HWG
Humboldt Working Group (HWG) Groundrules
2
• Participate in an active and focused manner – commit to process success.
• Interact with all other members respectfully.• Communicate interests, not positions. • Be brief in communications, and be prepared. • Help involve all.• Seek solutions for all.• Commit to a good faith effort.• Share relevant information.• Communicate effectively—open, frank communications with the
larger community, “not-for-attribution” to individuals in the group. • Attend all meetings; start on time.• Keep cell phones on silent.
HWG
Facilitator Responsibilities
3
• Maintain a neutral position as project issues are discussed.
• Help the group accomplish its objectives.
• Help guide the discussion.
• Enforce participant ground rules.
• Help involve all.
• Ask “why” to clarify interests.
• Ensure a smooth process.
• Retain confidential information as confidential to individual participants.
• Manage time.
• Track actions, next steps, deadlines.
HWG
Agenda
4
I. Light Supper/Snacks..…………….……….…………….5:30 – 6:00 p.m.
II. Review Agenda, Groundrules.………………...........6:00 – 6:05 p.m.
III.Updates………………………………………………..........6:05 – 6:30 p.m.
IV. Review Public Meeting Agenda and Plan..………..6:30 – 6:45 p.m.VI. Review Draft Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plans…………
……………………………………………………………………6:45 – 7:30 p.m.
VI. Break.…….……………………………..……….…………...7:30 – 7:45 p.m.VII.Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) Overview…..........................
......................................................................7:45 – 8:30 p.m.
IX. Next Steps, Adjourn…..………………....….……..…….………8:30 p.m.
HWG
Updates
5
• January HWG Permitting Authority Subcommittee Meeting
• January 12 HWG Communication Subcommittee Meeting
• January 12 HWG Fishermen Subcommittee Meeting, site discussion
• PG&E WaveConnect Presentations to Humboldt County and Cities
• Review Action Items
• PG&E next steps to WEC selection, Bidders Conference
• HWG member updates (introduce new Wiyot Tribe rep, Briannon Fraley)
• Other
HWG
Public Meeting Agenda
8
I. Open House…………………………………………5:30 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.II. Presentation and Panel Discussion.…………6:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m.
• Overview of the proposed pilot project• The Humboldt Working Group and topics discussed:
o Site selectiono Wave Energy Converter (WEC) selection efforts to dateo Environmental review and permittingo Community benefits and partnerships
• Next stepsIII.Questions and Answers…………………………6:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.IV. Open House………………..……………………… 7:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.V. Adjourn……..…………..……….……………………………………8:30 p.m.
HWG
Public Meeting Panelists
9
PG&E Panelists• William Toman, Senior Project
Manager• Ian Caliendo, California State Agency
Relations• Rick Williams, SAIC, Engineering
Consultant• Doug Davy, CH2M HILL,
Environmental Permitting Consultant• Anna West, Kearns & West, Public
Involvement and Facilitation Consultant
HWG Panelists• Aaron Newman, Humboldt
Fishermen’s Marketing Association President
• Kevin Pinto, Commercial Crab Fisherman
HWG Panelists cont’d• Larry DeRidder, Humboldt Area Saltwater
Anglers, Recreational Fisherman• Bill Lydgate, Surfrider Foundation, Humboldt
Chapter• Pete Nichols, Humboldt Baykeeper and North
Coast Environmental Center• Jim Zoellick, Schatz Energy Research Center,
HSU• Rob Cozens, Resighini Rancheria• Mark Lovelace, Humboldt County Supervisor,
District 3• David White, National Marine Fisheries
Service, NOAA• Vicki Frey, California Dept of Fish & Game• Bill McIver, US Fish and Wildlife Service• Steve Mindt, California State Lands
Commission• Ken Hogan, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
HWG
Panel Questions
• Describe for us how you’ve worked with PG&E on selecting an offshore site for the project.
• Based on HWG conversations, what are important factors for WEC selection from the community's and agencies’ perspectives?
• From each agency’s perspective, describe important topics the HWG Permitting Authority Subcommittee is working on through this process, and/or share some highlights.
• Help us understand how the HWG and public involvement have had an effect on the project and the community.
HWG
Monitoring & Adaptive Management
Define problem, management objectives
Revisemonitoring, mitigation, minimization measures
Designmonitoring and mitigation plans
Implement monitoring
Evaluateresults
HWG
Monitoring & Adaptive Management
Approach:
• Define the issues Stakeholders Exposure, risk
• Develop specific objectives to address issue• Design monitoring plan to address objectives
Methods should be focused on addressing objectives Identify thresholds for decision-making
• Revise or discontinue monitoring or implement mitigation Reduce risk associated with scientific uncertainty
HWG
Issue: Marine mammals could become entangled in the WEC devices or lost fishing gear.
Objective 1: Are marine mammals present?
YESNO
Stop monitoring, no entanglement
risks
YES NO
Objective 3: Are marine mammals
entangled?Remove gear
Measures to reduce entanglement risk.
Objective 2: Is lost fishing gear
entangled?
YESNO
Entanglement risk low, continue monitoring.
HWG
Issue: Marine mammals may be affected by noise, which could result in hearing injury or behavioral
disturbances.
Objective 2: Can WEC device noise injure marine mammals?
YESNOStop
monitoring, marine
mammals not exposed
Stop monitoring, conclude no adverse
effect.
Design studies to minimize effect.
Objective 1: Are marine mammals present?
YESNO
Conclude device noise
too loud. Redesign devices.
Objective 3: Does noise cause behavioral
disturbances?
YESNO
HWG
Issue: Marine mammals could be attracted to WEC devices, which could put them at risk for other impacts (i.e.,
entanglement, noise exposure).
Objective 1: Are marine mammals
present?
YESNO
Possible risk.
Measures to reduce
attraction.
Marine mammals
not attracted.
Stop monitoring
Objective 2: Are sea lions
hauling out on devices?
YES
NO
Unable to haul out. Stop
monitoring.Modify structures.
No increased predation on listed
fish species.
Marine mammal/fish attraction could be causing
increased predation.
Listed fish species attracted to devices?
YESNO
YESYES
HWG
Types of Acoustic Monitoring Devices
Surface and Bottom Deployed Hydrophones
Sub-surface Buoy
Autonomous Acoustic Recorder &/or C-Pod Click Detector
Cable
Acoustic Release
Anchor
Typical hydrophone and cable for boat deployment.
HWG
Issue: WEC devices could act as a Fish Aggregating Device (FAD effect). If a FAD effect occurs, it could increase predation on
listed fish species.
Objective 1. Are listed or predator species present in greater numbers at the project?
YESNOStop monitoring, devices do not attract listed or predator species
Objective 2. Are fish predators eating listed
species?
YESNO
Stop monitoring, listed species not
being preyed upon
Estimate predation rates
HWG
Issue: WEC device anchors could act as an artificial reef. If an artificial reef effect occurs, it could result in increased predation
on listed fish species.
Objective 1: Are more structure-oriented predatory fish at the project?
YESNO
Stop monitoring, devices not acting as artificial reef
YESNO
Objective 2: Are fish predators eating listed species?
Stop monitoring, predator species eating
other species
Estimate predation rates
HWG
Issue: Electric and magnetic fields (EMF) generated by the project could negatively change behavior and movement patterns
of green sturgeon.
Objective 3. Enough to warrant
further study?
Migration primarily outside
project area
Objective 2. Project-related EMF higher?
Objective 4. Project-
related EMF higher than sensitivity?
Adverse effect on migration.
Objective 1. Tagged fish encountering project?
YESNOTagged
fish do not encounter
area. YESNO
Objective 5. Migration delay?
YESNO
No effect on migration
YESNOProject-related
EMF not different.
YES
No effect
NO
Photo by Thomas Dunklin
HWG
Issue. Electric and magnetic fields (EMF) generated by the project could negatively change behavior and movement patterns
of Dungeness crab.
Objective 3. Do behaviors differ
when WEC devices are
“on”?
Objective 2. Project-related EMF higher?
Objective 4: Project-
related EMF higher than sensitivity?
Objective 1. Dungeness crab encountering the project?
YESNO
Crab do not encounter project.
YES
YESNOProject-
related EMF not different.
NO
No effect
YESNO
Adverse effect. Minimize EMF.
No effect
HWG
Issue: Electric and magnetic fields (EMF) generated by the project could negatively change behavior and movement
patterns of sharks, skates, and rays.
1Biologists are seeking funding for behavioral and neurophysiological studies to evaluate EMF effects.
Objective 4. Project-related
EMF higher than sensitivity?
Objective 2. Project-related EMF higher?
Objective 1. Tagged fish encountering project?
YESNO
Objective 3. Enough tagged
fish?
EMF not different
from ambient.
YES NO
Evaluate need for expanded
tagging program
Tagged fish do not encounter project. No adverse
effect
NOYES
Evaluate need for further studies1
or minimize EMF
YESNO
HWG
Objective 1. Is biofouling detected? Are shell mounds
formed?
Issue: Biofouling likely to occur and could provide habitat for invasive, non-native species
YESNO
Continue monitoring
(O&M)
Objective 2. Can species be identified?
YESNO
Continue monitoring (O&M). ID community
composition.
ID community composition
HWG
Objective 1. Is there sufficient sample effort to detect change?
YESNO
Objective 2. Will increased sample effort
detect change?
Continue sampling, conduct BACI
Issue: Project construction and WEC devices will affect the benthic community
Continue sampling; qualitative
comparisons
YESNO
Increase effort, conduct Before-
After-Control-Impact (BACI) study
YESNO
No effect Minimize effect.
Objective 3. Communities changed?
HWG
Define Issues
• Issue 1: Will seabirds be attracted to lights on the project structures and therefore be at risk of mortality due to this behavior or collision with these structures?
• Issue 2: Will project structures capture or snag drifting fishing gear that may pose an entanglement risk to seabirds, or will any component of the structures themselves pose an entanglement risk?
• Issue 3: Will the project expose seabirds to oil or other chemicals?
• Issue 4: Will seabirds be attracted to the project structure for the purposes of foraging, roosting, or nesting; and does this behavior pose a risk of injury or mortality due to collision, entanglement, or exposure to chemicals?
HWG
Monitoring Methods
ISSUE 1 ISSUE 2 ISSUE 3 ISSUE 4
Lighting attraction Collision Entanglement Oil Attraction
Direct observation (night) YES YES YES
Direct observation (day) YES YES YES
Direct observation (underwater) YES
Thermal infrared imaging YES YES YES
Radar YES
Carcass surveys YES YES YES
Feedback from project crew and local mariners YES YES YES YES
HWG
Issue 1. Light Attraction and Collision
Will seabirds be attracted to lights on the project structures and therefore be at risk of mortality due to this behavior or collision with these structures?
Objectives• Evaluate whether seabirds are attracted to project lighting at night.• Document any behaviors that appear related to project lighting
(e.g., circling, collision), and evaluate potential for project lights to increase risk of seabird collision with project structures.
• Monitor for evidence of mortality potentially resulting from collision.
HWG
Issue 1. Light Attraction and Collision
• Direct observation (night)• Thermal infrared imaging• Radar• Carcass surveys • Feedback from project crew and
local mariners
Monitoring Recommendations
HWG
Objective 2: Document any behaviors that appear related to project lighting (e.g.,
circling, collision), and evaluate potential for project lights to increase risk of seabird
collision with project structures.
Objective 3: Monitor for evidence of mortality
potentially resulting from collision.
Objective 1: Evaluate whether seabirds are attracted to project lighting at night.
Conclude birds are not attracted to the project lighting at night and there is a low chance of
attraction to lighting or collision with structures or associated
mortality.
Conclude birds are present at night, but are not negatively
affected by project-related structures.
Take mitigation measures to
minimize collision or attraction.
Conduct additional monitoring efforts of
modified project equipment.
Take mitigation measures to
minimize collision or attraction.
Conduct additional monitoring efforts of
modified project equipment.
YESNO
YES NO YESNO
Issue 1. Light Attraction and CollisionAdaptive Management
HWG
Issue 2. Entanglement Will project structures capture or snag drifting fishing gear that may pose an entanglement risk to seabirds, or will any component of the structures themselves pose an entanglement risk?
Objectives• Determine whether drifting fishing gear collects or becomes
snagged on any part of the project structure.• Evaluate the potential for, or document occurrence of, seabirds
becoming entangled in mooring lines or any fishing gear attached to the structure.
• Monitor for any indirect evidence that seabird mortality may be resulting from entanglement at the project site.
HWG
• Direct observation (day)• Direct observation (underwater)• Carcass surveys• Feedback from project crew and
local mariners
Issue 2. Entanglement Monitoring Recommendations
HWG
Issue 2. Entanglement Objective 1: Determine whether drifting fishing gear collects or
becomes snagged on any part of the project structure.
Conclude that underwater project structures are not
entangling seabirds.
Take mitigation measures to minimize
entanglement in underwater project
structures.
Conduct additional monitoring efforts of
modified project equipment.
Objective 2a: Evaluate the potential for, or document occurrence of, seabirds becoming entangled in underwater project structures
(e.g., mooring lines).
Conclude that fishing gear is not
attaching to project structures.
Take mitigation measures to minimize
fishing gear entanglement in project
mooring lines.
Conduct additional monitoring efforts of modified project
equipment.
Objective 2b: Evaluate the potential for, or document
occurrence of, seabirds becoming entangled in any fishing gear
attached to the structure.
Conclude that fishing gear attached to project mooring lines is not entangling seabirds.
Objective 3: Monitor for any indirect evidence that seabird
mortality may be resulting from entanglement at the project site.
Conclude that seabird mortality is not likely being caused by entanglement at
the project site.
YESNO
YESNO
NO
NOYES
YES
Adaptive Management
HWG
Issue 3. Oil
Will the project expose seabirds to oil or other chemicals?
Objectives• Document any instances of oil or chemical leaks or spills at the
project site and evaluate potential risk to seabirds associated with any such event.
• Monitor for evidence of seabird fouling or mortality that may be a result of oil or chemicals associated with the project.
HWG
• Direct observation (day)• Carcass surveys • Feedback from project crew and local mariners
Issue 3. OilMonitoring Recommendations
HWG
Issue 3. Oil
Objective 1: Document any instances of oil or chemical leaks or spills at the project site and evaluate whether there are potential risk to
seabirds associated with any such event.
Conclude that the amount of oil or chemicals from a
reported spill are not affecting seabirds.
Take mitigation measures to minimize release of oil or other
chemicals.
Conduct additional monitoring efforts.
Objective 2: Monitor for evidence of seabird fouling or mortality that may be a result of oil or chemicals
associated with the project.
Take mitigation measures to minimize release of oil or other
chemicals.
Conclude that oil or chemicals associated with the project are
not affecting seabirds.
YES NO NO YES
Adaptive Management
HWG
Issue 4. AttractionWill seabirds be attracted to the project structure for the purposes of foraging, roosting, or nesting; and does this behavior pose a risk of injury or mortality due to collision, entanglement, or exposure to chemicals?
Objectives• Monitor to determine whether seabirds are using the project
structure for roosting or nesting. • Monitor to determine whether any seabirds are congregating or
foraging in the immediate vicinity of the project structure.• Evaluate whether any observed use of the structure by seabirds
poses any risks to seabirds, or any indirect risk to other resources, such as fish prey congregating at the structure.
HWG
• Direct observation (night)• Direct observation (day)• Thermal infrared imaging• Carcass surveys • Feedback from project crew and local
mariners
Monitoring Recommendations
Issue 4. Attraction
HWG
Conduct additional monitoring efforts of modified project
equipment.
Take mitigation measures
Conclude that seabirds attraction to the WEC devices or project facilities does not increase the risk of project
impacts on these birds.
Objective 1: Monitor to determine whether seabirds are using the project
structures for roosting or nesting.
Objective 3: Evaluate whether any observed use of the structure by seabirds poses any
risks to seabirds, or any indirect risk to other resources, such as fish prey
congregating at the structure.
Conclude that seabirds are not
roosting or nesting on project structures.
Objective 2: Monitor to determine whether seabirds are congregating or
foraging in the immediate vicinity of the project structures.
Conclude that seabirds are not concentrating
foraging activities in the immediate vicinity of the
project structures.
YESNO YES NO
NO YES
Issue 4. AttractionAdaptive Management
HWG
Electric and Magnetic Fields in the Sea
42
• Offshore power generated by wave energy will be transmitted to shore using sub-sea power cables. – Generation and transmission of high power along such
cables will likely induce both electric and magnetic fields into the sea
– Effects of electric and magnetic fields on marine species are largely unknown
HWG
Electric and Magnetic Field Factoids
43
Magnetic Flux Lines
• In general, electric and magnetic field theory is well known. Detailed studies of field behavior in the sea has only been done in the past three or four decades.
• Some marine species have been shown, or are thought to have, electro- or magneto-sensitive characteristics, and field strength and frequency of stimuli are important factors:– Sharks and skates– Salmonids, sturgeon– Benthic species– Marine mammals
HWG
Factoids (continued)
44
B
E
Example: Voltage is applied to an ideal, shielded electrical conductor, and current flows.The electrical field is stopped by the shield, but the magnetic field permeates the shield and is present outside the shield.
• Electric and magnetic fields are a naturally occurring phenomena– Examples: Earth’s magnetic field, solar radiation, lightning
• Electric and magnetic fields can be artificially generated– Examples: power transmission lines and generating equipment
• Fields can be comprised of both electric (E-field) and magnetic (B-field)– E-fields from a cable are a function of voltage potential, not electrical
current– B-fields are due to electrical current flowing in a conductor, not
applied voltage
HWG
Induced Electric Fields in the Ocean
45
Two elements of basic electromagnetic theory:(1) Electrical current flowing in a conductor creates a
magnetic field(2) Changing magnetic field induces an electrical field in a
conductor
When seawater moves in the presence of a magnetic field, electric fields will be induced in the seawater. The magnitude of the field
produced is related to the magnetic field strength, the velocity of the water, and the relative orientation between the magnetic field
and water velocity vector.
“Theoretically, it seems a necessary consequence that where water is flowing, there electric currents should be formed….”
– Michael Faraday, 1832
HWG
Induced Electric FieldsWave Motion
46
Orbital wave motion induces electric fields
• Motionally induced electric fields naturally occur in the near-shore environment due primarily to wave motion
• On the Pacific coast, the magnetic field is oriented largely in a northerly direction, and the dominant waves originate from the west
• Other sources of induced electric fields original from coastal currents, and to a lesser degree, tidal motion
HWG
Humboldt Area Wave Motion
47
0
45
90
135
180
225
270
315
22.5
67.5
112.5
157.5202.5
247.5
292.5
337.5
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%Frequency of Occurrence
Wave Height (m)<=1>1 - 2>2 - 3>3 - 4>4 - 5>5
Eel River Wave Conditions(based on NOAA Station 46022 -- June 2007 through May 2009)
• Prevailing wave direction 290° to 340°
• Seasonal pattern of wave height/period
HWG
Existing and On Going Work
48
• COWRIE/CMACS Study, 2003 (UK)– “A Baseline Assessment of Electromagnetic Fields
Generated by Offshore Windfarm Cables”• U.S. Dept. of Interior, Minerals Management Service
– “Effects of EMF from Transmission Lines on Elasmobranchs and Other Marine Species”
• Oregon Wave Energy Trust– “Determining methods, protocols and measurements for
acquiring reliable and affordable Electromagnetic Field (EMF) measurements at wave project sites”
HWG
Anticipated Future Work
49
• U.S. Department of Energy – EERE Waterpower Program– Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) will lead a team to
investigate direct stressors on aquatic organisms.– The priority for the current year is to estimate the effects of
electric and magnetic fields on marine organisms.– PNNL researchers will expose fish and marine invertebrates to
electric and magnetic fields in the laboratory to record behavioral and other non-lethal endpoints, in order to develop a exposure/response curve.
– In subsequent years, the experiments will move to the field, so that realistic responses and doses of electric and magnetic field effects can be estimated.
• PG&E team will cooperate with PNNL on field testing and measurement.
Key organisms to be tested include Pacific salmon and steelhead, Atlantic halibut, rockfish, Dungeness crab, and sturgeon.
HWG
Electric and Magnetic FieldSubmarine Power Cables
50
• Basic cable physical configuration strongly influences E- and B-field emissions
• Factors include:– Cable shielding or “screens”– Cable armoring– Spatial orientation of electrical– The degree of “twist” in the conductors
• In general, multi-phase AC cables emit less energy than single phase AC cables due to the cancellation of magnetic fields by out-of-phase signals
Visualization of Magnetic Field of
Three-Phase AC Cable
HWG
Field Propagation is Geologically Dependent
51
• Generalized analyses are often conducted with simplified models for cables within idealized strata
• In practice, the seafloor is not homogenous, and as earlier described, electric fields propagate more efficiently in strata less conductive than seawater
Image courtesy of Scripps Institution of Oceanography
HWG
Field MeasurementsAn Issue of Proportions
52
• Seawater is electrically conductive, and thus electric fields do not propagate as efficiently in the ocean as they propagate in air or through the Earth’s crust
• The ocean has a “filtering” effect on fields, which is frequency dependent• Measurements in the sea require substantially more sensitive instrumentation than
equivalent measurements in the atmosphere or on land
Prefix Multiplier Descriptor
tera, T 1,000,000,000,000 trillion
giga, G 1,000,000,000 billion
mega, M 1,000,000 million
kilo, k 1,000 thousand
milli, m .001 thousandth
micro, µ .000,001 millionth
nano, n .000,000,001 billionth
pico, p .000,000,000,001 trillionth
femto, f .000,000,000,000,001 quadrillionth
Commonly observed atmospheric values
Commonly observed oceanic values
Underwater levels can be as much as one billion times
lower than terrestrial levels
HWG
Electric and Magnetic FieldsDeep Ocean is Limiting Case
53
Representative Modeled Magnetic and Electric Field Spectra in Ocean Environment. Grey line represents noise floor for induction coil
magnetometer and e-field electrodes.
Source: Key, Kerry W. (2003), PhD dissertation
HWG
Field Sensing Options
54
– Low-noise electric-field electrodes are commercially available
– High sensitivity terrestrial magnetic sensors can be repackaged for underwater use; some underwater sensors exist today in the commercial market
– Very low-noise, high-gain amplifiers are commercially available off-the-shelf
– High-resolution analog-to-digital converter systems are under development
• Underwater sensor market is dominated by geophysical exploration and by undersea defense
• Equipment is generally available today, but is exceedingly expensive• Off-the-shelf technology exists to achieve low levels of instrumentation noise• Some effort will be required to bridge the gap between availability and affordability
Image courtesy of Scripps Institution of Oceanography
HWG
Electric and Magnetic Fields in the SeaAdditional Information
55
For more information please contact:
Brendan P. Dooher, PhDPacific Gas and Electric Co.3400 Crow Canyon Rd.San Ramon, CA 94583 USA
Michael SlaterScience Applications International CorporationOcean Technology Division26279 Twelve Trees Lane, Suite BPoulsbo, WA 98370
Top Related