of ORE on the West Coast. The following recommendations were created to capture best practices. The recommendations are organized based on topic area, similar to the order of sections presented in this chapter, and are intended to

• better inform decision makers about the potential effects of offshore development on Tribal, commercial, and recreational fisheries,
• improve the offshore site selection and development process, and
• enhance the quality and durability of the outcomes.

Chapter 3 contains a discussion of shifting fish stocks and modeling efforts to understand how changing ocean conditions may affect species distributions (Conclusions 3-2 and 3-3). Previously, in this chapter the report discusses efforts to understand the interactions between FOW and upwelling, nutrient supply and primary productivity (Conclusion 7-1). Other considerations of interactions between ORE and fishing activity include how fisheries and fish stocks could be affected by a potential for reduced fishing activity within WEAs (Conclusion 7-2).

Recommendation 7-1: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service should identify research and data needs to better understand the potential effects (e.g., on upwelling, nutrient levels, productivity, species distributions) of offshore renewable energy development on the broader California Current Large Marine Ecosystem and West Coast fisheries and fill identified gaps as resources allow.

Some studies have begun to model the effect of ORE development in California lease areas on upwelling (Raghukumar et al., 2023) and primary production (Jacox, 2025). Similar studies off of Oregon and Washington could provide a better understanding of the effects on upwelling and primary production before ORE planning continues. Additionally, a better understanding of shifting fish distribution in response to changing ocean conditions could provide a clearer picture of how fisheries will be affected by the placement of FOW arrays.

Engagement with the federal government’s regulatory system creates a burden on Tribal resources and personnel. Many Tribes do not have the personnel, resources, or technical capacity to engage in the BOEM planning process in the timeline required, which often includes reviewing technical and legal documents, in addition to consultation (see Chapter 6 and 7 and Conclusion 7-4).

Recommendation 7-2: Congress should designate funding or resources to support consultation and collaboration by Tribes and other engagement by Tribes who do not have resources to meaningfully engage in the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management process.

Federal agencies are required to conduct consultations with federally recognized Tribes, but agencies such as BOEM that have not routinely engaged in this process are often unfamiliar with the requirement and the burden falls to Tribal members to educate or re-educate agency representatives about the process (Yrad et al., 2025).

The engagement process and dialogue during PAC-PARS conducted by the Coast Guard with fishing communities, Tribes, and stakeholders followed a comprehensive plan and resulted in community support for the recommended fairways (see Chapter 2, Conclusion 2-1, and Conclusion 7-9). At specific phases of the ORE planning process the lead federal agency, BOEM, seeks public comments or input (see Chapter 6). In the Community

___________________

¹⁰90 FR 37386.

¹¹State of New York v. Trump, Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-11221 (D Mass. December 8, 2025).

Engagement section of Chapter 6, the report discusses engagement during the planning process for the California and Oregon WEAs and highlights a 2025 GAO report that found Tribes felt a lack of meaningful engagement. Engaging with Tribes, fishing communities, and other local users can help account for current and future uses of proposed WEAs (Conclusion 7-8).

Recommendation 7-3 Lead federal agencies for offshore renewable energy projects (e.g., Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) should meaningfully engage and establish a dialogue with states, Tribes, fishing and coastal communities, other ocean users, and interested persons to exchange and integrate local knowledge while gaining a mutual understanding of the needs and concerns of all users.

Effective engagement with states, Tribes, fishing communities, and other ocean users cannot happen as one-way communication; it must be a dialogue that continues throughout the ORE development process. The engagement processes should move beyond seeking written and oral comments to include meaningful consultation, interviewing, surveying, focus groups, informal conversation and discussion, open houses and information fairs, workshops, and the use of trained and experienced facilitators. Beginning engagement before call areas are established can contribute to community support and make the process more meaningful.

Installation of ORE platforms will add structures to the marine environment, coastal and nearshore for hydrokinetic energy and offshore for FOW. The exact interactions between the marine environment and these structures are not known. Inference from fixed-bottom arrays, analysis of global FOW arrays, and modeling studies on the environmental effects of FOW can provide some information on environmental effects. However, real time data from the West Coast can provide information on how ORE may affect the distribution, abundance and production of fish in the CCE to better understand potential benefits and impacts (Conclusion 7-5).

Recommendation 7-4: Lead federal agencies, (e.g., Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), in collaboration with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and state agencies, should require offshore renewable energy projects to develop and implement scientifically robust long-term environmental monitoring plans for leased sites that ensure comparability across sites and results in publicly accessible data. Monitoring plans should include elements that are designed at a regional level and use standardized, comparable methods across sites.

In addition to continuing long-standing surveys for fish stock assessment, ORE projects have the potential to provide routine, real-time data on the environment in and around arrays to better understand changing ocean conditions (Conclusion 3-3). Development of long-term monitoring plans can help inform environmental effects of future ORE developments and could feed into data streams that support Coast Guard SAR planning and operations.

NOAA’s NMFS conducts several repeat surveys along the West Coast (Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1), some of which overlap with California WEAs. Many surveys have continued for decades, and one, the CalCOFI survey, dates to 1949. These surveys provide critical information on fish stocks for fisheries management decisions. FOW lease areas in California and past proposed WEAs in Oregon could interrupt these surveys as currently conducted. Disrupting these surveys without mitigation strategies for collecting necessary data can impact management decisions (Conclusion 7-6).

Recommendation 7-5: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service, in conjunction with lead federal agencies for offshore renewable energy projects (e.g., Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), should develop a Federal Survey Mitigation Implementation Strategy for the Pacific U.S. Region. The mitigation strategy would minimize disruptions to long-running datasets that are used for stock assessments and other fishery management decisions.

A similar Federal Survey Mitigation Implementation Strategy has been developed for the Northeast U.S. Region, but accounts for fixed-bottom offshore wind facilities. Developing a West Coast NOAA survey mitigation strategy to mitigate the disruptions to long-running datasets that provide critical information about fish stocks and fisheries management is important to minimize impacts on fishing and the health of fish stocks.

Determining uses of offshore maritime space often requires a variety of data sources and an understanding of how different uses can interact in the same space. Adoption of a spatial suitability model early in the ORE siting process can identify conflicting use areas, such as BOEM’s use of NOAA’s NCCOS model. Using a suitability model early in the ORE planning process, incorporating multiple data sources, and engaging with the various ocean users to validate model results can lead to more informed siting decisions (see Chapter 6 and Conclusions 7-7 and 7-8).

Recommendation 7-6: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the lead federal agency for offshore wind development, in consultation and collaboration with other applicable federal agencies, states, and Tribes, should conduct a marine geospatial assessment, including a spatial suitability model, for the West Coast. This assessment would be used to evaluate the competing uses, and assess the risks, mitigations, costs, and benefits of the different uses.

In addition to conducting early engagement, a robust process for evaluating and comparing competing maritime uses will lead to more informed decisions about where to propose ORE projects. Engagement across federal agencies, states, and Tribes will ensure that more complete datasets are included in a spatial suitability model, such as the NCCOS model. Also, input from these entities can help provide context and weight to various data layers while evaluating the different uses. A sample framework developed by the committee to help assess competing maritime uses can be found in Appendix B.

The Coast Guard completed PAC-PARS for the West Coast, including an analysis of means to deconflict current competing waterway uses due to the quickly evolving demand for the use of coastal waters. The Coast Guard wanted to determine if new or modified vessel routing measures were needed to ensure the safety of navigation along the West Coast. Collection of vessel traffic data along with input from key stakeholders, Tribal governments, and the public informed the analysis of existing and potential future use of waterways off the West Coast. The PAC-PARS resulted in recommendations for implementation of several fairways along the West Coast (see Figure 2-12, Conclusion 2-1, and Conclusion 7-10).

Recommendation 7-7: The Coast Guard should expedite enactment of Pacific Area Port Access Route Study fairways for the U.S. West Coast.

The PAC-PARS found that there was need for fairways and access routes into and out of ports along the West Coast to accommodate existing and future waterway uses and safe and reliable shipping routes. Throughout the study the Coast Guard engaged with local communities, conducted Tribal consultation, and considered common transit routes along the West Coast to garner broad support for the fairways (Conclusion 7-9).

The five lease areas off California cover a combined 583 sq mi over two sites (Humbolt Bay and Morro Bay WEAs), with an expected minimum capacity of 4.6 GW. California has a clean energy goal of 45 GW of installed offshore wind power capacity by 2045, which may require additional lease areas covering over 3,000 sq mi. Transit corridors providing safe passage between or through wind arrays may become necessary as larger areas offshore are developed with FOW arrays (see Transit Corridors through Offshore Renewable Energy Projects section and Conclusion 7-11).

Recommendation 7-8: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the lead federal agency for offshore wind development, should engage the Coast Guard and other applicable federal agencies; commercial, Tribal and recreational fishermen; and maritime stakeholders to study whether transit corridors through or between offshore wind lease sites are needed to allow for safe passage for fishing, vessel traffic, and Coast Guard operations.

In addition to the recommendations by BOEM and the Coast Guard for lessees to configure offshore wind turbines in straight rows and columns with a minimum of 1 NM between turbines, transit corridors can alleviate additional burdens on vessels trying to transit to or from the offshore side of the array. Similar lanes have been proposed for East Coast offshore wind projects, in part, to allow fishing vessels to safely transit to and from fishing grounds on the offshore side of wind arrays. Creation of transit corridors could also reduce transit time for Coast Guard assets responding to SAR cases.

Throughout planning and design of offshore wind arrays on the U.S. East Coast, the Coast Guard, BOEM, and BSEE cooperated to develop guidelines for lighting and marking of ORE structures and spacing between individual offshore wind turbines. FOW turbines planned for use along the West Coast will be tethered to the sea floor by anchors and likely be larger than fixed bottom turbines on the East Coast. Coast Guard SAR assets (surface and aviation) and other vessels will operate in and around FOW arrays. Measures such as lighting, marking requirements, array configuration, and sensors for minimizing navigational impacts will reduce the risk to navigational safety around offshore wind arrays (see Search and Rescue and Coast Guard Interaction Section and Conclusion 7-12).

Recommendation 7-9: The Coast Guard, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement should continue adding, refining, and standardizing measures for offshore renewable energy projects in order to mitigate the risk to Coast Guard operations, including surface, subsurface, air, cyber and command-and-control operations.

Continued close collaboration between the Coast Guard, BOEM, and BSEE will help to ensure safe navigation and vessel operation in and around West Coast ORE projects. Additionally, the opportunity to install sensors on wind turbines can enhance domain awareness, minimize navigation risks, and better coordinate emergency procedures.

An increased number of personnel will work offshore during the construction and operation of FOW arrays in areas leased off the West Coast. Additionally, once built, the FOW structures may impact safe navigation. Increased numbers of personnel and impediments to safe navigation can increase the potential for SAR and response by Coast Guard assets. The current lease areas off California are located on the offshore side of main shipping routes, mitigating some navigational safety risk, while putting the facilities farther from Coast Guard response assets. The Coast Guard will need to coordinate with lessees in order to prevent and minimize risk and reduce response time to cases in and around FOW arrays (see Search and Rescue and Coast Guard Interaction Section and Conclusion 7-13).

Recommendation 7-10: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the lead federal agency for offshore wind development, should require offshore renewable energy area lessees to provide services for 24/7 vessel and aircraft search and rescue response capabilities to support their personnel and assets. Additionally, the Coast Guard should establish planning and coordination procedures with operators to facilitate search and rescue response.

One way to alleviate the burdens on the Coast Guard and decrease response time for accidents in and around FOW arrays is to require surface or air assets on scene in each wind lease area. As part of their rescue response capabilities, operators would need to consider medical equipment and crew expertise and training needed to respond to high-acuity cases, a capability the Coast Guard does not normally provide. The Coast Guard will still be required to have sufficient capacity and capability to perform SAR operations for fishing vessels and other vessels operating in and around the FOW projects.

REFERENCES