PG&E WaveConnectHumboldt

Working Group

February 1, 2010

HWG

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

HWG6

Humboldt WaveConnect Preliminary Permit Area and Site

HWG

Public Meeting Agenda and Plan

HWG7

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 and Adaptive Management

HWG11

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

Seabird Monitoring and Adaptive Management

Plan

HWG

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

Break

HWG40

HWG

Electric and Magnetic Fields

HWG41

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

HWG

Next Steps

56