Ecological Effects of Wave Energy 

Development in the Pacific Northwest 

A Scientific Workshop, October 11–12, 2007 

George W. Boehlert, Gregory R. McMurray, and Cathryn E. Tortorici, editors 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-92 

Ecological Effects of Wave Energy 

Development in the Pacific Northwest 

A Scientific Workshop, October 11–12, 2007 

George W. Boehlert1, Gregory R. McMurray2, and Cathryn E. Tortorici3, editors 

Workshop Steering Committee: George Boehlert, OSU Hatfield Marine Science Center; Robin Hartmann, Oregon 

Shores Conservation Coalition; Maurice Hill, U.S. Minerals Management Service; Justin Klure, Oregon Wave 

Energy Trust; Greg McMurray, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development; John Meyer, 

Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea, OSU; Cathy Tortorici, NOAA-NMFS 

1

Oregon State University, Hatfield Marine Science Center, 2030 SE Marine Science Dr., Newport, Oregon 97365 2

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Ocean and Coastal Services Division, 635 Capitol 

Street NE, Suite 150, Salem, Oregon 97301-2540 3

NOAA-NMFS Northwest Region, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Portland, Oregon 97232 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-92 

September 2008

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Carlos M. Gutiérrez, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., USN (Ret.) 

Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

James W. Balsiger, Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 
ii

Suggested citation: 

Boehlert, G. W, G. R. McMurray, and C. E. Tortorici (editors). 2008. Ecological effects of wave energy 

in the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-92, 174 p. 

A copy of this report may be obtained from: 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

NMFS, NOAA 

2725 Montlake Boulevard East 

Seattle, Washington 98112 

Or online at: 

http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tm/ 
iii

Contents 

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................v

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................ix

Introduction and Workshop Objectives 

George W. Boehlert, Oregon State University, Hatfield Marine Science Center.........................................1

Presentations—Extended Abstracts ..............................................................................................................5

Wave Energy Interest in the Oregon Coast: Policy and Economic Considerations 

Justin Klure, Oregon Wave Energy Trust.................................................................................................5

The Oregon Shelf/California Current System’s Ecological Setting 

Bill Peterson, NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC......................................................................................................7

The Technology: Wave Energy Development on the West Coast 

Mirko Previsic, re vision consulting, LLC..............................................................................................15

Environmental Risk Analysis and Wave Energy: Examples of How to Assess Potential Impacts of 

Wave Energy on the Environment 

Maurice L. Hill and Fred M. Piltz, U.S. Minerals Management Service ...............................................22

Wave Energy Ecological Effects Workshop Ecological Assessment Briefing Paper 

Gregory McMurray, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development..................................25

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................25

The Technology......................................................................................................................................25

The Affected Environment: Oregon’s Continental Shelf .......................................................................32

Environmental Effects ............................................................................................................................51

Bibliography and Literature Cited..........................................................................................................63

Breakout Groups .........................................................................................................................................67

Introduction to the Breakout Groups 

John Meyer, Oregon State University, and Robin Hartmann, Oregon Shores Conservation 

Coalition.................................................................................................................................................67

Receptor Breakout Group Report: The Physical Environment ..............................................................69

Receptor Breakout Group Report: Pelagic Habitat.................................................................................74

Receptor Breakout Group Report: Benthic Habitat................................................................................78

Receptor Breakout Group Report: Fish and Fisheries............................................................................84

Receptor Breakout Group Report: Marine Birds....................................................................................89

Receptor Breakout Group Report: Marine Mammals.............................................................................95

Stressor Breakout Group Report: Energy Absorbing Structures..........................................................101

Stressor Breakout Group Report: Chemical Effects.............................................................................106

Stressor Breakout Group Report: Hard Structures and Lighting..........................................................110

Stressor Breakout Group Report: Acoustics.........................................................................................114

Stressor Breakout Group Report: Electromagnetic Effects ..................................................................121

Breakout Group Report: System View and Cumulative Effects ..........................................................125

Workshop Integration and Synthesis 

Cathy Tortorici, NOAA-NMFS .................................................................................................................133

Glossary, Abbreviations, and Acronyms ..................................................................................................139

Appendix 1: Workshop Agenda...............................................................................................................147
iv

Appendix 2: Ecological Effects of Wave Energy Development in the Pacific Northwest: 

Prospectus for a Science Workshop..........................................................................................................149

Appendix 3: Workshop Participants ........................................................................................................153

Appendix 4: Keynote Address— Ocean Zoning: Implications for Wave Energy Development (WED) 

Richard G. Hildreth ..................................................................................................................................159

Appendix 5: Environmental Consequences of Wave Energy Extraction along the Shores of the U.S. 

Pacific Northwest: The Physical Environment .........................................................................................163
v

Executive Summary 

Background 

The Pacific Northwest has significant 

opportunity to develop the capacity to harvest 

wave energy off its coast as a clean, renewable 

resource. While the technology and interest is 

advancing rapidly, it is important to understand 

the potential effects of wave energy technology 

on the ecological and physical components of 

coastal ecosystems. A workshop to address 

these issues was organized at Oregon State 

University’s Hatfield Marine Science Center in 

Newport, Oregon, on October 11–12, 2007. The 

workshop’s problem statement was as follows: 

The conversion of ocean waves into 

electricity has the potential to provide 

clean, reliable, and low-cost electricity 

to the economy while producing minimal 

impacts on the environment. However, 

in order for wave energy to develop and 

fulfill these assumptions, we must 

reduce the uncertainties about the 

technology's effects on the marine 

environment. We must assess the 

potential environmental impacts of wave 

energy, determine what is known and 

unknown, and identify a rigorous set of 

scientific studies to address concerns. 

This information is needed to support 

the permitting process as well as to 

make responsible decisions to site 

facilities and to minimize environmental 

impacts. 

Workshop Objectives and Structure 

A diverse group of some 50 marine 

scientists from around the country participated 

in the workshop. Principal objectives were 1) to 

develop an initial assessment of the potential 

impacting agents and ecological effects of wave 

energy development, and 2) to formulate a 

general conceptual framework of physical and 

biological relationships that can be applied to 

specific wave energy projects. Presentations on 

the physical and biological environment, the 

wave energy technologies being considered, and 

frameworks for environmental risk analysis 

(which were adopted for this workshop) set the 

stage for a common understanding among 

participants. This was followed by a series of 

breakout sessions to address these questions: 

• What is known about important wave 

energy facilities, their associated 

components (such as cables, anchors, 

and buoys), and their effect on the 

physical and biological systems? 

• What is unknown about these 

relationships, and what are key 

information gaps? 

• What is the level of uncertainty or 

agreement among scientists about these 

interactions? 

• Can we prioritize important ecological 

issues (e.g., key interactions)? 

• What studies, monitoring, or mitigation 

measures should be employed to help 

minimize or better understand effects? 

Two sets of breakout sessions were 

convened. The first dealt with “receptors,” or 

specific elements of the ecosystem where the 

potential for a demonstrable response to wave 

energy development may exist. The second 

focused on “stressors,” specific wave energy 

components that may interact with a suite of 

ecosystem elements. Stressors may occur during 

installation, operation, or decommissioning of 

facilities. A summary of the initial key findings 

from each group as reported during the 

workshop follows. 

Results 

Receptor breakout groups 

For the Physical Environment, workshop 

participants suggested there could be significant 

wave reduction resulting from wave energy 

production, with possible beach effects (e.g., 

changes to sediment transport processes); pilot 
vi

projects to understand and model wave 

reduction effects are needed. Mitigation for 

physical changes should be developed through 

analysis of project geometry, density, and 

distance from shore; additionally, it was 

suggested that buoys should not be placed in 

sensitive areas (i.e., closer to shore than 40 m 

depth). 

In the Pelagic Habitat, buoys will likely 

have a minimal impact on phytoplankton, but 

positive effects (through aggregation) on forage 

fish species—this in turn could result in 

attraction of larger predators. Structures need to 

minimize loose lines to reduce potential 

entanglement of marine turtle species. Adding 

structure may induce increased settlement of 

meroplankton species, and potential effects of 

electromagnetic fields (EMF) are currently 

unknown. 

Immediate changes to the Benthic Habitat

will likely result from modifications to water 

circulation and currents. Larval distribution and 

sediment transport may change both in the 

benthos and on beaches. Additionally, the 

fouling community growth on buoys, anchors, 

and lines may adversely affect the benthic 

environment if deposited into accumulations on 

the seafloor (e.g., by sloughing off or by routine 

maintenance of mooring lines and buoy 

structures). Effects on the benthos will likely 

scale in a nonlinear fashion, affected by 

connectivity as multiple facilities interact—for 

example, as stepping stones for invasive species. 

Wave energy development can affect 

community structure for Fish and Fisheries

through changes in species composition and 

predator effects (e.g., attraction of predators that 

were previously absent). New structures may 

affect migration corridors (e.g., for salmon, 

Dungeness crabs, elasmobranchs, and sturgeon), 

potentially mediated through behavioral effects 

resulting from EMF, chemical, and acoustic 

signals. Effects on fishery access and gear 

entanglement are also anticipated, but were not 

topics of this workshop. 

For Marine Birds, lighting and above-water 

structures may result in collisions and attraction 

to buoys. Structures may also alter food webs 

and beach processes, in turn affecting 

shorebirds. Data gaps to be filled include spatial 

and temporal abundance of birds, bird activity at 

night, important areas of bird activity that should 

be avoided, important migration patterns, and 

potential effects on seabird prey. 

A diversity of concerns exists for Marine 

Mammals; the nature of mooring cables (slack v. 

taut; horizontal v. vertical; diameter) is critical 

to entanglement issues. Fundamental baseline 

data will be needed (mammal biology, 

presence/absence/species diversity, information 

on prey species) to understand projects’ impacts 

and long-term buildout scenarios. There is some 

need for immediate monitoring of cetaceans 

(e.g., videography, beachings, tagging, vessel 

surveys) to understand how they interact with 

wave energy facilities. 

Stressor breakout groups 

Energy Absorbing Structures (e.g., buoys, 

wave snakes, etc.) affect a suite of receptors, and 

consequently should not be established within 

sensitive habitats and areas. (Shallow coastal 

waters are sensitive ecologically; some 

suggested that wave energy facilities should stay 

outside 100 m.) Impacts can be minimized by 

working with industry ahead of time. Energy 

devices that focus or trap water in the nearshore 

environment will be especially problematic due 

to the sensitive areas nearshore. 

When addressing Chemical Effects, it is 

important to distinguish between spills as a 

source of chemicals (low probability but high 

impact) versus continuous release of chemicals, 

for example in fouling paints. It will be 

important to understand effects at the 

community level—do chemicals bioaccumulate 

and pass through trophic levels? Chemicals can 

move over a large area, depending on the 

currents. Information is needed on the nature of 

toxic compounds to be used, potential amounts 

that could be released, responses of receptors, 

and the fate of the contaminants. 

New Hard Structures and Lighting will be a 

part of any wave energy structure, requiring the 
vii

industry to consider mitigation measures for 

devices breaking loose and debris accumulation. 

Important regulations under several laws (e.g., 

the ESA, EFH, MMPA, NEPA, and MBTA) 

must be closely followed as the industry 

develops. It is important to understand how new 

hard surfaces may alter bottom communities, as 

well as to synthesize existing data and use it to 

help answer questions about impacts and 

identify important environmentally sensitive 

areas that can be avoided. 

The Acoustics group noted that 

understanding noise coming from the buoys and 

cables and how fish and marine mammals will 

or could react is critical. It is possible to model 

noise from buoys and cables and use that 

information to assess impacts from various 

scales of wave energy facility buildout, but it 

was noted that the synchrony of noise from 

buoys could exacerbate noise or create noise not 

previously considered. Wave energy facilities, 

depending on their size and layout, could create 

a sound barrier that mammals would avoid. 

Some fish species are especially sensitive to 

acoustics; this could result in food chain effects 

since some species are prey for marine 

mammals. 

Electromagnetic Effects from both induced 

and galvanic fields are most likely to affect 

animals that use EMF for orientation or feeding. 

Induced or galvanic fields are most likely to 

affect feeding, whereas magnetic fields will 

likely have greater effects on orientation. 

Salmon, crab, sturgeon, and sharks and rays (and 

albacore under certain oceanographic 

conditions) are the species most likely to be 

affected. Major areas of uncertainty exist on the 

effect of EMF on receptors, so before-and-after 

baseline assessment of local magnetic fields is 

needed. Controlled experiments are difficult and 

complex (confounded with other stressors). 

The System View/Cumulative Effects group 

focused on issues likely to occur as projects 

scale up; risks are a function of the extent, 

density, and duration of project operation. In 

order to understand effects, impact thresholds 

need to be established. As projects scale up in 

location or implementation, new risk end points 

come into play that were not initially part of the 

assessment. Other activities can be displaced 

(e.g., fishing pressure allocated to other areas, 

marine mammals altering migration paths, etc.). 

Therefore, adaptive management is critical to 

address long-term impacts. 

Conclusions 

There is an urgency to the need for 

environmental studies of wave energy 

conversion. Throughout the workshop, the 

importance of evaluating ecological effects at 

any wave energy demonstration study sites or 

pilot scale facilities was stressed. These 

evaluations will help reduce uncertainty of 

effects for all stressors and all receptor groups, 

leading to improvements in the best practices for 

design of devices and arrays and to performance 

standards and monitoring requirements that can 

be applied to commercial-scale development. 

ix

Acknowledgments 

It took a great deal of work to develop this workshop; it would not have been possible without the 

support of many organizations and individuals. Organization of the workshop was developed by a 

Steering Committee consisting of seven individuals: George Boehlert, OSU; Robin Hartmann, Oregon 

Shores Conservation Coalition; Maurice Hill, U.S. Minerals Management Service; Justin Klure, Oregon 

Wave Energy Trust; Greg McMurray, Oregon DLCD; John Meyer, COMPASS; and Cathy Tortorici, 

NOAA-NMFS. Amy Windrope, formerly of COMPASS, was involved in the early organization. We 

also thank Keith Kirkendall of NOAA-NMFS for stepping in at the last minute as one of our breakout 

group facilitators. 

For financial support of workshop costs (e.g., logistics, travel, editing and publication), we gratefully 

acknowledge the federal agencies (NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Minerals Management 

Service, Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory), State of Oregon agencies 

(Department of Land Conservation and Development, Department of State Lands, Department of Energy, 

Parks and Recreation Department), Oregon State University (Institute for Natural Resources, Hatfield 

Marine Science Center), private and public utilities (Portland General Electric, PacifiCorp, Central 

Lincoln People’s Utility District), Lincoln County, the Communication Partnership for Science and the 

Sea, Oregon Wave Energy Trust, and the Yaquina Bay Economic Foundation. 

We thank OSU’s Hatfield Marine Science Center for hosting the workshop; arrangements and 

logistics were ably supported there by Ken Hall, Joel Colvin, Dann Cutter, and Shawn Brateng. The 

Oregon Coast Aquarium hosted the evening event. Peter Vince and the Toledo High School Video 

Production Team did a great job of recording the proceedings of the plenary and keynote presentations. 

Michele Redmond of Scientific Notations LLC, South Beach, Oregon, edited the proceedings, bringing 

many disparate reports to a common and understandable format. Finally, we thank several anonymous 

reviewers for comments on selected breakout groups, and for review of the entire document, we thank 

Rod Fujita (Environmental Defense Fund) and Roger Bedard (Electric Power Research Institute). 

Introduction and Workshop Objectives 

George W. Boehlert, 

Oregon State University, Hatfield Marine Science Center

Development of renewable energy resources 

is a major priority in many parts of the world, 

and some contend that it represents one of 

mankind’s best hopes of minimizing global 

warming (Krupp and Horn 2008). Wind, solar, 

and biomass energy are all in various stages of 

development. Ocean energy is an area of great 

promise that has yet to be highly developed. 

Hydrokinetic energy from tidal, current, and 

wave sources represents immense potential for 

electrical energy generation; ocean thermal 

energy conversion in tropical regions also holds 

promise. Marine wind energy in coastal areas is 

under active development, particularly in 

regions where terrestrial wind farms are not 

appropriate due to lack of wind or lack of usable 

land area. In this context, development of 

renewable ocean energy is occurring rapidly, but 

is not without environmental and social concerns 

(Pelc and Fujita 2002, EMEC 2005, Cada et al. 

2007, Weiss et al. 2007). Displacement of other 

ocean uses and environmental concerns must be 

taken into account. 

Ocean wave energy can provide clean and 

renewable power in many parts of the world. 

The wave climate along the west coast of North 

America represents one of the best prospects for 

development. In addition to the relatively 

consistent and predictable wave energy 

produced across the long fetch in the North 

Pacific, this region possesses the coastal 

infrastructure and the demand for electrical 

power generation (Bedard et al. 2005). 

Accordingly, the move to develop wave energy 

has been proceeding rapidly. Directed 

government action has been taken to move this 

activity forward. In Oregon, for example, the 

establishment of the Oregon Wave Energy Trust 

(OWET) highlights the importance of wave 

energy resources, and tax benefits for renewable 

energy projects (such as the existing Business 

Energy Tax Credit) add stimulus for 

development. Concurrent development of the 

technologies for wave energy extraction is 

evident in both the private sector and in 

academic institutions. Power companies and 

others are rapidly establishing claims to regions 

of the coastal ocean through applications to the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC). 

Lagging behind the development of 

technology and movements to identify the 

location of coastal wave energy facilities, 

however, has been the assessment of potential 

impacts. Any renewable ocean energy project 

will have associated environmental effects as 

well as other costs and benefits (Pelc and Fujita 

2002, Weiss et al. 2007). More effort is required 

in two broad areas, either of which has the 

potential to stall or hinder projects in the coastal 

ocean (see, for example, Williams and 

Whitcomb 2007). First, the socioeconomic and 

cultural impacts on other ocean users and on 

coastal communities are far-reaching. Wave 

energy installations have the potential to 

displace existing ocean uses, and stakeholders 

from those user groups must be consulted in a 

participatory manner as plans for a project are 

developed. Second, as with any new 

technology, insufficient information on the 

environmental effects of wave energy extraction 

is available. Little is known about the 

technology, much of which is under 

development (Callaway 2007; Previsic, this 

volume). Construction processes and site 

preparation, deployment, operation, power 

transmission, servicing, decommissioning, and 

the physical structures of the wave energy 

devices and the mooring systems all may have 

an uncertain level of impact on the marine 

environment. The most comprehensive 

examination of potential environmental effects 

to date has been in Scotland (e.g., Wilson and 

Downie 2003, Faber Maunsell and METOC 
2

PLC 2007a). A flow chart (Figure 1) from the 

Scottish Environmental Assessment 

demonstrates the degree of complexity. Similar 

efforts in the United States have been instituted 

by the U.S. Minerals Management Service 

(Michel et al. 2007). 

This workshop was designed with a focus on 

the Pacific Northwest. A steering committee*

was formed to develop the workshop concept, 

and decided to limit the scope to environmental 

issues associated with wave energy 

development. Socioeconomic questions broaden 

the area of discussion and the number of 

stakeholders who must participate—they are 

thus deserving of a separate, focused discussion. 

The committee identified two principal goals for 

the workshop: 1) to develop an initial 

assessment of the potential impacting agents and 

ecological effects of wave energy development 

in the coastal ocean, and 2) to develop a general 

framework that can applied to specific wave 

energy projects. We also identified the 

following problem statement: 

The conversion of ocean waves into 

electricity has the potential to provide 

clean, reliable, and low-cost electricity 

to the economy while producing minimal 

impacts on the environment. However, 

in order for wave energy to develop and 

fulfill these assumptions, we must 

reduce the uncertainties about the 

technology’s effects on the marine 

environment. We must assess the 

potential environmental impacts of wave 

energy, determine what is known and 

unknown, and identify a rigorous set of 

scientific studies to address concerns. 

This information is needed to support 

the permitting process as well as to 

 

* Steering Committee: George Boehlert, OSU 

Hatfield Marine Science Center; Robin Hartmann, 

Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition; Maurice Hill, 

U.S. Minerals Management Service; Justin Klure, 

Oregon Wave Energy Trust; Greg McMurray, 

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and 

Development; John Meyer, Communication 

Partnership for Science and the Sea, OSU; Cathy 

Tortorici, NOAA-NMFS. 

make responsible decisions to site 

facilities and to minimize environmental 

impacts. 

The general framework was laid out in a 

plenary presentation (see Hill and Piltz, this 

volume). The workshop was structured to 

evaluate a broad range of environmental impacts 

as they relate to the development and operation 

of wave energy facilities. Workshop 

participants were chosen for their technical and 

ecological expertise, as opposed to knowledge of 

wave energy; this resulted in a diverse group of 

scientists from academia, government, industry, 

and nongovernmental organizations (see 

Appendix 3). They were provided with 

background on wave energy in two ways. First, 

all participants were sent a background paper 

explaining the concepts and technology 

associated with wave energy development, and a 

preliminary assessment of potential 

environmental and ecological considerations; 

that paper is included in this volume. Second, 

the first half-day of the workshop was devoted 

to plenary presentations on technology, policy, 

the ecological and physical setting of the coastal 

ocean in the Pacific Northwest, and the context 

for environmental risk analysis (Agenda, 

Appendix 1). 

Specific focus for the workshop was 

developed through breakout groups examining 

receptors (elements of the ecosystem potentially 

impacted by wave energy development) and 

stressors (changes that wave energy will bring 

that may have impacts). These small groups 

addressed specific questions with the intent of 

examining the risks and uncertainty associated 

with wave energy development, as well as ways 

to mitigate those risks. 

This workshop developed a framework to 

evaluate the possible environmental and 

ecological impacts of wave energy development. 

As the product of the workshop, this document 

is intended to serve as a starting point for further 

discussion. The breakout groups have identified 

the principal issues in their respective areas, but 

we acknowledge that a workshop less than two 

days in duration cannot comprehensively 

identify the issues within each specific topic. As 
3

we move forward with the development of 

sustainable, renewable energy in the coastal 

ocean, we hope that this document can serve as a 

basis for evaluating projects along our coast. 

Literature Cited 

Bedard, R., G. Hagerman, M. Previsic, O. Siddiqui, 

R. Thresher, and B. Ram. 2005. Offshore wave 

power feasibility demonstration project: Final 

summary report, project definition study, EPRI 

Global WP 009–US Rev 1, Jan. 14, 2005. 

Electrical Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, 

CA. 

Cada, G., J. Ahlgrimm, M. Bahleda, T. Bigford, S. D. 

Stavrakas, D. Hall, R. Moursund, and M. Sale. 

2007. Potential impacts of hydrokinetic and 

wave energy conversion technologies on aquatic 

environments. Fisheries 32:174–181. 

Callaway, E. 2007. To catch a wave. Nature 

450:156–159. 

EMEC. 2005. Environmental impact assessment 

(EIA) guidance for developers at the European 

Marine Energy Centre. European Marine Energy 

Centre, Ltd., Orkney, Scotland. Online at 

http://www.emec.org.uk/emec_documents.asp 

[accessed 23 August 2008]. 

Faber Maunsell and METOC PLC. 2007a. Scottish 

marine renewables strategic environmental 

assessment report. Prepared for the Scottish 

Executive by Faber Maunsell and METOC PLC. 

Online at http://www.seaenergyscotland.co.uk/ 

[accessed 7 May 2008]. 

Faber Maunsell and METOC PLC. 2007b. 

Informing the future development of marine 

renewable energy. Environmental report section 

E: Scottish marine renewables strategic 

environmental assessment report. Prepared for 

the Scottish Executive by Faber Maunsell and 

METOC PLC. Online at http://www 

.seaenergyscotland.co.uk/ [accessed 7 May 

2008]. 

Pelc, R., and R. Fujita. 2002. Renewable energy 

from the ocean. Mar. Pol. 26:471–479. 

Krupp, F., and M. Horn. 2008. Earth: The sequel: 

The race to reinvent energy and stop global 

warming. Norton and Company, New York. 

Michel, J., H. Dunagan, C. Boring, E. Healy, W. 

Evans, J. M. Dean, A. McGillis, and J. Hain. 

2007. Worldwide synthesis and analysis of 

existing information regarding environmental 

effects of alternative energy uses on the outer 

continental shelf. MMS OCS Report 2007-038. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Herndon, VA. 

Weiss, J. C., B. B. Boehlert, and R. E. Unsworth. 

2007. Assessing the costs and benefits of 

electricity generation using alternative energy 

resources on the outer continental shelf. OCS 

Study MMS 2007-013. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Offshore Environmental Division, Herndon, VA. 

Williams, W., and R. Whitcomb. 2007. Cape Wind: 

Money, celebrity, class, politics, and the battle 

for our energy future on Nantucket Sound. 

Perseus Books, Cambridge, MA. 

Wilson, S., and A. J. Downie. 2003. A review of 

possible marine renewable energy development 

projects and their natural heritage impacts from a 

Scottish perspective. Scottish Natural Heritage 

Commissioned Report F02AA414. 
4

Figure 1. Factors that must be considered in the development of wave energy. From Faber Maunsell and 

METOC PLC (2007b). 
5

Presentations—Extended Abstracts 

Wave Energy Interest in the Oregon Coast: Policy and Economic 

Considerations 

Justin Klure, Oregon Wave Energy Trust

There is a need to develop new forms of 

energy to meet worldwide demand for 

electricity, which the Energy Information 

Administration estimates will increase 

approximately two percent each year. 

Investments in renewable energy, including 

wave energy, can create new jobs and economic 

development while producing no carbon dioxide 

emissions. The United States currently relies on 

fossil energy (coal, oil, and natural gas) to 

supply over 87% of its energy needs. Fossil 

resources are finite and are currently facing 

global supply constraints. Oregonians spent $10 

billion on energy in 2006. The northwestern 

region of the United States generates 

approximately 45% of its energy from 

hydroelectric facilities in rivers. However, a 

significant amount of this energy is sold into 

other regions of the United States and 

compensated by electricity produced from coal 

to meet the Northwest demand. 

The Oregon Wave Energy Trust (OWET) is 

a newly formed not-for-profit organization 

designed to help guide the development of wave 

energy in Oregon. The mission of OWET is to 

build and share the expertise needed to 

accelerate the development of the wave energy 

industry in a responsible manner. Goals of the 

organization include developing safe, reliable, 

renewable energy; promoting the industry and 

creating new jobs; ensuring responsible 

development; diversifying Oregon’s technology; 

and leveraging Oregon’s investment. OWET is 

sponsored by the Oregon Community 

Development Fund and guided by the Oregon 

Innovation Council. 

The Energy Information Administration 

estimates national energy demand to be 4,200 

terawatt hours per year (TWh/yr) by the year 

2010. The Electric Power Research Institute 

estimates the amount of wave energy potential 

along the U.S. West Coast to be 440 TWh/yr, 

representing approximately 10% of U.S energy 

demands in the year 2010. 

Currently over 1,000 patents have been filed 

for the multiple technologies capable of 

harnessing energy from the ocean waves. Wave 

energy technologies can be categorized into four 

main areas: point absorbers, oscillating water 

columns, attenuators, and overtopping devices. 

A point absorber utilizes the heaving motion (up 

and down) of the ocean wave to produce 

electricity. The oscillating water column takes 

advantage of the pressure variance of the ocean 

wave as it moves in and out of the device. The 

overtopping device takes advantage of the wave 

as it crests over the device and then is gravityfed into a turbine. The attenuator utilizes both 

the up-and-down and side-to-side motions as it 

interacts with the ocean wave to generate 

electricity. 

The ocean is the largest, most concentrated 

source of renewable energy on Earth. Wave 

energy is a form of solar energy. Water is 

extremely dense when compared to air, and 

therefore contains more energy. Wave energy 

has many advantages including but not limited 

to availability (stable resource), predictability, 

close proximity to electrical load centers, 

transmission grid firming, low visual impact, no 

fuel input or price volatility, and no carbon 

dioxide emissions. Ocean energy has the 

potential to provide a significant amount of the 

United States’ electricity needs. 

Significant challenges exist to the 

development of wave energy in Oregon. 

Education and outreach to local coastal 
6

communities are critical for the development of 

the industry. Local communities must be 

engaged in the process of siting ocean wave 

projects. The cost of converting the ocean 

waves into electricity is more expensive than 

conventional resources, and the optimal 

technology for conversion of energy into 

electricity has yet to be identified. There is a 

significant lack of environmental data for the 

Oregon coast and the interaction of wave energy 

facilities with the ocean ecosystem is unknown. 

The territorial sea and waters beyond are heavily 

utilized for fishing, recreation, and other 

activities. Wave energy projects must be 

compatible with other ocean uses. The 

regulatory framework for wave energy projects 

relies on existing state and federal hydroelectric 

laws designed for dams in rivers, and does not 

apply to the issues of siting a wave energy 

project. An Oregon-coast-wide comprehensive 

plan is needed that will incorporate past, present, 

and future uses of the ocean resource. 

The most significant Oregon policy driver 

for the development of renewable energy is the 

Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) established 

by the 2007 Oregon State Legislature. The RPS 

requires that investor-owned utilities must 

generate 25% of their electricity supplies from 

renewable energy resources by the year 2025. 

The State of Oregon also administers tax credits 

and energy loans that support renewable energy 

development. In addition, utility policy 

considerations are being discussed at Bonneville 

Power Administration regarding public power 

contracts and transmission issues. The Ocean 

Policy Advisory Council (appointed by the 

Governor) is responsible for developing ocean 

policy for Oregon’s ocean resource. 

Seven wave energy projects are currently 

proposed in Oregon. The Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) has jurisdiction 

for licensing hydrokinetic energy projects. The 

FERC licensing process is extensive and 

requires public outreach and a robust 

environmental study and monitoring plan prior 

to the awarding of a hydroelectric license. 

The wave energy industry is commonly 

compared to the wind industry of 15–20 years 

ago. The wind industry currently represents a 

$60 billion (and growing) market, and is now 

cost-competitive with other conventional energy 

resources. Wave energy development in Oregon 

has the potential to create new jobs and other 

forms of economic development. Oregon has 

the potential to lead the development of the 

wave energy industry in the United States. 

However, the burden of proof remains on the 

industry to create new jobs, deliver clean energy 

to consumers, and exist and operate in harmony 

with the natural environment and existing ocean 

users. 
7

The Oregon Shelf/California Current System’s Ecological Setting 

Bill Peterson, NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC

Upwelling and Productivity 

The purpose of this presentation is to 

broadly set the stage of the ecological setting 

and the major processes in the coastal ocean off 

the Pacific Northwest. The marine and 

anadromous resources along the west coast of 

the United States occupy diverse habitats in the 

coastal ocean off Washington, Oregon, and 

California—a biogeographic region that is 

collectively termed the Coastal Upwelling 

Domain (Ware and McFarlane 1989). Within 

this domain, several smaller-in-scale physical 

zones are recognized: 

1. A nearshore zone where mysids, 

juvenile fall Chinook salmon 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), sand lance 

(Ammodytes hexapterus), smelts, 

Dungeness crabs (Cancer magister), and 

gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) 

reside, and which includes sand, rocky 

shore, and intertidal habitats. Small 

estuaries and river mouths also play a 

role in this zone. 

2. The middle and outer continental shelf 

where juvenile and adult coho 

(Oncorhychus kisutch) and Chinook 

salmon reside along with abundant krill 

and seasonally changing fish and 

plankton communities. 

3. The upper 10–20 m of the water column 

across the continental shelf and slope 

where many of the pelagic fishes, 

including juvenile coho and Chinook, 

reside. 

4. The benthic and demersal habitats where 

various fishery resources reside, 

including the continental shelf 

(Dungeness crabs, English sole 

[Parophrys vetulus]), the shelf break 

(whiting, rockfish), and beyond the shelf 

break to depths of 1,500 m (sablefish 

[Anoplopoma fimbria], Dover sole 

[Microstomus pacificus], and 

thornyheads [Sebastolobus spp.]). 

Each of these physical zones has unique 

circulation patterns that affect spawning and 

larval transport, and each is subject to different 

types of physical forcing that lead to speciesspecific variations in growth, survival, and 

recruitment. Moreover, since many of the 

species have pelagic larval and/or juvenile 

stages, broad-scale variations in ocean 

productivity (that affect the feeding environment 

of larval and juvenile fish) and variations in 

large-scale ocean circulation (that affect 

transport of eggs and larvae) can both affect 

recruitment. 

The very nearshore zone is strongly affected 

by alongshore currents, sediment transport, wave 

energy, and tides. From a system production 

standpoint, the physical process that is probably 

most important to plants and animals residing in 

continental shelf waters is coastal upwelling. A 

key fact related to the upwelling process is that 

the water that upwells only reaches the sea 

surface within the first few miles of the beach. 

Thus when upwelling is strong, temperatures are 

very cold on the beach and in surface waters out 

to about 5 miles (8 kilometers) from shore, 

dipping as low as 46°F (7.8°C) when the winds 

are strong. The upwelled water is rich in 

nutrients required for growth of microscopic 

planktonic plants (phytoplankton) and as a result 

phytoplankton biomass is highest closest to 

shore (Figure 1). These plants fuel a productive 

food chain, resulting in high abundances of 

copepods (the next step in the food chain above 

phytoplankton) in this nearshore zone (Figure 2). 

Large jellyfish are abundant and conspicuous in 

this nearshore zone, particularly in mid to late 

summer. Abundances of copepods are also high 

farther to sea, out to water depths of at least 

100 m (50 fathoms). It is in this region the 

euphausiids (krill) start to become abundant. 
8

June

Water Depth (m)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

0

20

40

60

110

May

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Chlorophyll 

a (μg L-1) 0

5

10

15

20

September

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

0

10

20

30

40

Chlorophyll (an index of phytoplankton biomass)

May

0 50 100 150 200

Chlorophyll 

a (μg L-1)

0

5

10

15

20

June

Water Depth (m)

0 50 100 150 200

0

20

40

60

110

September

0 50 100 150 200

0

10

20

30

40

Figure 1. Phytoplankton biomass as indexed by chlorophyll-a concentration, measured at stations from the 

nearshore zone out to beyond the continental shelf. The lower panel shows data from the continental 

shelf only, so as to see the cross-shelf distributions in greater detail. 

Copepod Biomass

Water Depth (m)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Copepod Biomass (mg m-3)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

June

September

Neg exp model

Water Depth (m)

0 50 100 150 200

Copepod Biomass (mg m-3)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Figure 2. Copepod biomass measured at stations from the nearshore zone out to water depths of 1,200 m in 

June and September during salmon sampling cruises at stations from Newport, Oregon, north to La 

Push, Washington (see Figure 3). The panel on the right shows only the continental shelf stations so as to 

highlight the cross-shelf distributions. 
9

Beyond that point in an offshore direction, 

copepod biomass begins to decline quickly, but 

krill biomass increases. Krill seem to have their 

maximum biomass offshore at the shelf break 

and beyond, in water depths of 200 to 800 m. 

Furthermore, the high biomass and rates of 

production by plankton in the inner-to-middle 

continental shelf zone, from the beach out to 

about 100 m, fuel a productive food chain that 

supports high numbers of baitfish such as 

herring, anchovy and smelt (Figure 3). These 

fishes are in turn fed upon by salmon and 

seabirds such as murres, shearwaters, 

cormorants, and pelicans. Also, a large 

proportion of the production by plankton sinks 

to the sea floor where it is consumed by mysids, 

amphipods, and small clams; these in turn 

support gray whales and vast quantities of 

Dungeness crabs. Close to shore, the pounding 

surf chops up seaweeds into bits and pieces that 

become detritus upon which mysids and 

amphipods also feed. This process further 

contributes to high productivity within the first 

few miles of the shores. 

Long-term Variability in Upwelling and 

Plankton Production 

Variability in productivity of the California 

Current occurs at interannual and decadal time 

scales, due to variations in the strength of the 

atmospheric pressure fields. These variations 

must be taken into account when considering 

upwelling-induced productivity. Years of weak 

upwelling result in lower salmon production. 

When upwelling is weak, however, offshore 

oceanic waters move onshore, and with this 

warm water come albacore tuna (Thunnus 

alalunga) that can be easily exploited. It has 

now been well established that the entire North 

Pacific experiences dramatic climate shifts 

caused by eastward-westward jumps in the 

location of the Aleutian Low in winter (and the 

North Pacific High in summer) that result in 

changes in wind strength and direction. 

Changes in large-scale wind patterns lead to 

alternate states of either “a warm ocean climate 

regime” or “cold water regime,” with a warm 

ocean less productive than a cold ocean. 

Recently the northern California Current has 

oscillated between warm and cold states every 

four years (cold regime from 1999–2002; warm 

from 2003–2006; cold from 2007–?). One must 

keep these longer term states in mind when 

considering harvest levels of marine fishes, and 

of course when evaluating the impacts of manmade structures such as wave energy buoys. For 

example, if the cause of some “negative 

ecosystem impact” is thought to be a cluster of 

wave energy buoys, one would want to make 

certain that the impact was not due to the ocean 

being in a warm and unproductive regime. This 

of course argues for the need to include ocean 

monitoring sites near a cluster of buoys as well 

as at control sites far away from the buoys. 

El Niño events also disrupt coastal marine 

ecosystems and as with the alternating cold and 

warm regimes, one must be attentive to the 

occurrence of El Niño when evaluating potential 

impacts of clusters of wave energy buoys. Since 

the early 1980s, the California Current has been 

experiencing an increased frequency of El Niño 

events, with large El Niño events occurring 

every 5–6 years: 1976–1977, 1982–1983, 1986–

1987, 1991–1992, 1997–1998, and again in 

2002–2004. A higher frequency of El Niño 

events appears to be a characteristic of the 

extended periods of warm ocean conditions. 

Prior to 1982, El Niño events seldom reached as 

far north as Oregon. However the events of 

1982–1983, 1986–1997, and the extended period 

of El Niño-like conditions from 1992–1998 

clearly led to the demise of coho and Chinook 

stocks in coastal waters. 

Climate change is another variable that must 

be accounted for, especially in light of the recent 

IPCC Climate Assessment Report. Climate 

models project the 21st century will feature 

greater annual precipitation in the Pacific 

Northwest, extreme winter precipitation events 

in California, and a more rapid spring melt 

leading to a shorter, more intense spring period 

of river flow and freshwater discharge. This will 

greatly alter coastal stratification and mixing, 

riverine plume formation and evolution, and the 

timing of transport of anadromous populations 

to and from the ocean. Current allocation of 

western U.S. water resources between salmon 

and human requirements has been a critical 
10

Pacific sardine

0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Distance from shore (km)

Number (106

m3

)-1

Northern anchovy

0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60

0

2500

5000

7500

Distance from shore (km)

Number (106

m3

)-1

Pacific herring

0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Distance from shore (km)

Number (106

m3

)-1

Whitebait smelt

0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

Distance from shore (km)

Number (106

m3

)-1

1998

1999

2000

2002

2001

2003

Figure 3. Cross-shelf distribution of baitfish measured in waters off the Columbia River and Willapa Bay 

(see Figure 4) by Dr. Bob Emmett, NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC, Hatfield Marine Science Center. Each of 

these baitfish can be most abundant very close to shore; smelt and anchovies are particularly abundant 

within 10–20 km of shore. 

factor in the success of many salmon 

populations, and will be more so if future water 

availability is altered. 

Some global climate models predict that 

global warming will lead to a higher frequency 

of El Niño events, while others predict the 

intensity of these events will be stronger. In 

either event, primary and secondary production 

will be greatly reduced in the California Current 

ecosystem, with negative effects transmitted up 

the food chain. The potential for differences in 

coastal upwelling in a warmer world is still 

being debated. Some argue that upwelling may 

become stronger because of greater contrasts 

between warming of the land (resulting in lower 

atmospheric pressure over the continent) relative 

to ocean warming. The greater cross-shelf 

pressure gradient will result in higher alongshore 

wind speeds and the potential for more 

upwelling (Bakun 1990). One regional climate 

model projects that upwelling-favorable winds 

will be stronger in summer, but that the peak in 

seasonal upwelling will occur later in the 

summer (Snyder et al. 2003). If upwelling is 

delayed, the annual cycle of production will shift 

to later in the year, thus animals that rely upon a 

dependable seasonal cycle of production for 

their reproduction will have to make adjustments 
11

Figure 4. Location of Newport Line (at lat 

44°40′N). Since 1996 the inner portion, to 25 

miles from shore, has been sampled biweekly 

for hydrography and zooplankton. Since 

1998, hydrography-zooplankton-salmon 

surveys have been conducted along eight 

transects from Newport north to LaPush, in 

May, June, and September. Transects from 

Newport south to Crescent City were sampled 

for hydrography and zooplankton from 1998 

to 2003, and are now sampled 1–3 times per 

year. 

in the timing of their spawning or reproductive 

cycles. 

Finally, generally warmer ocean conditions 

will cause a northward shift in the distribution of 

most species, and possibly the creation of 

reproductive populations in new regions. 

Existing faunal boundaries are likely to remain 

as strong boundaries, but their resiliency to 

shifts in ocean conditions due to global climate 

change is not known. 

Transport 

Despite the existence of high plankton 

biomass and productivity, coastal upwelling 

environments present unique problems to fish 

and invertebrate populations who must complete 

their life cycles there. This is because the 

upwelling process transports surface waters and 

the associated pelagic larvae and juvenile life 

stages away from the coast and towards the 

south, and away from productive habitats. 

Typical transport rates of surface waters are 

1 km per day in an offshore direction and 20–

30 km per day southward. Zooplankton and 

larval and juvenile fishes that live in the foodrich surface layers (i.e., the upper 15 m of the 

water column) can be transported rapidly 

offshore, out of the upwelling zone, and into 

relatively oligotrophic waters. Bakun (1996) 

argues that for any animal to be successful in 

such environments, the adults must locate 

habitats that are characterized by enrichment, 

with some mechanism for concentrating food for 

larvae, and that offer a way for larvae to be 

retained within the system. 

Perhaps because of problems related to 

transport and loss, many species do not spawn 

during the upwelling season. They either spawn 

during winter months before the onset of 

upwelling (Dover sole, sablefish, Dungeness 

crabs, and pink shrimp); perform an extended 

spawning migration and spawn in regions where 

there is no upwelling (hake); spawn in restricted 

parts of an upwelling system where advective 

losses are minimized, such as in bays or 

estuaries (English sole); spawn in rivers 

(salmonids and eulachon smelt [Thaleichthys 

pacificus]); or bypass the egg and larval stage 

and give birth to live precocious “juvenile” 

individuals (most rockfish). Hake, for example, 

undertake an extended spawning migration 

during which the adults swim south to spawn in 

the South California Bight in autumn and winter, 

outside of the upwelling region and season. The 

migration is from as far north as Vancouver 

Island (about lat 49o N) to southern California 

(lat 35o N), a distance of several thousand 

kilometers. The return migration of adults and 

the northward drift of larvae and juveniles takes 
12

place at depth where fish take advantage of the 

poleward undercurrent. 

Ongoing Monitoring of Coastal Waters 

off Oregon 

The nearshore and intertidal environment in 

waters off the central Oregon coast has been 

monitored for several years by the PISCO 

(Partnership for Interdisciplinary Science in the 

Coastal Ocean) program (see http://www 

.piscoweb.org/what/campuses/osu). This 

program, added to a variety of other, but less 

systematic studies, could provide valuable 

reference points for evaluation and monitoring 

of new wave energy facilities. In the pelagic 

environment, a joint OSU-NOAA research 

program led by members of the Fish Ecology 

Division of the Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center is monitoring seasonal to interannual 

variations in ocean conditions in coastal waters 

of the Pacific Northwest. This program has 

resulted in a solid fundamental understanding of 

the ecology of hydrography, zooplankton, and 

pelagic fishes; and provides a baseline set of 

measurements of ocean conditions that can be 

used to evaluate impacts of a large cluster of 

wave energy buoys. 

Two parts of the program are germane. 

First, monitoring off Newport, Oregon 

(Figure 4), has included oceanographic cruises 

that have sampled hydrography and zooplankton 

every two weeks since 1996. We began the 

thirteenth year of these efforts in January 2008. 

Seven stations are sampled across the 

continental shelf, from 1 mile (1.6 km) from 

shore (water depth 20 m) to 25 miles (40.2 km) 

from shore (300 m water depth). Measurements 

at each station include vertical profiles of 

temperature, salinity, fluorescence, and oxygen; 

water transparency with a Secchi disc; and 

plankton net tows for zooplankton, euphausiids, 

and fish eggs and larvae. In addition to the 

biweekly cruises off Newport, sampling of 

hydrography and zooplankton took place along 

the Newport transect to 85 miles (137 km) from 

shore and along the Heceta Head, Coos Bay, 

Rogue River, and Crescent City, California, 

transects (Figure 4) five times per year from 

1998 to 2003. We continue to sample these 

transects, but only one to three times per year. 

A second research effort involves sampling 

juvenile salmonids along eight transects from 

Newport, Oregon, north to La Push, Washington 

(Figure 4), in May, June, and September. This 

program was initiated in 1998 and will continue 

into the future. Sampling at each station is 

similar to the Newport time series and includes 

water column profiles of temperature, salinity, 

fluorescence, oxygen, and transparency; and 

plankton tows for zooplankton, fish eggs and 

larvae, and macrozooplankton.. In addition, 

pelagic fish (including salmon) are sampled with 

a large rope trawl, 20 m high by 30 m wide by 

200 m long. The height of the net is equivalent 

to a five-story building. This sampling effort is 

augmented by a time series of sampling along 

two transects (Columbia River and Willapa Bay, 

Figure 3) from late April through August, in 

which all of the above measurements are made. 

This generates a time series of difference in 

abundance of zooplankton, small pelagic fish 

(including salmon), and piscine predators of 

juvenile salmon (mackerels and hake). The 

work is done at night to better sample the larger 

adult predatory fishes. 

Because of these long-term studies we have 

a very good understanding of the local 

hydrography and the ecology of zooplankton, 

small pelagic fishes, juvenile salmonids, and 

predatory fishes. Moreover, we have a good 

understanding of seasonal and interannual 

variability, important if we are to evaluate the 

long-term impacts of wave energy facilities. 

The nearshore zone is a “hot spot” for 

biological activity up and down the coast; 

however little is known about feeding, growth, 

reproduction, or mortality rates of any of the 

nearshore species due to difficulty in sampling 

so close to shore. Of particular interest and 

concern are the fall Chinook salmon because 

they live very close to shore as juveniles, from 

the surf zone out to distances of a few 

kilometers. Other key species include mysids, 

Dungeness crabs, gray whales, and nearshore 

seabirds such as murres and cormorants. 
13

What Kinds of Monitoring may be 

Necessary for Wave Energy Facilities? 

Zooplankton—Measurements of 

hydrography; and the distribution and abundance 

of zooplankton (emphasis on euphausiids and 

mysids, and on the seasonal cycle of occurrence 

of larvae of benthic invertebrates that will settle 

on the buoy and cause fouling), fish eggs and 

larvae, and small pelagic fishes (emphasis on 

juvenile salmonids) made at and near the 

locations of wave energy complexes are needed 

so as to compare to baselines for Newport and 

waters to the north. 

Oxygen—Oxygen measurements are also 

critical. Low oxygen has come to be identified 

as a problem in shelf waters (Chan et al. 2008) 

from Newport north to Grays Harbor, 

Washington. We need to determine if regions to 

the south of Newport, such as that off the 

Reedsport area, are also subject to low oxygen 

conditions (and hypoxia) before any wave 

energy facility becomes operational. This is 

needed so that we can determine if the cleaning 

of fouling organisms from the buoys and 

mooring lines results in rapid deposition of 

massive quantities of organic debris to the sea 

floor, and subsequently results in low oxygen 

conditions. That is, if fish kills are observed in 

the vicinity of the wave energy facility, are they 

due to low oxygen and hypoxia caused by the 

increased load of organic matter falling to the 

sea floor because of the wave buoys, or is low 

oxygen a general problem all along the coast? If 

there are fish kills, we will need to know if the 

wave energy facilities caused them, or if low 

oxygen in general caused them. 

New research—Emphasis should be placed 

on new research directed at the ecology of the 

nearshore region, especially on fall Chinook 

salmon, mysids, euphausiids, the small baitfish 

that inhabit the nearshore zone, and seabirds. 

We define the nearshore region as extending 

from the surf zone out to water depths of 

approximately 100 m (8–16 km from shore). 

The very nearshore zone (within a kilometer or 

two of the beach) is the habitat of the fall 

Chinook during their first year at sea, and of the 

spring Chinook during their first few months at 

sea. The inshore part of this zone is among the 

least-studied regions of the coast, primarily 

because large research vessels do not usually 

work closer to shore than the 25-m isobath. 

Long-term monitoring—The overall goal 

of the baseline observations is to develop 

metrics that could capture any changes caused 

by a wave energy project. Because ocean 

conditions change greatly from year to year, 

long-term monitoring will be needed. Because 

long time-series of past ocean and ecological 

conditions are available from Newport, we can 

use this knowledge to assess differences that 

may be caused by a wave energy complex. 

Special studies—Apart from the studies 

discussed above, special studies will be required: 

• Vertical flux of organic matter—We 

should measure the rate at which 

organic matter is deposited on the sea 

floor within a wave energy complex. 

This would involve launching sediment 

traps during oceanographic cruises. We 

need to establish “normal” flux to 

evaluate the potential for the excess 

organic debris sloughing from buoys 

and mooring lines, events that could 

cause hypoxic or anoxic conditions in 

and near the wave energy complexes. 

• Wave energy facilities as fish attraction 

devices—Video and diver surveys will 

be needed, perhaps as frequently as 

monthly, once the first wave energy 

buoys are launched. 

• Wave energy facilities and Dungeness 

crabs—The Dungeness crab fishery is 

among Oregon’s most lucrative, thus 

study of the impact of the facilities on 

these crabs is essential. 

• Fish tagging studies—It would be 

beneficial to determine residence time of 

fishes in the vicinity of a wave energy 

complex. Tagging studies would reveal 

if fishes chose to remain near the buoys, 

and/or if the facilities disrupt normal 

migration patterns, e.g, of salmonids. 
14

Literature Cited 

Bakun, A. 1990. Global climate change and 

intensification of coastal ocean upwelling. 

Science 247:198–201. 

Bakun, A. 1996. Patterns in the Ocean: Ocean 

processes and marine population dynamics. 

California Sea Grant College System, NOAA 

and Centro de Investigaciones Biological del 

Noroests, La Paz, BCS, Mexico. 

Chan, F., J. A. Barth, J. Lubchenco, A. Kirincich, H. 

Weeks, W. T. Peterson, and B. A. Menge. 2008. 

Emergence of anoxia in the California current 

large marine ecosystem. Science 319:320. 

Snyder, M. A., L. C. Sloan, N. S. Diffenbaugh, and 

J. L. Bell. 2003. Future climate change and 

upwelling in the California Current. Geophys. 

Res. Lett. 30(15):1823. Online at http://dx 

.doi.org/ [DOI number 10.1029/2003GL017647, 

accessed 20 August 2008]. 

Ware, D. M., and G. A. McFarlane. 1989. Fisheries 

production domains in the northeast Pacific 

Ocean. In R.J. Beamish and G.A. McFarlane 

(eds.), Effects of ocean variability on recruitment 

and an evaluation of parameters used in stock 

assessment models. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. 

Aquat. Sci. 108:359–379. 
15

The Technology: Wave Energy Development on the West Coast 

Mirko Previsic, re vision consulting, LLC

Introduction 

The total electricity generation potential 

along the U.S. West Coast (California, Oregon 

and Washington) is significant. The annual 

average energy meeting these shorelines is 

greater than 440 TWh per year. The upper limit 

that is extractable economically is estimated at 

about 15%, which results in an electricity 

generation potential of more than 66 TWh per 

year. To put this number into perspective, 

Oregon’s electricity consumption in 2006 was 

about 53 TWh. 

In 2004, the Electric Power Research 

Institute (EPRI) performed an offshore wave 

energy conversion (WEC) feasibility definition 

study examining five locations and two WEC 

technologies. Design, performance, cost, and 

economic assessments have been made for sites 

in Hawaii, Oregon, California, Massachusetts, 

and Maine for both demonstration-scale and 

commercial-scale power plants. These studies 

showed that the Oregon coast has an excellent 

wave energy resource and good infrastructure 

(grid interconnection and port infrastructure) in 

place to take advantage of this resource. 

The advantages of ocean energy are 

numerous, including providing clean and 

renewable energy with the associated benefit of 

displacing pollution-generating alternatives; 

easing transmission constraints with minimal, if 

any, aesthetic concerns; reducing dependence on 

imported energy supplies and increasing national 

energy security; reducing the risk of future 

fossil-fuel price volatility; and stimulating local 

job creation and economic development. 

The Wave Energy Resource 

Ocean waves are generated under the 

influence of wind on the ocean surface. Once 

ripples are created on the surface, there is a steep 

side available against which the wind can push 

and waves begin to grow. In deep water, waves 

can travel for thousands of miles without losing 

much power until their energy is dissipated on a 

distant shore. Representing an integration of all 

the winds on an ocean surface, ocean waves 

represent a consistent energy resource that has 

less variability than wind, and sea states can be 

predicted accurately more than 48 hours in 

advance using computational models. 

Ocean waves are an oscillatory system in 

which water particles travel in orbits (Figure 1). 

As the water depth decreases, the oscillation 

becomes smaller. Close to shore, in shallow 

water, the ocean waves lose energy because of 

the friction of water particles on the ocean floor. 

Short-term, wave-to-wave variability is 

significant (Figure 2); waves vary considerably 

in height, period and direction. However, 

average power levels remain relatively constant 

over periods of hours; typically wave grouping 

occurs with repeating patterns having a 

timeframe of a few minutes. Over a period of a 

few hours, they comprise a sea state that can be 

described by a directional spectrum. In order to 

describe such sea states and to determine their 

characteristics relevant to wave energy 

utilization, statistical parameters derived from 

the wave energy spectrum must be used. Sea 

states are often summarized in terms of wave 

height, period, and direction parameters. The 

variation in sea states during a period of time 

(e.g., month, season, year) can be represented by 

a scatter diagram (Figure 3), which indicates 

how often a sea state with a particular 

combination of the significant wave height (Hs) 

and energy period (Te) occurs. 
16

Figure 1. Water particle orbits of an ocean wave. 

Figure 2. Short-term variability of ocean waves. 

Figure 3. Typical scatter diagram. 

In deep water (i.e., when the wavelength is 

smaller than twice the water depth), the power 

level (P) in each sea state can be computed by 

P = 0.49 Hs

2

 Te = 0.412 Hs

2

 Tp

If Hs is expressed in meters and Tp in seconds, P 

is given in kW/m. The average wave power 

level Pave during a period of time can be 

determined from a scatter diagram 

corresponding to the same time period by 

Pave = ΣPi Wi / ΣWi 

where Wi is the number of times that sea states 

with power levels Pi occur. Due to the strong 

seasonal and interannual variability of ocean 

waves, assessment of wave energy resources 

should be based on a long time-series of wave 

data. 

In the deep waters of the open ocean, the 

wave energy resource is consistent over 

distances on the order of a few hundred 

kilometers. This applies to large ocean basins, 

such as the Pacific Ocean. As waves approach 

the shore through waters of decreasing depth, 

waves are modified by a number of phenomena 

such as refraction and diffraction. As a result, 

the wave energy resource can vary significantly 

over distances of 1 km or much less in shallow 

waters, depending on the local bathymetry. The 

energy level close to shore is usually 
17

significantly lower than offshore due to bottom 

friction. In addition, wave crests tend to become 

parallel to the shoreline in shallow waters. The 

local influence of the bathymetry can also have a 

focusing effect on ocean waves, resulting in 

local “hot-spots” that are favorable for nearshore 

or shore-based wave power conversion. 

Wave power density is the most significant 

consideration when determining the economic 

viability (and therefore attractiveness) of a wave 

power deployment site. Figure 4 shows relative 

wave power densities (measured in kW/m) in 

different parts of the world. 

Figure 4. Annual average wave power densities worldwide in kW/m. 

Wave Power Technologies 

There are many wave power conversion 

devices in conceptual stages of development. 

However, only a few dozen have progressed to 

rigorous subscale laboratory tow or wave-tank 

model testing; only two dozen have advanced to 

short-term (days to months) tests in natural 

waters. Even fewer have progressed to longterm (>1 year) testing of full-scale prototypes in 

natural waters. The time period for a technology 

to progress from a conceptual level to 

deployment of a long-term full-scale wave 

prototype tested in natural waters has 

historically been on the order of 5 to 10 years. 

This is largely due to the immense engineering 

and financial challenges companies that are 

developing these technologies face. 

Wave energy conversion technologies have 

made great strides in the past few years toward 

commercial readiness. Policy makers in the 

United Kingdom and Portugal responded to 

early pilot testing successes with incentive 

programs to support the implementation of the 

first commercial wave farms. As a direct result 

of such programs, the first commercial multimegawatt (2.25 MW) wave farm is being 

constructed in Portugal and several more are in 

the planning stages in Portugal and the United 

Kingdom. 

Despite significant progress in recent years, 

ocean wave energy conversion technology 

remains in an early stage of development. 

Similar to wind power 20 years ago, a large 

number of very different device concepts are 
18

being pursued at various scales by different 

developers and there is no consensus as to which 

technology is superior. This is typical for 

emerging industries and it will take full-scale inocean testing for industry to optimize their 

technology and find ways to drive down cost. 

Economic projections indicate that ocean 

wave energy can become cost-competitive with 

other forms of energy generation in Oregon in 

the long term if appropriate policies are created 

to support early adoption of technologies. As 

with any renewable technology, the economics 

of wave power generation schemes are sensitive 

to energy levels at the deployment site and as a 

result the choice of appropriate site is critical. 

Although Scotland and Ireland, where most of 

these technologies are being developed, feature 

higher wave power densities offshore (50–60 

kW/m) than Oregon, the wave energy climate in 

Oregon can be considered good from a wave 

farm developer’s point of view (20–40 kW/m). 

As with any power generation technology, 

cost of energy from early systems is high and is 

subsequently reduced as the installed capacity 

base grows. Learning curves in the wind 

industry indicate progress ratios of 82%. If the 

same progress ratios hold true for wave energy, 

it can be expected that the economic 

performance of wave energy systems would be 

on par with that of wind energy in the long term. 

Pilot wave farms will likely start with a few 

units and installed capacities of less than 

10 MW. This is required to reduce technical 

uncertainties and proof the technologies and 

associated cost profiles (i.e., operation and 

maintenance, and capital cost). Small-scale 

initial adoption is also required to properly 

demonstrate and measure environmental impacts 

of these technologies. Grid interconnection and 

other infrastructure expenses are often fixed 

expenses that impact the cost of electricity of 

small developments more prominently than 

larger scale adoptions. In addition, the small 

scale results in higher manufacturing cost and 

the higher risk perceived by investors will 

require a shorter payback period than for largescale projects. All the above issues compound 

and result in a significantly higher cost of 

electricity for the first commercial installations. 

These early stage wave farms are, however, a 

very important learning tool from a commercial 

as well as from an environmental point of view. 

Environmental Effects 

Environmental impacts from wave energy 

conversion devices are site- and technologyspecific. Structures associated with wave energy 

can have environmental impacts similar to other 

structures placed offshore, by virtue of their 

physical presence in the water, as well as 

environmental effects unique to wave energy 

devices. Adverse impacts to the environment 

can often be avoided or reduced by careful 

project design and site location. Potential 

environmental issues posed by wave energy 

devices can occur in the areas of 

• Coastal processes 

• Marine biology 

• Onshore effects 

• Water quality 

• Air quality 

• Visual resources 

• Use conflicts 

• Geology 

The construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of structures in the water and 

on land have the potential to affect terrestrial 

and marine environmental resources. Each 

project will have unique effects on the 

environment, depending on two things: the 

design of the device (including the size of the 

array), and the specific environmental 

characteristics of the project site. This paper 

cannot assess the potential environmental 

impacts of all wave energy devices anywhere off 

the coast of Oregon. Rather, the goal of this 

section is to alert the reader to the different types 

of potential impacts wave energy structures 

might have on the environment. In many cases, 

adverse impacts can be avoided or reduced by 

careful project design (e.g., structural design, 

site location, materials used, and construction 

and operation requirements). 
19

To date, there is very little data available 

specifically on the environmental impacts of 

wave energy conversion devices. Some studies 

in Europe are beginning to examine 

environmental impacts and to document 

demonstrations. We refer the reader to Section 

E (Generic Technologies) of the European Wave 

Energy Thematic Network at http://www 

.wave-energy.net. In the United States, EPRI 

has published several reports on wave energy 

conversion, available for download at 

http://oceanenergy.epri.com (see Literature 

Cited below). 

In 2003, the U.S. Department of the Navy 

prepared an Environmental Assessment under 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

for the proposed installation and testing of a 

wave energy technology project at Marine Corps 

Base Hawai‘i (MCBH) Kane‘ohe Bay. The 

proposed project involved the phased installation 

and operational testing of up to six WEC buoys 

off the North Beach at MCBH Kane‘ohe Bay for 

a period of up to 5 years. Each buoy was 

expected to produce an average of 20 kW of 

power, with a peak output of 40 kW. The WEC 

buoys would be anchored in about 100 feet 

(30.5 m) of water at a distance from shore of 

approximately 3,900 feet (1,189 m). Mechanical 

energy generated from the up and down motion 

of the buoy would be converted into electrical 

energy. The power would be transmitted to 

shore by means of an armored and shielded 

undersea power cable connected to a land 

transmission cable. The land cable would be 

routed to the existing MCBH Kane‘ohe Bay 

electrical grid system. 

In the Environmental Assessment, the Navy 

identified the following issue areas for analysis 

under NEPA: shoreline physiography, 

oceanographic conditions (i.e., coastal 

processes), marine biological resources, 

terrestrial biological resources, land and marine 

resource use compatibility, cultural resources, 

infrastructure, recreation, public safety, and 

visual resources. None of these were found to 

be significantly affected by the proposed 

installation and operational testing. Installation 

procedures were designed to minimize impacts 

on living coral and benthic communities by 

avoiding areas of rich biological diversity and 

high coral coverage. 

While the detailed discussion of 

environmental impacts is beyond the scope of 

this technology overview paper, some focus is 

given to the level of wave energy removed from 

the shoreline as a direct result of offshore wave 

farms. The removal of wave energy will likely 

be too small to have any environmental effects 

for small wave energy facilities, but could prove 

to have cumulative impacts as deployment 

scales increase. 

Level of Wave Energy Removed 

One of the key discussions during the 

workshop was how much energy we can expect 

a typical wave energy facility to extract from the 

ocean. To address the concerns raised during 

discussions and to understand the likely level of 

energy removal from a wave farm, three 

examples using different technologies are 

outlined based on feasibility design studies 

carried out by the author. The technologies 

chosen provide a range of significant extraction 

levels that cover most devices under 

development today. 

A wave farm needs to face the principal 

wave direction and is installed at a suitable 

water depth. In Oregon, the principal wave 

direction is between W and NW and wave 

energy facilities will ideally be arranged in rows 

of devices along the coastline at a suitable water 

depth. A wave energy conversion device needs 

to be exposed directly to the wave action. If a 

device is placed behind a row of wave energy 

converters that already take power from the 

waves, the performance will be reduced and as a 

result economics are suboptimal. Some floating 

technologies require large interdevice spacing, 

because the device is able to swing around a 

slack mooring, which allows for some “devicestacking” without reducing device performance. 

A wave farm consisting of 40 Pelamis 

devices would occupy an area 0.6 km wide by 

2.1 km long. Based on EPRI’s work, a Pelamis 

device in a 21 kW/m wave climate would put 

out 1,337 MWh/year. For a wave farm 
20

consisting of 40 devices, the total annual output 

would be 53,480 MWh/year. In other words, 

each kilometer of coastline would produce about 

25,467 MWh per year. This results in an 

average power delivered of 2.9 MW for each 

kilometer of coastline. 

A wave farm consisting of Wave Dragons 

would require devices lined up in a row with 

centerline spacing of 700 m. Based on the 

performance estimates made by Wave Dragon, 

each device would put out roughly 12,000 MWh 

per year. As a result, each kilometer of coastline 

would produce about 17,142 MWh per year. 

This results in an annual average power 

delivered to the bus bar of 1.9 MW for each 

kilometer of coastline. 

The first stage of the OPT wave facility 

planned for Oregon consists of 14 units with a 

rated capacity of 150 kW each and a capacity 

factor of about 30%. In other words, an average 

630 kW are extracted from the 800-m-wide 

wave farm or 0.8 MW for each kilometer of 

coastline. 

Given a typical Oregon deep-water wave 

power density of 30 MW/km of coastline, the 

above examples show that between 2.1% and 

9.7% of the available resource is converted into 

electricity. Adding electrical, mechanical, and 

hydraulic losses of about 20% as well as 30% 

energy reflection results in a net wave energy 

blockage effect of between 4% and 17% towards 

the shoreline. Refraction will further disperse 

those impacts towards the shoreline. It is 

important to realize that the removal of energy 

can be influenced by increasing the spacing 

between individual units within a wave farm. 

Conclusions 

Ocean waves could provide a significant 

amount of renewable nonpolluting power to the 

Pacific coastal states (CA, OR and WA). 

However, ocean wave energy technology 

remains in an early stage of development and 

adoption will likely be slow over the next 

decade before large-scale deployments can occur 

(hundreds of MW). This early adoption process 

is an important stepping-stone from a technical, 

economic, and environmental point of view and 

will require a regulatory framework that is set up 

to allow for an adaptive and iterative 

management approach with incentives for 

research and innovative ways to meet stringent 

performance standards. During this phase, it 

will be important that all stakeholders are 

involved in the process to arrive at an energy 

extraction solution that best meets technical, 

economic, and environmental considerations and 

allows for an optimal use of Oregon’s coastal 

resources. 

Literature Cited 

EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). c2001–

2008. Ocean energy web page. Online at 

http://oceanenergy.epri.com [accessed 1 March 

2008]. From this site, the following reports can 

be downloaded for free: 

Bedard, R. 2005. Oregon offshore wave power 

demonstration project: Bridging the gap 

between the completed phase 1 project 

definition study and the next phase—phase 2 

detailed design and permitting. Report 

EPRI-WP-010-OR. Online at http:// 

oceanenergy.epri.com/attachments/wave 

/reports/Ph_15_Oregon_Wave_Final_RB 

_121305.pdf [accessed 1 March 2008]. 

Hagerman, G., and R. Bedard. 2004. Offshore 

wave power in the US: Environmental 

issues. Report E2I Global EPRI-007-US. 

Online at http://oceanenergy.epri.com/ 

attachments/wave/reports/007_Wave 

_Envr_Issues_Rpt.pdf [accessed 1 March 

2008]. 

Hagerman, G., R. Bedard, and M. Previsic. 

2004. E2I EPRI survey and characterization 

of potential offshore wave energy sites in 

Oregon. Report E2I EPRI WP-OR-003. 

Online at http://oceanenergy.epri.com/ 

attachments/wave/reports/003_Oregon 

_Site_Report.pdf [accessed 1 March 2008]. 

Previsic, M., R. Bedard, and G. Hagerman. 

2004. E2I EPRI assessment: Offshore wave 

energy conversion devices. Online at 

http://oceanenergy.epri.com/attachments/ 

wave/reports/004_WEC_Device_Assess 

_Report_Rev1_MP_6-16-04.pdf [accessed 1 

March 2008]. 
21

Previsic, M., R. Bedard, G. Hagerman, and O. 

Siddiqui. 2004. System level design, 

performance and costs—Oregon State 

offshore wave power plant. Online at 

http://oceanenergy.epri.com/attachments/ 

wave/reports/006_Oregon_System_Level 

_Design_RB_11-29-04.pdf [accessed 1 

March 2008]. 

European Wave Energy Thematic Network. No date. 

The European thematic network. Online at 

http://www.wave-energy.net/index3.htm 

[accessed 1 March 2008]. 
22

Environmental Risk Analysis and Wave Energy: Examples of How to Assess 

Potential Impacts of Wave Energy on the Environment 

Maurice L. Hill and Fred M. Piltz, U.S. Minerals Management Service

This presentation provides an introduction 

and overview of an approach to the analysis of 

impacts of offshore wave energy projects on the 

environment. The approach is directed 

specifically to the “Ecological Effects of Wave 

Energy Development in the Pacific Northwest” 

workshop, but is similar to that used by analysts 

in the preparation of National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) and other similar reviews. It 

draws heavily from the “Wave Energy 

Ecological Effects Workshop Ecological 

Assessment Briefing Paper” (this volume); the 

European Marine Energy Centre document 

(EMEC 2005); the European Union’s research 

and development center for alternative energy 

development; and the framework for ecological 

risk assessment that was developed by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency during the 

early 1990s (USEPA 1998). 

The process begins with the development of 

a complete and detailed project description. All 

aspects of the project that could potentially 

result in ecological effects should be 

identified—from initial site assessment activities 

(e.g., biological, archaeological, geophysical, 

and geotechnical surveys), construction 

activities, operational activities, and nonroutine 

activities to decommissioning. It is critical to 

work closely with a project applicant to 

determine the full extent and details of the entire 

project—from “cradle to grave.” 

The next step is to identify the impact agents 

(or “stressors”) for each of the project activities. 

The key sources of stressors for wave energy 

projects are emplacement, operation (buoys, 

transmission system, anchoring system), 

decommissioning, and routine and emergency 

maintenance. 

The major stressors associated with these 

activities are wave and current modification, 

new hard structures (water column and benthic), 

electromagnetic fields, chemical toxicity, 

acoustics, and cumulative effects. 

With the knowledge of the project 

description and stressors, the geographic scope 

of the project can be identified. This scope 

delineates the area or boundary in which 

potential impacts may occur. Also, the temporal 

scope of the project is identified—the period of 

time that impacts may occur. Note that this 

period may extend beyond the actual project 

activities to cover any residual impacts. 

The biological resources (or “receptors”) 

that could be affected by the project and are 

within the geographical scope are identified and 

their baseline is described. A receptor’s baseline 

should describe the current status of the 

receptor—e.g., the size of the population, its 

distribution, and other stressors that may be 

affecting the receptor. Impact significance 

threshold(s) for the receptors are developed. 

A critical component of any environmental 

review is to conduct a public scoping process to 

identify issues and concerns, data sources, etc. 

This process may take place throughout the 

environmental review. 

Once the above information is obtained, the 

identification of direct and indirect impacts to 

the receptor may be made for each project 

stressor. The probability or risk of these impacts 

actually occurring should also be presented. An 

overall impact level should be derived based on 

the current status of the receptor and a 

summation of all the project-related stressor 

effects. This overall impact level should be 

discussed on both a local and regional basis and 

the significance of this impact to the receptor 

should be stated. Finally, a cumulative impact 

analysis should be made for the receptor. 

Cumulative impacts are defined in the Council 

on Environmental Quality regulations as “the 
23

impact on the environment [or receptor] which 

results from the incremental impact of the action 

when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless 

of what agency or person undertakes such other 

actions.” Reasonably foreseeable future actions 

may be defined as those actions that have 

proposals that have been submitted to an agency 

for review and decision. 

Mitigation measures (impact avoidance, 

minimization, reduction, elimination, etc.) 

should be developed where feasible for each 

impact. Also, alternative approaches to the 

proposed action should be developed, when 

feasible. 

Because wave energy development is in its 

infancy, the use of an adaptive management 

strategy is critical to the successful conduct of 

projects. A monitoring plan should be 

developed for the project. Methods to measure 

mitigation effectiveness should also be 

developed. Real-time monitoring may result in 

the need to adjust components of the project on a 

real-time basis. Additional research or study 

may be necessary when data gaps are identified 

for specific projects. 

The European Marine Energy Centre 

(EMEC 2005) impact matrix was introduced and 

discussed. The columns of the impact matrix 

correspond to groups of receptors, and the rows 

correspond to groups of stressors. The matrix 

may be filled in to show levels of impact, risk of 

impact, levels of concern, levels of residual 

impact following mitigation, etc. 

Literature Cited 

EMEC. 2005. Environmental impact assessment 

(EIA) guidance for developers at the European 

Marine Energy Centre. European Marine Energy 

Centre, Ltd., Orkney, Scotland. Online at 

http://www.emec.org.uk/emec_documents.asp 

[accessed 23 August 2008]. 

USEPA. 1998. Guidelines for ecological risk 

assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, 

DC. EPA/630/R-95/002F. 

25

Wave Energy Ecological Effects Workshop 

Ecological Assessment Briefing Paper 

Gregory McMurray, 

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

Introduction 

Wave Energy Development and the 

Larger Policy Context 

There are a myriad of federal and state laws 

and regulations that must be addressed in order 

for wave energy development to take place on 

Oregon’s continental shelf. The agencies 

responsible for implementing these requirements 

are under an increasing number of mandates to 

manage for communities instead of species, and 

wide geographic areas and multiple habitats 

instead of narrow areas. These mandates are 

essentially a charge to manage on the basis of 

large ecosystems (so-called ecosystem-based 

management) and in a manner that will provide 

sustainable ocean resources for future 

generations (sustainability). 

The precautionary approach has also 

become an important part of the policy context. 

In practical terms, it focuses the burden of proof 

of acceptable environmental effects onto the 

proponents of proposals for ocean activities, and 

the agencies permitting them. The precautionary 

approach is also important as agencies attempt to 

manage resources in an ocean that may be 

changing in fundamental and unpredictable 

ways. Hence, the mandates in the policy context 

are driving the management community towards 

more rigorous and complete consideration of 

environmental issues. 

Content of This Briefing Paper 

The approach for this briefing paper was to 

get the technology, ecological setting, and 

effects issues documented, with needed public 

sector documents provided to the workshop 

participants. The paper is organized in a format 

parallel to a NEPA Environmental Assessment 

or Environmental Impact Statement: the 

Proposed Action (i.e., the technology, since this 

is a programmatic approach); the Affected 

Environment; and the approach to considering 

the Environmental Consequences (effects). 

Alternative development proposals, except for 

the differing technologies, are not discussed in 

this paper, but it was hoped that workshop 

participants would consider possible 

development alternatives with differing 

environmental effects. As stated above, the 

Technology section is presented at the 

programmatic level, but concludes with a 

specific description of one proposed project. 

 Key to the workshop process was the use of 

the impact matrix described in the 

Environmental Effects section, which forms a 

deconstructed conceptual approach to the 

ecological risk analysis (e.g., USEPA 1998). It 

allows explicit treatment of stressors and 

receptors at any level of specificity, as well as 

uncertainty and mitigation potential. The 

Bibliography and Literature Cited section is a 

key to papers cited in the briefing paper or 

available in the public sector. 

The views, premises, hypotheses, and any 

conclusions expressed in this briefing paper are 

solely those of the author, and do not represent 

the views of any of the participating or 

sponsoring individuals, agencies, or entities. 

The Technology 

The review of existing technology is 

followed by a more detailed description of the 

intended Reedsport Wave Energy Park as a case 

in point. This information is intended to 

introduce some consideration of the types of 
26

stressors that will be expressed through wave 

energy development. 

Existing Technology 

The following section has been extracted 

from the Minerals Management Service’s

Technology White Paper on Wave Energy 

Potential on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf 

(2006). At the time of writing, Finavera 

(AquaBuoy® – point absorber), Energetech 

(terminator – oscillating water column) , Ocean 

Power Delivery (attenuator), and Ocean Power 

Technology (PowerBuoy® – point absorber) 

have all expressed interest in, or applied for 

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) 

Preliminary Permits, on the Oregon coast. 

RESOURCE UTILIZATION TECHNOLOGIES 

A variety of technologies have been proposed to capture the energy from waves; however, each is in 

too early a stage of development to predict which technology or mix of technologies would be most 

prevalent in future commercialization. Some of the technologies that have been the target of recent 

developmental efforts and are appropriate for the offshore applications being considered in this 

assessment are terminators, attenuators, point absorbers, and overtopping devices. 

Terminators 

Terminator devices extend perpendicular to the direction of wave travel and capture or reflect the 

power of the wave. These devices are typically installed onshore or nearshore; however, floating versions 

have been designed for offshore applications. The oscillating water column (OWC) is a form of 

terminator in which water enters through a subsurface opening into a chamber with air trapped above it. 

The wave action causes the captured water column to move up and down like a piston to force the air 

through an opening connected to a turbine. A full-scale, 500-kW, prototype OWC designed and built by 

Energetech (2006)(Figure 1) is undergoing testing offshore at Port Kembla in Australia, and a further 

project is under development for Rhode Island. 

In an Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)-cosponsored study (Bedard et al. 2005), a design, 

performance, and cost assessment was conducted for an Energetech commercial-scale OWC with a 1,000-

kW rated capacity, sited 22 km from the California shore. With the wave conditions at this site (20 kW/m 

average annual), the estimated annual energy produced was 1,973 MWh/yr. For a scale-up commercial 

system with multiple units producing 300,000 MWh/yr, the estimated cost of electricity would be on the 

order of $0.10/kWh. 

Another floating OWC is the “Mighty Whale” offshore floating prototype, which has been under 

development at the Japan Marine Science and Technology Center since 1987 (JAMSTC 2006). 

Attenuators 

Attenuators are long multisegment floating structures oriented parallel to the direction of the wave 

travel. The differing heights of waves along the length of the device causes flexing where the segments 

connect, and this flexing is connected to hydraulic pumps or other converters. The attenuators with the 

most advanced development are the McCabe wave pump and the Pelamis by Ocean Power Delivery, Ltd. 

(2006). 

The McCabe wave pump (Figure 2) has three pontoons linearly hinged together and pointed parallel 

to the wave direction. The center pontoon is attached to a submerged damper plate, which causes it to 

remain still relative to fore and aft pontoons. Hydraulic pumps attached between the center and end 

pontoons are activated as the waves force the end pontoons up and down. The pressurized hydraulic fluid 
27

can be used to drive a motor generator or to pressurize water for desalinization. A full-size 40-m 

prototype was tested off the coast of Ireland in 1996, and commercial devices are being offered by the 

manufacturer. 

A similar concept is used by the Pelamis (designed by Ocean Power Delivery Ltd. [2006]), which has 

four 30-m long by 3.5-m diameter floating cylindrical pontoons connected by three hinged joints (Figure 

3). Flexing at the hinged joints due to wave action drives hydraulic pumps built into the joints. A fullscale, four-segment production prototype rated at 750 kW was sea tested for 1,000 hours in 2004. This 

successful demonstration was followed by the first order in 2005 of a commercial WEC system from a 

consortium led by the Portuguese power company Enersis SA. The first stage, scheduled to be completed 

in 2006, consists of three Pelamis machines with a combined rating of 2.25 MW to be sited about 5 km 

off the coast of northern Portugal. An expansion to more than 20-MW capacity is being considered. A 

Pelamis-powered 22.5-W wave energy facility is also planned for Scotland, with the first phase targeted 

for 2006. 

FIGURE 1 Oscillating Water Column (Source: Energetech 2006) 

FIGURE 2 McCabe Wave Pump (Source: Pulaski 2003) 
28

FIGURE 3 Pelamis Wave Energy Converter (Source: Ocean Power Delivery Ltd. 2006) 

The EPRI wave energy feasibility 

demonstration project has selected the Pelamis 

as one of the technologies for design, 

performance, cost, and economic assessment 

(Bedard et al. 2005). Sites for evaluation were 

selected off the coasts of Hawaii (15.2 kW/m 

average annual wave energy), Oregon (21.2 

kW/m), California (11.2 kW/m), Massachusetts 

(13.8 kW/m), and Maine (4.9 kW/m). For 

systems at these sites scaled to a commercial 

level generating 300,000 MWh/yr, the cost of 

electricity ranged from about $0.10/kWh for the 

areas with high wave energy, to about 

$0.40/kWh for Maine, which has relatively 

lower levels of wave energy. 

FIGURE 4 PowerBuoy Point Absorber Wave 

Energy Converter (Source: Ocean Power 

Technologies 2006) 

Point Absorbers 

Point absorbers have a small horizontal dimension compared with the vertical dimension and utilize 

the rise and fall of the wave height at a single point for WEC. 

One such device is the PowerBuoyTM developed by Ocean Power Technologies (2006) (Figure 4). 

The construction involves a floating structure with one component relatively immobile, and a second 

component with movement driven by wave motion (a floating buoy inside a fixed cylinder). The relative 

motion is used to drive electromechanical or hydraulic energy converters. A PowerBuoy demonstration 

unit rated at 40 kW was installed in 2005 for testing offshore from Atlantic City, New Jersey. Testing in 

the Pacific Ocean is also being conducted, with a unit installed in 2004 and 2005 off the coast of the 

Marine Corps Base in Oahu, Hawaii. A commercial-scale PowerBuoy system is planned for the northern 

coast of Spain, with an initial wave park (multiple units) at a 1.25-MW rating. Initial operation is 

expected in 2007. 

The AquaBuOYTM WEC (Figure 5) being developed by the AquaEnergy Group, Ltd. (2005) is a 

point absorber that is the third generation of two Swedish designs that utilize the wave energy to 

pressurize a fluid that is then used to drive a turbine generator. The vertical movement of the buoy drives 
29

FIGURE 5 AquaBuOY Point Absorber Wave Energy Converter (Source: AquaEnergy Group, Ltd. 2005) 

a broad, neutrally buoyant disk acting as a water piston contained in a long tube beneath the buoy. The 

water piston motion in turn elongates and relaxes a hose containing seawater, and the change in hose 

volume acts as a pump to pressurize the seawater. The AquaBuOY design has been tested using a fullscale prototype, and a 1-MW pilot offshore demonstration power plant is being developed offshore at 

Makah Bay, Washington. The Makah Bay demonstration will include four units rated at 250 kW placed 

5.9 km (3.2 nautical miles) offshore in water approximately 46 m deep. 

Other point absorbers that have been tested at prototype scale include the Archimedes Wave Swing 

(2006), which consists of an air-filled cylinder that moves up and down as waves pass over. This motion 

relative to a second cylinder fixed to the ocean floor is used to drive a linear electrical generator. A 2-

MW capacity device has been tested offshore of Portugal. 

Overtopping Devices 

Overtopping devices have reservoirs that are filled by impinging waves to levels above the average 

surrounding ocean. The released reservoir water is used to drive hydro turbines or other conversion 

devices. Overtopping devices have been designed and tested for both onshore and floating offshore 

applications. The offshore devices include the Wave DragonTM (Wave Dragon 2005), whose design 

includes wave reflectors that concentrate the 

waves toward it and thus raises the effective 

wave height. Wave Dragon development 

includes a 7-MW demonstration project off the 

coast of Wales and a precommercial prototype 

project performing long-term and real sea tests 

on hydraulic behavior, turbine strategy, and 

power production to the grid in Denmark. The 

Wave Dragon design has been scaled to 11 MW 

(Christensen 2006), but larger systems are 

feasible since the overtopping devices do not 

need to be in resonance with the waves as is the 

case for point absorbing devices. FIGURE 6 Wave Dragon Overtopping Device 

(Source: Wave Dragon 2005) 

The WavePlaneTM (WavePlane Production 2006) overtopping device has a smaller reservoir. The 

waves are fed directly into a chamber that funnels the water to a turbine or other conversion device. 
30

Case Study: The Reedsport Wave Energy Facility 

At the time of writing, Ocean Power 

Technology (OPT) is working towards applying 

for a FERC operating license for 14 buoys (a 

2.1-MW facility) during late fall 2007, with 

intended deployment during spring 2009. The 

14-buoy project would encompass 

approximately 1⁄2 square mile (1.3 km2

) in area. 

OPT proposes that the 14 buoys would be built 

out to approximately 200 units, for a 50-MW 

facility in the ensuing years. OPT manufactures 

the PowerBuoy®, which at the intended scale 

(150 kW) is 41 m high, 12 m at the widest point 

(the surge plate) and 11 m at the floating collar; 

and has 8 m above the surface and 34 m below 

the surface (Figure 7). The wave energy facility 

would be centered over the 50-m isobath, about 

2 1⁄2 miles (4.0 km) offshore of Reedsport, 

Oregon. The 14 buoys would be arranged in a 

grid as shown in Figure 8 below. The full buildout of 200 buoys (four rows of 50, parallel to 

shore) would have a footprint of about 1⁄2 mile 

by 3 miles (0.8 km by 4.8 km), plus any required 

standoff zone. 

The spacings between the buoys are 

intended to be about 100 m. The anchoring 

system for a single buoy is shown in Figure 9. 

The subsurface buoys between the tendon and 

catenary lines are intended to have significant 

positive buoyancy in order to limit the buoys to 

a small area. Anchors are now intended to be 

precast concrete blocks measuring 6 x 6 x 3 m. 

The power will be generated as 

asynchronous alternating current (1/8 to 1/12 

Hertz AC) , but will be converted to 60-cycle, 

three-phase AC at the subsea pod. The buoys’ 

electrical cables will be joined at the subsea pod, 

which houses a transformer and switchgear and 

steps up the voltage. That unit is now designed 

to be 6 ft (about 1.8 m) in diameter and 15 ft 

(4.6 m) long, and is held down with concrete 

ballast blocks. A sketch is shown in Figure 10. 

Figure 7. PowerBuoy® layout and dimensions. 

(FERC 2007). 

Figure 8. Proposed PowerBuoy® Array (FERC 

2007). 
31

Figure 9. Reedsport Wave Energy Park anchoring schematic (FERC 2007); anchor spacing at about 100 

meters. 

Figure 10. Reedsport Wave Energy Park subsea pod schematic (FERC 2007). 
32

The Affected Environment: 

Oregon’s Continental Shelf 

The area of interest is the nearshore zone 

along Oregon’s coast, from near the 50-meter 

depth contour to the shoreline. The “sweet spot” 

for wave energy development along Oregon’s 

coast, at least for most of the technologies 

proposed at this time, is about 50 m depth, or 

just inside 30 fathoms. This depth is roughly the 

closest distance from shore that long-period, 

large wave forms have yet to begin to react to 

shoaling. This area is also the focus of the 

Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife’s 

recently published Nearshore Strategy (ODFW 

Nearshore Team 2006), and this section of the 

briefing paper relies heavily on the content of 

that report. Figure 11 is taken from the 

Nearshore Strategy and shows the area of 

interest, depth, and rocky versus sandy shoreline 

types (ODFW Nearshore Team 2006). 

Wave Climate and Currents 

Oregon’s wave climate is the major reason 

for the high level of industry interest, along with 

easy access to transmission infrastructure. The 

relative amount of annual wave energy 

worldwide is shown in Figure 12 (Bedard 2005), 

and shows that the best U.S. resource is the West 

Coast, resulting from the prevailing Westerlies 

and the large fetch of the open Pacific. 

Significant wave heights (the average height, 

trough to crest, of the one-third highest waves 

valid for the time period) at Coquille from 1984 

to 1996 reached 7.8 m, with a maximum wave 

height on the order of 15 m (Bedard 2005). The 

monthly average wave energy flux, shown in 

Figure 13, illustrates that the seasonal energy 

during winter and summer differs by a factor of 

about eight. Whereas other markets are 

characterized by higher demands in summer for 

air conditioning, the Oregon coast market 

corresponds roughly to the resource. 

Currents on the Oregon shelf are strongly 

seasonal. Winter is characterized by low 

pressure systems that drive episodic, strong 

southwesterly winds, and result in the northerly 

flowing Davidson Current and downwelling 

conditions. Summer is characterized by 

episodes of high pressure offshore and strong 

northerly or northwesterly winds that drive the 

California Current and upwelling conditions. 

The spring transition takes place in March–April 

and fall transition in late September–October; 

both are characterized by very calm local 

weather and seas. The seasonal prevailing 

winds and resulting sea surface temperatures are 

illustrated in Figure 14, from the Reedsport 

Wave Energy Preliminary Application 

Document (FERC 2007). 

Littoral Transport System 

There exist eighteen identified littoral 

circulation cells on the Oregon coast, as shown 

in a map developed by the Oregon Department 

of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI; 

Figure 15). Reedsport, location of the intended 

first wave energy facility in Oregon, is in the 

middle of the Coos cell. Subcell information is 

not available at the time of writing. 

Pelagic Habitat Physical Characterization 

The pelagic habitat on Oregon’s nearshore 

continental shelf is generally reflective of either 

winter or summer conditions. During winter, 

very nearshore surface temperatures are on the 

order of 9–10°C and salinities on the order of 

30–32 PSU (Landry et al. 1989). Winter 

currents nearshore are generally northwards with 

the Davidson current, and large waves come 

from the southwest and west, corresponding to 

episodic major winter storms (see Figure 14). 

During summer upwelling, surface temperatures 

are on the order of 12–14°C and salinities on the 

order of 30–32 PSU with colder, more saline 

water on the inner shelf (see Figure 14; Landry 

et al. 1989). During upwelling relaxation 

events, warmer surface water moves towards 

shore. In winter, the Columbia River plume 

swings north very close to shore, and during 

summer, swings south and offshore covering a 

very large area (Landry et al. 1989). Light 

transmission is generally higher in winter (away 

from river mouths) and lower after the spring 

transition, when phytoplankton begin to bloom. 
33

Figure 11. Oregon’s nearshore ocean showing the 30-fathom (about 50 m) depth contour and the 3-nautical 

mile (about 5.6 km) demarcation of the Territorial Sea (ODFW Nearshore Team 2006). Red areas are 

rocky shore habitats; areas not blocked in red are sedimented shorelines. 
34

Figure 12. Annual wave energy averages worldwide in kW/m wave front (Bedard 2005). 

Figure 13. Monthly average wave energy flux in KW/m (Bedard 2005). 
35

Figure 14. Visual display of current patterns along the Oregon coast (left); and winds and correlating water 

temperatures along the southern Oregon coast (right)(FERC 2007). 
36

Figure 15. Map of the littoral cells of the Oregon coast (DOGAMI). 
37

Table 1. Grain size distributions from seabed surface sediment samples collected in the vicinity of the 

Reedsport Wave Energy Project (FERC 2007). 

Ocean “fronts” (regions of high rates of 

change in temperature and salinity) on the edges 

of upwelling surface structure are well known as 

biological hotspots and may be bathymetrically 

controlled (and geographically recurrent) in 

some locations (see for example GLOBEC 

1996). Regime transitions during spring 

(March–April) and fall (September–October) 

exhibit generally calm conditions of wind and 

waves. 

Benthic Habitat Physical 

Characterization 

The wave energy industry has thus far 

shown a strong preference for locating in 

sedimented areas with no known rocky outcrops, 

so that concrete block can be used as anchors. 

The high energy coastline yields a gradient in 

sediment size from sand on the beaches to mud 

in deep water. The sediment at 50–100 m varies 

from fine sand at 50 m to sandy silt towards 

100 m depth, as shown by Table 1 from the 

Reedsport preliminary application (FERC 2007). 

Samples from the EPA’s Environmental 

Assessment and Monitoring Program (EMAP) 

from depths of 20 to 120 m during 2003 yielded 

similar sediment size results (from 50.1% to 

99.1% sand), and organics percentages from 

0.30 to 1.4 (LASAR 2007). 

The Biota 

For purposes of this briefing paper, the biota 

will be addressed as assemblages in the habitat, 

including the assemblages in the water column 

(pelagic), those at the bottom of the water 

column (demersal/epibenthic) and those within 

the sediment (benthic infauna). Seabirds and 

marine mammals are treated in their own 

sections. This section leans heavily on the 

ODFW Nearshore Strategy (ODFW Nearshore 

Team 2006), as that work is the most recent and 

complete synthesis of nearshore biology, 

especially as it relates to Oregon’s fish 

resources. 

Epipelagic/pelagic species assemblage 

Phytoplankton—Phytoplankton are the 

base of the food web and thrive in Oregon’s 

nutrient-rich upwelling conditions. Spring 

transition (March–April) generally leads to an 

annual diatom bloom that is an important 

component of the food base for copepods, 

euphausiids, mysids, and other grazers in the 

plankton community. Many other groups of 

phytoplankton are found in the community, 

including toxic diatoms (Pseudonitzschia sp.) 

that can cause amnesiac shellfish poisoning 

(ASP) and certain species of dinoflagellates that 

can cause paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP). 

The phytoplankton species respond to major 

ocean changes as do the zooplankton (below). 

Zooplankton—The zooplankton include 

holozooplankton (animals found in the water 

column throughout their life history) and 

meroplankton (animals found in the water 

column during an early part of their life history). 

The Reedsport Wave Energy project briefly 

reviewed the holozooplankton (FERC 2007): 
38

Plankton is found throughout the Oregon 

Coast, but concentrated populations 

generally occur near the continental shelf. 

Lamb and Peterson (2005) found the highest 

concentration of zooplankton inshore of the 

300-foot isobath. Within that isobath, 

species are separated by preferences in water 

temperature and salinity (Sutor et al. 2005). 

Actual offshore location and density of 

plankton is directly affected by seasonal 

variations in wind and current (Keister and 

Peterson 2003). Generally, upwelling 

events occur in late summer. Uncommon El 

Niño years tend to upset the usual pattern of 

upwelling events and can alter timing and 

occurrence of plankton abundance, species 

composition, and blooms (Keister and 

Peterson 2003). 

Fouling community—The fouling 

community consists of meroplanktonic 

invertebrates whose larvae have evolved to settle 

on hard substrates, and thus will settle on manmade surfaces as well. Many of these 

meroplanktonic organisms are found in the 

neuston, plants and animals that are attracted to 

and often found in the upper 10 cm of the water 

column, at least during calm weather and seas. 

There are also some invasive species in this 

community that may make opportunistic use of 

new hard structures, like wave energy devices, 

to extend their range. 

Krill—Krill is a term applied to numerous 

species of euphausiids, vertically migrating 

shrimp-like crustaceans; they are a very 

important source of forage for many small fish 

and invertebrates, as well as some baleen 

whales. Key species on the Oregon shelf are 

Euphausia pacifica and Thysanoessa spinifera 1

. 

The Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(PFMC) recently took action to preclude any 

krill fisheries on the West Coast of the United 

States (PFMC 2006). 

 

1

 W. T. Peterson, NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC, Newport, 

OR. Pers. commun., July 2007 

Market squid—The market squid 

(Doryteuthis opalescens, formerly Loligo 

opalescens) is a key, schooling invertebrate 

species that provides important forage for 

Oregon’s fish communities and is included in 

ODFW’s list of watch species (see below). 

Fish—The Pacific Fisheries Management 

Council (PFMC) is given authority over West 

Coast fisheries under the Magnusen-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation Act (MSA). In its latest 

iteration, the MSA requires the regional councils 

to identify Essential Fish Habitat (EFH): “those 

waters and substrates necessary to fish for 

spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to 

maturity.” All aquatic habitat that was 

historically accessible to groundfish species, 

coastal pelagic species, coho salmon, Chinook 

salmon, and pink salmon is designated as EFH. 

NOAA Fisheries has listed the species (both 

pelagic and demersal) with essential fish habitat 

in the nearshore area (Table 2). 

ODFW’s Nearshore Strategy (ODFW 

Nearshore Team 2006) listed the key pelagic 

species with respect to nearshore fisheries 

planning. Their table is show in its entirety as 

Table 3. Strategy species are defined as 

important nearshore species in need of greatest 

management attention, and watch list species are 

defined as those that do not require immediate 

management attention, but may in the future. 

Note that some invertebrate species (e.g, market 

squid) are included in the ODFW tables, and that 

there is some crossover between the pelagic and 

epibenthic/demersal table species. 
39

Table 2. Species with designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) in the nearshore area. 

Groundfish Species 

Species 

Common Name 

Species Scientific 

Name Lifestage Activity Prey 

Arrowtooth 

flounder 

Atheresthes stomias Adults Clupeids, gadids, krill, shrimp, 

Theragra chalcogramma 

 Atheresthes stomias Larvae Copepod eggs, copepod nauplii, 

copepods 

Bank rockfish Sebastes rufus Adults gelatinous plankton, krill, small 

fishes, tunicates 

 Sebastes rufus Juveniles gelatinous plankton, krill, small 

fishes, tunicates 

Big skate Raja binoculata Adults Crustaceans, fish 

Black rockfish Sebastes melanops Adults Amphipods, cephalopods, 

clupeids, euphausiids, mysids, 

polychaetes, salps 

Blue rockfish Sebastes mystinus Adults Feeding algae, crab, juvenile fish, fish 

larvae, hydroids, jellyfish, krill, 

salps, tunicates 

 Sebastes mystinus Juveniles Feeding algae, copepods, crab, euphausiids, 

juvenile fish, hydroids, krill, salps, 

tunicates 

 Sebastes mystinus Juveniles All algae, copepods, crab, euphausiids, 

juvenile fish, hydroids, krill, salps, 

tunicates 

Bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis Adults Feeding Juvenile rockfish, molluscs, small 

fishes 

 Sebastes paucispinis Juveniles Feeding Copepods, euphausiids 

Butter sole Isopsetta isolepis Adults Amphipods, decapod crustaceans, 

molluscs, polychaetes, sea stars, 

shrimp 

Cabezon Scorpaenichthys 

marmoratus 

Adults Crabs, fish eggs, lobsters, 

molluscs, small fishes 

Canary rockfish Sebastes pinniger Adults Euphausiids, fish, krill 

Chilipepper Sebastes goodei Adults Clupeids, euphausiids, krill, 

Merluccius productus,squids 

 Sebastes goodei Juveniles Copepods, euphausiids 

Copper rockfish Sebastes caurinus Adults Crustaceans, fish, molluscs, 

shrimp 

Cowcod Sebastes levis Adults Fish, octopi, squids 

Curlfin sole Pleuronichthys 

decurrens 

Adults All Crustacean eggs, echiurid 

proboscises, nudibranchs, 

polychaetes 

Darkblotched 

rockfish 

Sebastes crameri Adults Amphipods, euphausiids, octopi, 

salps, small fishes 

English sole Parophrys vetulus Adults Amphipods, crustaceans, 

cumaceans, molluscs, ophiuroids, 

polychaetes 

 Parophrys vetulus Juveniles Amphipods, copepods, cumaceans, 

molluscs, mysids, polychaetes 

Flag rockfish Sebastes rubrivinctus Adults Crabs, fish, octopi, shrimp 
40

Table 2 continued. Species with designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) in the nearshore area. 

Groundfish Species 

Species 

Common Name 

Species Scientific 

Name Lifestage Activity Prey 

Flathead sole Hippoglossoides 

elassodon 

Adults Clupeids, fish, molluscs, mysids, 

polychaetes, shrimp 

Grass rockfish Sebastes rastrelliger Adults Cephalopods, crabs, crustaceans, 

fish, gastropod, shrimp 

Greenstriped 

rockfish 

Sebastes elongatus Adults Copepods, euphausiids, shrimp, 

small fishes, squids, tunicates 

Kelp greenling Hexagrammos 

decagrammus 

Adults Brittle Stars, crabs, octopi, shrimp, 

small fishes, snails, worms 

 Hexagrammos 

decagrammus 

Larvae Amphipods, brachyuran, copepod 

nauplii, copepods, euphausiids, 

fish larvae 

Lingcod Ophiodon elongatus Adults Unknown Demersal fish, juvenile crab, 

octopi, squid, 

 Ophiodon elongatus Larvae Unknown amphipods, copepod eggs, 

copepod nauplii, copepods, 

decapod larvae, euphausiids 

Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus Adults Amphipods, crabs, mysids, 

sandlance, shrimp, Theragra 

chalcogramma 

 Gadus macrocephalus Juveniles Amphipods, copepods, crabs, 

shrimp 

 Gadus macrocephalus Larvae Copepods 

 Gadus macrocephalus Larvae Copepods 

Pacific hake Merluccius productus Juveniles Euphausiids 

 Merluccius productus Adults All Amphipods, clupeids, crabs, 

Merluccius productus, rockfish, 

squids 

Pacific ocean 

perch 

Sebastes alutus Adults Copepods, euphausiids, mysids, 

shrimp, small fishes, squids 

 Sebastes alutus Juveniles Copepods, euphausiids, 

Pacific sanddab Citharichthys 

sordidus 

Adults Clupeids, crab larvae, octopi, 

squids 

Petrale sole Eopsetta jordani Adults Eopsetta jordani, euphausiids, 

ophiuroids, pelagic fishes, shrimp 

Quillback 

rockfish 

Sebastes maliger Adults Amphipods, clupeids, crabs, 

euphausiids, juvenile fish, 

molluscs, polychaetes, shrimp 

Redstripe 

rockfish 

Sebastes proriger Adults Clupeids, juvenile fish, squid 

Rex sole Glyptocephalus 

zachirus 

Adults Cumaceans, euphausidds, 

larvacea, polychaetes 

Rock sole Lepidopsetta bilineata Adults echinoderms, echiurans, fish, 

molluscs, polychaetes, tunicates 

Rosethorn 

rockfish 

Sebastes 

helvomaculatus 

Adults Amphipods, copepods, 

euphausiids 

Rosy rockfish Sebastes rosaceus Adults Crabs, shrimp 
41

Table 2 continued. Species with designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) in the nearshore area. 

Groundfish Species 

Species 

Common Name 

Species Scientific 

Name Lifestage Activity Prey 

Sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria Juveniles Growth 

to 

Maturity 

Amphipods, cephalopods, 

copepods, demersal fish, 

euphausiids, krill, small fishes, 

squids, tunicates 

 Anoplopoma fimbria Larvae Feeding Copepod eggs, copepod nauplii, 

copepods 

Sand sole Psettichthys 

melanostictus 

Adults Clupeids, crabs, fish, 

molluscs,mysids, polychaetes, 

shrimp 

Sand sole Psettichthys 

melanostictus 

Juveniles Euphausiids, molluscs, mysids, 

polychaetes, shrimp 

Sharpchin 

rockfish 

Sebastes zacentrus Adults Amphipods, copepods, 

euphausiids, shrimp, small fishes 

 Sebastes zacentrus Juveniles Amphipods, copepods, 

euphausiids, shrimp, small fishes 

Shortbelly 

rockfish 

Sebastes jordani Adults Copepods, euphausiids 

Shortraker 

rockfish 

Sebastes borealis Adults bathylagids, cephalopods, decapod 

crustaceans, fish, molluscs, 

myctophids, mysids, shrimp 

Shortspine 

thornyhead 

Sebastolobus 

alascanus 

Adults Amphipods, copepods, crabs, fish, 

polychaetes, Sebastolobus 

alascanus, Sebastolobus altivelis, 

shrimp 

Soupfin shark Galeorhinus galeus Juveniles Growth 

to 

Maturity 

Fish, invertebrates 

 Galeorhinus galeus Adults Fish, invertebrates 

Spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias Adults All Invertebrates, pelagic fishes 

 Squalus acanthias Adults Feeding Invertebrates, pelagic fishes 

Splitnose 

rockfish 

Sebastes diploproa Juveniles Amphipods, cladocerans, 

copepods 

Spotted ratfish Hydrolagus colliei Adults algae, amphipods, annelids, brittle 

stars, fish, hydrolagus collei, 

molluscs, nudibranchs, 

opisthobranchs, ostracods, small 

crustacea, squid 

 Hydrolagus colliei Juveniles algae, amphipods, annelids, brittle 

stars, fish, hydrolagus collei, 

molluscs, nudibranchs, 

opisthobranchs, ostracods, small 

crustacea, squid 

Starry flounder Platichthys stellatus Adults Crabs, fish juveniles, molluscs, 

polychaetes 

 Platichthys stellatus Juveniles Amphipods, copepods, 

polychaetes 

Stripetail 

rockfish 

Sebastes saxicola Adults Copepods, euphausiids 
42

Table 2 continued. Species with designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) in the nearshore area. 

Groundfish Species 

Species 

Common Name 

Species Scientific 

Name Lifestage Activity Prey 

 Sebastes saxicola Juveniles Copepods 

Tiger rockfish Sebastes nigrocinctus Adults Amphipods, clupeids, crabs, 

juvenile fish, juvenile rockfish, 

shrimp 

Vermilion 

rockfish 

Sebastes miniatus Adults Clupeids, juvenile rockfish, krill, 

octopi, squid 

Widow rockfish Sebastes entomelas Adults Amphipods, copepods, 

euphausiids, Merluccius 

productus, salps, shrimp, squids 

 Sebastes entomelas Juveniles Copepod eggs, copepods, 

euphausiid eggs 

Yelloweye 

rockfish 

Sebastes ruberrimus Adults Clupeids, cottids, crabs, gadids, 

juvenile rockfish, sea urchin, 

shrimp, snails 

Yellowtail 

rockfish 

Sebastes flavidus Adults Clupeids, euphausiids, krill, 

Merluccius productus, mysids, 

salps, squids, tunicates 

Pacific Salmon 

Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch

Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

Coastal Pelagic Species 

Pacific sardine Sardinops sagax

Pacific (chub) 

mackerel 

Scomber japonicus

Northern 

anchovy 

Engraulis mordax

Jack mackerel Trachurus symmetricus

California 

market squid 

Loligo opalescens*

* now Doryteuthis opalescens 
43

Table 3. Pelagic species assemblages (ODFW Nearshore Team 2006). 
44

Table 3 continued. Pelagic species assemblages (ODFW Nearshore Team 2006). 

Epibenthic/demersal organisms 

ODFW’s Nearshore Strategy (ODFW 

Nearshore Team 2006) also listed the strategy 

and watch list soft-bottom demersal/epibenthic 

species with respect to nearshore fisheries 

planning. Their table is show in its entirety as 

Table 4. 

Epibenthic macroinvertebrates—Decapod 

crustaceans in this group are commercially 

important and include the Pacific pink shrimp 

(Pandalus jordani) and Dungeness crab (Cancer 

magister). Other important groups include both 

cephalopod and bivalve mollusks, and 

echinoderms, represented by seastars and sea 

urchins. 

Forage fishes—In addition to the forage 

fishes that are treated above, Pacific sandlance 

(Ammodytes hexapterus) are also important in 

the region, but are characteristically 

undersampled or not sampled, because they can 

burrow into the sediment to avoid trawl capture2

. 

Demersal fishes—Groundfish in the 

managed community are numerous, including 

the principally Sebastes complex, which 

includes the many rockfish species and the kelp 

greenling and lingcod (see Table 3). There are 

also a number of flatfish species, such as 

sanddabs, in the assemblage. 

Elasmobranchs—Common soft-boned 

fishes (elasmobranchs) on the Oregon shelf 

include the dogfish shark (Squalus acanthias), 

bat ray (Myliobatis californica), and the big 

skate (Raja binoculata). White sharks 

(Carcharadon carcharias) inhabit the Oregon 

coast year round, and are of great concern to the 

surfing community. Elasmobranchs are of 

interest here because of their ability to perceive 

electromagnetic fields. 

 

2

 R. Emmett, NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC, Newport, OR. 

Pers. commun., July 2007 
45

Table 4. Soft-bottom epibenthic/demersal species assemblages (ODFW Nearshore Team 2006). 
46

Table 4 continued. Soft-bottom epibenthic/demersal species assemblages (ODFW Nearshore Team 2006). 

Benthic infauna 

EPA’s Environmental Assessment and 

Monitoring Program conducted a random 

stratified sampling program on the Oregon shelf 

in 2003 that included benthic infauna analysis. 

Fifty stations between 20 m and 120 m water 

depth were sampled, and the benthic infauna 

identified to species or to the most specific 

taxonomic group feasible. The results are still 

provisional, but a 79-m sample was taken very 

near the intended Reedsport wave energy 

project. The infauna was numerically and 

taxonomically dominated by polychaete worms, 

and also included gastropods, amphipods, brittle 

stars, bivalves, ribbon worms, shrimp, 

scaphopods, cumaceans, oligochaete worms, and 

anemones in the 76 taxa identified3

. The most 

numerous species were Magelona longicornis, 

Galathowena oculata and Scoletoma luti—all 

polychaetes. 

Braun (2005) recently reviewed the existing 

literature for the area near the mouth of the 

Columbia River with a focus on depths under 

30m, and offered some insight into the life 

histories of the dominant species found in sand 

to mud substrates in high energy environments: 

Spiophanes bombyx, a small, slender 

bristleworm (5 to 6 cm long by 0.15 cm 

wide), is found in clean sand from the 

low water mark to about 60 meters. 

Spiophanes bombyx is regarded as a 

 

3

 L. Edmond, EPA Region X, Seattle, WA. Pers. 

commun., June 2007 

typical 'r'-selected species with a short 

life span, high dispersal potential, and a 

high reproductive rate (Kröncke 1980, 

Niermann et al. 1990). It is often found 

at the early successional stages of 

variable, unstable habitats that it is quick 

to colonize following perturbation 

(Pearson and Rosenberg 1978). Its 

larval dispersal phase may allow the 

species to colonize remote habitats. 

Tube-building worms, including 

Spiophanes bombyx, modify the 

sediment making it suitable for later 

colonization and succession (Gallagher 

et al. 1983). 

Magelona spp. typically burrows in fine 

sand at low water and in the shallow 

sublittoral. It does not produce a tube. 

Magelona spp. is adapted for life in 

highly unstable sediments, characterized 

by surf, strong currents, and sediment 

mobility. 

Owenia fusiformis is a thin, cylindrical, 

segmented worm, up to 10 cm long, that 

lives in a tough, flexible tube buried in 

the sand with its anterior end just 

protruding from the surface. It is found 

buried in sand or muddy sand, at or 

below low water, on fairly sheltered 

beaches. 

Spio filicornis is found in clean sand, 

from the low water mark into the 

shallow sublittoral. It inhabits a tube 

made of sediment grains and detritus 

stuck together with mucus. Tubebuilding worms, including Spio 
47

filicornis, modify the sediment, making 

it suitable for later colonization and 

succession (Gallagher et al. 1983). 

Hippomedon denticulatus is a 

lysianassid amphipod. They are 

scavengers on muddy and sandy 

sediments in bays, the continental shelf, 

and the deep sea where they clean up the 

carcasses of dead fishes and 

invertebrates. This species of 

lysianassid amphipod is large (14 mm), 

shiny, and white, with a pair of fat 

antennae attached to the front of the 

head and a small hook on the last sideplate of the abdomen. 

This is useful context when considering the 

response of the benthic infaunal community to 

physical disturbances. 

Turtles 

Turtles that can be found on the Oregon 

nearshore shelf, and could thus be affected by 

wave energy development, include the 

leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) and 

loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta). 

Seabirds 

The Reedsport Wave Energy Project has 

recently reviewed seabird observations from the 

central Oregon coast. Dominant species in 1989 

surveys are shown in Table 5 (FERC 2007); and 

timing of occurrence for common species 

offshore Douglas County is shown in Table 6. 

Marine mammals 

The Reedsport Wave Energy Project 

provided a good summary table of marine 

mammals possibly found in the Reedsport 

vicinity (FERC 2007). This is presented as 

Table 7, and includes information on prior 

sightings, distribution and preferred habitat, and 

population status. Whale species found on the 

Oregon continental shelf include the gray whale 

(Eschrichtius robustus), humpback whale 

(Megaptera novaeangliae), blue whale 

(Balaenoptera musculus), fin whale (B. 

physalis), sei whale (B. borealis), and sperm 

whale (Physeter macrocephalus). 

Gray whales—Gray whales are of 

particular concern because the entire population 

of 18,000–20,000 animals in the eastern North 

Pacific transits the length of the Oregon coast 

twice a year (Herzing and Mate 1984). Mate 

and Harvey (1984) used VHF radio tags to track 

northbound migrating whales during 1979 and 

1980 from Mexico to Alaska. More recently, 

gray whales have been tagged in Mexico to 

estimate use of reproductive habitats (Mate et al. 

2003) and tracked northward with satellitemonitored radio tags (Mate and Urban 2003). 

These studies provide more locations and 

precision about distances from shore, water 

depths, and speeds than previous research. 

Some gray whale mothers with calves were 

tracked up to 77o N and for as long as 320 days. 

The tracks have established the first good 

estimates of home ranges for the entire summer 

feeding season as well as individual estimates 

characterizing the southbound migration. 

Sea otters—Sea otters (Enhydra lutris) 

were extirpated in Oregon’s nearshore waters by 

the end of the 19th century (Lance et al. 2004). 

They are thought to be a keystone species in the 

California Current’s kelp forest environments, 

mediating kelp grazing by controlling sea urchin 

populations (Lance et al. 2004). Although sea 

otter issues were not a focal point of this 

workshop, any predictions of wave energy 

development effects on the success of local 

individuals or possible future reintroductions 

would be of value to natural resource managers. 
48

Table 5. Seabirds identified during the 1989 Oregon and Washington marine mammal and seabird survey 

(FERC 2007). 

Table 6. Expected 

abundance and timing of 

select seabird species 

found along the Oregon 

coast of Douglas County 

(FERC 2007). 
49

Table 7. Summary of marine mammals potentially in the Reedsport project area; from NOAA stock assessment reports (FERC 
50

Table 7 continued. Summary of marine mammals potentially in the Reedsport project area; from NOAA stock assessment rep
51

Environmental Effects 

Conceptual Approach 

A generic framework for ecological risk 

assessment was developed by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency during the 

early 1990s (USEPA 1998). This approach 

provides a simple conceptual model of 

ecological risk that is valuable in the context of 

developing a systematic view of possible 

ecological effects. For purposes of this 

workshop, a “conceptual model” was defined as 

an ecosystems-based diagram that illustrates 

integrated physical and biological relationships 

for understanding the potential ecological effects 

on the ecosystem off the Oregon coast. The 

conceptual model also helps to clarify risks and 

uncertainties, guides the analysis of effects, and 

could provide a framework for an adaptive 

management program. 

The needed terminology for this model 

requires defining stressors and receptors: 

stressors are agents of change in the 

environment; and receptors are characteristics of 

the environment (generally ecological entities) 

in which change from stressors can result and, 

hopefully, be measured. The terms stressor and 

agent are synonymous in the parlance of 

ecological risk assessment. 

The assessment of ecological risk 

additionally requires the characterization of two 

complementary components of the risk in the 

model. First, exposure is defined as “the contact 

or co-occurrence of a stressor with a receptor” 

(USEPA 1998). Hence, a very important part of 

ecological risk assessment is the analysis that 

leads to estimates of exposure for key species or 

assemblages or habitats. Second, the 

“characterization of ecological effects describes 

the ability of a stressor(s) to cause adverse 

effects under a particular set of circumstances” 

(USEPA 1998). An ecological effect may be as 

simple as a basic toxicological dose-response 

curve, or as complicated as the modification of a 

complex behavioral repertoire. An estimate of 

ecological risk accordingly requires estimates of 

the magnitudes of both the exposure and the 

effects. The focus of this briefing paper, and the 

related workshop exercise, is principally to 

assess the magnitude of the exposure of the 

receptors to the stressors. In some cases it may 

be appropriate to begin to assess the magnitude 

of the effects. 

In order to be comprehensive, many 

environmental analyses utilize one or a set of 

impact matrices. Such a matrix is employed by 

the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC 

2005), the European Union’s research and 

development center for alternative energy 

development, to summarize the possible effects 

of wave energy devices deployed at the center. 

Table 8 is a wave energy development summary 

impact matrix modified from the EMEC model. 

The columns correspond to groups of receptors, 

whereas the rows correspond to groups of 

stressors. It may be helpful to differentiate 

between the exposure and effects factors for 

each box in the matrix, however specific. Table 

9 shows a hypothetical summary matrix for the 

operations stressors that could be used to 

communicate information about level of 

concern, possible mitigation effectiveness, and 

level of confidence. 

The summary matrix lumps stressors and 

receptors, but in practice, it may be expanded to 

the level specific to the risk analysis. For 

example, the mooring lines, not the anchors or 

subsurface floats, may be the Mooring System 

stressor of concern for whale entanglement. 

However, different species of whales (e.g., 

baleen whales or toothed whales) may have 

different levels of exposure or different 

responses to the stressor, whereas the summary 

matrix includes only a column for cetaceans. 

The matrix may be expanded to the level 

necessary at the appropriate level of the 

assessment (the present level is regional). Table 

10 shows a matrix that addresses the acoustics 

stressor at a more specific level that may be 

useful in considering specific stressors or 

receptors. 

Finally, it may be helpful to use a small 

submatrix to structure the discussion. Table 11 

shows a submatrix that includes estimates of 

exposure and response to a given stressor, 

potential effectiveness of mitigation, and 
52

Table 8. Summary impact matrix for wave energy development on the Oregon continental shelf. 

Activity (agent or stressor) Receptors 

Ocean Waves 

Ocean Currents 

Sediments 

Plankton 

Fouling 

Communit

y

Migratory Fish 

Forage Fish and 

Invertebrates 

Demersal Fish 

Epibenthic 

Macroinvertebrates 

Benthic Infauna 

Emplacement  Mooring System  Electrical Transmission Infrastructure Operation  Mooring System  Buoy or Other Generation Device  Electrical Transmission Infrastructure  Chemical Coatings Decommissioning  Buoy or Device Removal  Transmission Infrastructure Removal  Anchor Removal or Decommissioning 
53

Table 9. Portion of hypothetical summary impact matrix for project operations with annotations for level of concern (colors: g

yellow – of moderate concern; orange – of major concern), level of confidence (?), and possible mitigation effectiveness 

boxes are only for presentation purposes. 
54

Table 10. Hypothetical summary impact matrix for a specific set of stressors, in this case, acoustics. 

Activity (agent or stressor) Receptors 

Ocean Waves 

Ocean Currents 

Benthic Habitats 

Plankton 

Fouling 

Community

Pelagic Fish 

Forage Fish and 

Invertebrates 

Demersal Fish 

Epibenthic 

Macroinvertebrates 

Benthic Infauna 

Acoustic Frequency Signatures  Point Absorber  Attenuator  Oscillating Water Column  Overtopping Mild Weather Acoustics (Quiet Days)Heavy Weather Acoustics (Loud Days)Important Frequencies for Key Biota Acoustic Guidance Systems Echo Effects? Amplitude Effects (Overpressure) Service Boats and Equipment 
55

Table 11. Submatrix for discussion and evaluation of specific matrix intersection points. 

Category/Rank Low Medium High 

Level of 

confidence 

Potential for Exposure to Stressor 

Potential for Response to Stressor 

Potential Effectiveness of Mitigation 

Residual Environmental Effect 

residual effect—that is, effect after any 

mitigation. Levels of confidence may be 

estimated as low, medium, or high for each row; 

this would ultimately affect the prioritization of 

effects and a gap analysis. Stochastic 

components might take part in predictions of 

both exposure (e.g., proportion of a whale 

population actually encountering a stressor wave 

energy buoy) and response (e.g., proportion of a 

population seriously injured by a collision). 

Level of confidence is meant to include level of 

uncertainty (measured or not) and level of 

scientific agreement. Ideally, such a submatrix 

might underpin each call made in an overall 

effects matrix. 

Reasonably Likely and Foreseeable 

Effects 

Reasonably likely and foreseeable effects 

may be considered as a product of exposure and 

response in a four-way contingency table. 

Where both exposure and response are minor or 

of low likelihood, the issue may well be scoped 

out of the analysis. Where either the level of 

exposure or the response is of great cause for 

concern, the issue will not likely be scoped out 

of the analysis. Ultimately, the intent is to give 

a sense of priority for the meaningful allocation 

of limited resources to the right issues. 

Emplacement/Deployment Effects 

Deployment of wave energy devices will 

include service boat and barge use and their 

attendant risks; and considerable bottom 

disturbance during deployment of bottom 

structures, including the anchoring systems or 

mooring and the transmission systems. This 

bottom disturbance will impact the infauna and 

the epifauna that are not motile enough to leave 

the area. 

Operational Stressor Signals 

The operational stressors are considered in 

turn below, and high points of the findings of the 

significant reviews or syntheses are very briefly 

reported. The key references for this section are 

the Scottish Executive’s Strategic 

Environmental Assessment (Faber Maunsell and 

METOC PLC 2007), with two supporting 

documents on vertebrate collisions (Wilson et al. 

2007) and acoustics (Richards et al. 2007); the 

Environmental Assessment for the Makah Bay 

(WA) project (FERC 2006); the preliminary 

application for the Reedsport (OR) project 

(FERC 2007); the Minerals Management 

Service’s (MMS) worldwide assessment (Michel 

et al. 2007); MMS’ programmatic draft EIS for 

alternative energy (MMS 2007); a technical 

review in support of the Kaneohe Bay (HI) 

project (Sound & Sea Technology 2002); and a 

memorandum on electromagnetic field in 

support of the Cape Wind (MA) wind energy 

project (Valberg 2005). 

In applying the evolving literature on 

alternative energy effects in coastal seas, 

particularly the work coming from Europe (e.g., 

Faber-Maunsell and METOC PLC 2007), a focal 

consideration is the effect of the array. Buoy or 

device effects may be considered individually, 

but the effect of a full commercial array, up to 

three miles long and comprised of hundreds of 

buoys or other devices, may create more than an 

additive risk for a given stressor. Long, linear 

arrays may, in fact, act as barriers to certain 

groups of biota, depending on the signature of 

concern; for example, sound. The distance of 
56

the devices from one another (e.g., 100 m at 

Reedsport) will also be a major factor in array 

effects. Moreover, the effects of the array need 

to be considered in the context and scale of the 

ecosystem component, whether it is the littoral 

cell, or subcell, in the physical process, or the 

life history context of migratory species such as 

whales, seabirds, or anadromous fish. 

Mitigation is intended in the following section to 

mean minimization or avoidance of effects, not 

to mean ecological or monetary compensation. 

Mitigation may be very effective in some cases, 

especially through siting decisions that take into 

account the physical or ecological process 

context. 

Physical signatures on wave energy, currents, 

and sediment transport 

Issue: Wave energy devices will necessarily 

remove some energy from the wave train, and 

thus, the littoral system. Resultant effects may 

include alterations in currents and sediment 

transport. 

Findings: 

Makah Bay: The environmental assessment 

for Makah Bay concluded that there would be a 

negligible effect on littoral transport from a 

single buoy and that the deployment depth 

(150 ft, about 46 m) was well below the socalled wave closure depth of about 56 ft (about 

17 m; 2.28 times the maximum 12 hour wave 

height) such that changes in bathymetry would 

not be expected (FERC 2006). 

Programmatic Draft EIS: MMS’ PDEIS for 

alternative energy estimated that a wave energy 

facility could reduce wave height by 10% to 

15% with maximum effect within 2 km inshore, 

and could result in an interruption of littoral drift 

depending on placement in the littoral cell. 

Structural drag on currents is not expected to be 

a significant component (MMS 2007). 

Worldwide Assessment: This assessment 

found that wave energy reduction has been 

estimated at between 3% and 13% at the 

shoreline and recognized that the effect on 

waves, currents, and sediment transport will be 

technology- and location-specific; hence, 

underscoring the importance of appropriate 

siting (Michel et al. 2007). 

Reedsport Project: The Preliminary 

Application Document (PAD) cites cumulative 

wave strength attenuation of up to 12% to 15% 

for an array of 14 buoys. Modeling predicted a 

maximum instantaneous attenuation of wave 

amplitude of 2.1%, and OPT concluded that the 

project will have an insubstantial effect on 

erosion/accretion at the shoreline (FERC 2007). 

Scottish Executive: The strategic 

environmental analysis found that, with realistic 

calculations, a maximum of 10% of the energy 

and 5% of the wave height arriving at the 

shoreline might be absorbed by a wave energy 

array 3 km long. The report concluded there 

would be only minor effects, but with low 

confidence, and recommended appropriate 

analysis and siting within local littoral cells 

(Faber Maunsell and METOC PLC 2007). 

Mitigation: Some mitigation of the physical 

effects of energy absorption may be achieved by 

appropriate siting and choice of appropriate 

technologies. 

Hard surfaces: buoys and anchoring 

systems—collision, entanglement and/or 

entrapment 

Issue: The deployment of structures in a 

previously clear area brings the risk of collision 

and/or entanglement of animals; primarily the 

larger fish, the seabirds, and the marine 

mammals. 

Findings: 

Kaneohe Bay: The risk of cetacean 

entanglement was considered minimal for this 

project because the four buoys were attached to 

the seafloor instead of being anchored by buoys 

with lines, and the cable was intended to run 

along the seafloor. Entrapment risk was 

minimized by buoy design, and collision risk 

was not assessed (Sound & Sea Technology 

2002). 

Makah Bay: The Environmental Assessment 

concluded that risk of cetacean entanglement 
57

was minimal because the exposure of a single 

buoy was low, and the anchor lines would have 

sufficient tension to avoid the entanglement 

characteristically seen with smaller and lighter 

tensions (FERC 2006). 

Programmatic Draft EIS: The MMS PDEIS 

for alternative energy (MMS 2007) states that 

wave energy facilities may have as many as 

2,500 mooring lines securing the wave energy 

devices to the ocean floor. Thus, marine 

mammals swimming through a wave energy 

facility may strike and become entangled in 

these lines, becoming injured or drowning. 

Depending on the species affected, entanglement 

may result in minor to major impacts to marine 

mammals.

Worldwide Assessment: This assessment 

found it likely that migrating gray whales would 

interact with wave energy devices on the U.S. 

West Coast and that entanglement in mooring 

cables could cause an impact. It also found that 

seabird exposure would likely increase due to 

attraction to fish responding to the Fish 

Attraction (or Aggregation) Devices (FAD) (see 

below) effect (Michel et al. 2007). 

Reedsport Project: This document addresses 

the possible collision or entanglement of 

cetaceans by recommending mitigation via 

acoustic “guidance” devices. Seabirds are not 

expected to have significant collision risk 

because all structures will be large enough to be 

visible. The document also states that design 

characteristics of the buoys themselves will 

prevent hauling-out by pinnipeds (FERC 2007). 

Scottish Executive: This report dealt with 

vertebrate collision risk in some detail, citing 

many conclusions of a supporting study by the 

Scottish Association for Marine Science that 

made clear the complexity of vertebrate 

behavioral responses (Wilson et al. 2007). The 

strategic environmental assessment concluded 

that risk of collision for marine mammals and 

seabirds was very uncertain and that the 

conclusion was made with very low confidence 

(Faber Maunsell and METOC PLC 2007). 

Mitigation: Mitigation for collision and 

entanglement can include visual cues, such as 

highly visible paints, and acoustic “guidance” to 

cause animals to perceive the structures or avoid 

them. Entanglement may also be avoided by 

using thick, high-tension mooring lines. 

Entrapment mitigation may be achieved both by 

visual or acoustic avoidance, but more likely by 

appropriate device design considerations. 

Hard surfaces: buoys and anchoring 

systems—trophic effects 

Issue: Wave energy arrays will provide a 

matrix of hard structures in areas previously 

devoid of any hard structure: this will include 

buoys at the surface and through much of the 

water column, subsea pods (see Figure 10), and 

anchors on sedimented substrates. This will 

likely have ecological consequences from the 

fouling community up through the highest levels 

of trophic structure. 

Findings: 

Makah Bay: The Environmental Assessment 

concluded that there would be no effect of the 

four buoys on rockfish, surf smelt, or other 

marine fish. It further concluded that “Instead, 

project construction may result in a net gain for 

fish and other marine life that will benefit from 

the protection from fishing......and potential 

development of small artificial reef areas along 

the transmission cable” (FERC 2006). 

Programmatic Draft EIS (MMS 2007): The 

MMS PDEIS states that placement of structures, 

such as pilings on the OCS, would introduce an 

artificial hard substrate that opportunistic 

benthic species that prefer such substrate could 

colonize; and that minor changes in species 

associated with softer sediments could occur due 

to scouring around the pilings. Fishes, including 

pelagic species, would likely be attracted to 

these artificial habitats, and fish population 

numbers in the immediate vicinity of the 

platforms are likely to be higher than in 

surrounding waters away from the structures. 

The overall change in habitat could result in 

changes in local community assemblage and 

diversity. Although the anchors or pilings 
58

needed to install an individual wave energy unit 

would represent only a small amount of artificial 

habitat that would likely have little effect on 

overall fish populations, there is a possibility 

that major projects that cover large areas could 

result in substantial changes in the abundance 

and diversity of particular fish species within the 

area. Effects on diversity and fish abundance 

would be project-specific since they would be 

largely dependent on the prevalence of various 

types of habitats and fish species within 

surrounding areas. 

Worldwide Assessment: This assessment 

concludes that wave energy device arrays will 

function as Fish Attraction (or Aggregation) 

Devices (FADs), and that the ultimate 

community of resident fish will change to an 

assemblage with more place-based affinity 

(Michel et al. 2007). 

Reedsport Project: This document 

recognizes the potential for the anchoring 

system to act as hard substrate for the fouling 

community and consequent potential for changes 

in the other resident biota, especially fish 

species. The fouling community is also 

expected to colonize the mooring lines, which 

will need periodic maintenance for removal 

(FERC 2007). 

Scottish Executive: The report on collision 

risks detailed the effect of arrays as FADs, and 

concluded that this effect might attract birds and 

marine mammals as well as fish (Wilson et al. 

2007). 

Mitigation: The mitigation potential for 

trophic changes due to hard surfaces and 

structure is not known at this time. 

Chemicals: coatings, metals, and organics 

Issue: Wave energy devices will create the 

potential for chemical effects from a variety of 

sources, including toxins in antifouling paints; 

metals including lead and zinc; and organics, 

such as those used for hydraulic fluids. 

Findings: 

Makah Bay: The environmental assessment 

noted that the Aquabuoy® uses seawater as its 

hydraulic fluid, and the project applicant agreed 

to “try different brands of antifouling paints to 

identify those that work best.” (FERC 2006). 

Programmatic Draft EIS (MMS 2007): The 

PDEIS for alternative energy stated that copperor tin-containing compounds could be used to 

control fouling, and that tin would remain 

effective for longer, but no attempt was made to 

assess the environmental impact. Hydraulic 

spills are also a risk (MMS 2007). 

Worldwide Assessment: This assessment 

recognized the importance of nonimpacting 

antifouling coatings, noting that the United 

States has banned domestic use of tributyl tin 

(TBT) products and is working to have their use 

banned worldwide (Michel et al. 2007). 

Reedsport Project: This document addresses 

the issue of hydraulic leaks by stating that no 

device will contain more than 400 gallons of 

vegetable-based, biodegradable hydraulic fluid 

(FERC 2007). Other sources of toxicity are not 

discussed. 

Mitigation: Partial mitigation for hydraulic 

spills is achieved through the use of vegetablebased, rather than petroleum-based, hydraulic 

fluids. New, less toxic antifouling chemicals are 

continuously being tested in an effort to find less 

toxic and more specifically targeted agents. 

Electromagnetic fields 

Issue: Wave energy devices will necessarily 

generate electrical (E) and magnetic (B) fields 

(EMF) as they produce and transmit electrical 

currents. At issue is the sensitivity of particular 

groups of the biota, especially the potential 

responses of elasmobranchs (attraction, 

repulsion, or other behavioral taxis), and the 

effectiveness of mitigation, primarily through 

shielding. 
59

Findings: 

Cape Wind: The Cape Wind study concludes 

that trenching and shielding would effectively 

prevent any effects to the biota (Valberg 2005), 

but this report considered only the cabling. 

Kaneohe Bay: This report found that effects 

of electrical fields could be minimized by 

shielding, as shown by studies on existing cables 

(e.g., in New Zealand). It also found that 

elasmobranchs, sea turtles and cetaceans might 

sense the magnetic field surrounding the cabling 

from the project, but any effects were uncertain 

(Sound & Sea Technology 2002). This study 

did not consider the EMF effects of the buoys 

themselves. 

Makah Bay: The Makah Bay Environmental 

Assessment concluded that EMF effects would 

be “minor and temporary ranging from no 

impact to avoidance for organisms inhabiting the 

seafloor near the cable.” This conclusion was 

based on the Kanehoe Bay findings, the amount 

of power passing through the cable, and the fact 

that the signal would be DC, thereby creating 

less of an EMF than AC (FERC 2006). No 

analysis was made of the EMF signature or 

effects of the buoy itself. 

Programmatic Draft EIS: The PDEIS for 

alternative energy found that EMF effects from a 

submarine power cable would be negligible, but 

underscored the lack of information on effects 

(MMS 2007). Again, no analysis was made of 

the EMF signature or effects of the buoys 

themselves. 

Worldwide Assessment: This assessment 

notes that Pacific salmon may be affected by 

magnetic fields and also that there is substantial 

uncertainty about the response of marine 

mammals to EMF (Michel et al. 2007). 

Reedsport Project: The Preliminary 

Application Document for the Reedsport project 

includes a good review of the literature also 

cited here. It states that the electricity generated 

by the buoys will be at 1/12 to 1/8 Hertz, 

presumably corresponding to an 8- to 12-second 

period reciprocation time. (This is well below 

the 7–8 Hertz lower limit above which sharks 

and rays apparently cannot perceive AC.) The 

current will be rectified at the subsea pod to 60 

Hertz. The report states categorically that the 

electrical field around the buoys and the subsea 

pods will be completely eliminated by the 

Faraday cage effect of the surrounding steel 

structures. Any EMF impacts to migrating 

salmon are expected to be minimal due to this 

group’s brief period of exposure. Magnetic 

fields around the transmission cables are 

expected to be minimal (FERC 2007). 

Scottish Executive: The strategic 

environmental assessment concludes that DC 

and low-frequency AC electrical fields are of 

concern, mainly for elasmobranchs. The report 

noted that wave energy “devices themselves will 

also have an electrical signature, however this 

will be specific to the individual devices” and 

that this is an unknown at the present time 

(Faber Maunsell and METOC PLC 2007). 

Mitigation: Armoring and trenching are 

claimed to be effective EMF mitigation for 

submarine cables. The use of so-called Faraday 

cages to eliminate EMF fields around wave 

energy devices or subsea pods has a basis in 

theory, but has not to date been demonstrated in 

practice. 

Acoustics 

Issue: Wave energy devices will have 

acoustic signatures, from the impingement of 

waves on above-water structures to generators 

and switching systems. Fish and seabirds are 

sensitive to sounds and many marine mammals 

are dependent on sound for life processes from 

feeding to mating. Acoustic guidance systems 

themselves may also have ecological effects 

other than those intended. 

Findings: 

Kaneohe Bay: This report treats acoustics in 

some detail and provides a good review of the 

sensitivity of the biota in the area. The report 

concludes that only humpback whales, two 

species of dolphins and green sea turtles could 

be affected, and that there is no evidence that the 

frequency or amplitude of the sound from the 
60

four buoys would cause harm to these species 

(Sound & Sea Technology 2002). 

Makah Bay: The Environmental Assessment 

claimed that there would be no adverse effect on 

whales due to the relative strengths of the device 

versus ambient (ocean) noise and the fact that 

the devices would be well below 145 dB; this 

finding was also applicable to fish (FERC 2006). 

Programmatic Draft EIS: This review 

indicates that although underwater noise would 

be produced by the hydraulic machinery 

associated with wave energy generation devices, 

it is currently unclear what the sound levels 

would be. Noise and vibrations associated with 

the operation of the generation units would be 

transmitted into the water column and, 

depending on the anchoring system used, the 

sediment. Depending on the intensity, such 

noises could potentially disturb or displace some 

marine mammals and fish within surrounding 

areas or could mask sounds used by these 

animals for communicating and/or detecting 

prey (MMS 2007). 

Worldwide Assessment: This assessment 

cited Hagerman and Bedard (2004) in finding 

that expected wave energy generation device 

noises would be “light” as compared to 

transportation noises (Michel et al. 2007). (The 

two prior reports [FERC 2006, MMS 2007] 

considered amplitude but not frequency in their 

evaluations.) 

Reedsport Project: This document 

acknowledges the potential use of acoustic 

guidance devices to mitigate the potential for 

collision and entanglement of cetaceans; the 

overall effect of either passive (the buoys’ own 

sounds) or active (use of sound generating 

devices) sound to cause whales to avoid the 

buoy array is not yet known (FERC 2007). 

Scottish Executive: The strategic assessment 

was supported by a detailed study that concluded 

major overpressures (loudness) leading to 

temporary or permanent hearing loss were not a 

major risk during operations, even within square 

arrays, but rather that arrays could act as 

physical barriers due to the responses to fields of 

sound. This report recommended appropriate 

studies of acoustic signatures of devices and of 

site-specific ambient sound in a wide array of 

conditions (Richards et al. 2007). 

Mitigation: Known mitigation for 

operational noises is limited to design factors 

and appropriate siting. 

Lighting effects 

Issue: The lighting required by the U.S. 

Coast Guard to address safety considerations 

may attract biota, especially seabirds, to the 

generation devices. 

Findings: 

Reedsport Project: This document reports 

that a 14-buoy array will have “at least four to 

eight lights”, and concludes that lighting may 

affect the potential for nighttime seabird 

collisions (FERC 2007). 

Mitigation: Mitigation may be limited to the 

minimum use of nighttime lighting to achieve 

safety goals. 

Cumulative Effects 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) defines cumulative impact as: “the 

impact on the environment which results from 

the incremental impact of the action when added 

to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person 

undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor but 

collectively significant actions taking place over 

a period of time.” 

For purposes of this workshop, the 

consideration of cumulative operational wave 

energy effects included the summary effects of 

all of the stressors and receptors in the system. 

Cumulative effects also go beyond the effects of 

a single wave energy array to assess the effects 

of multiple arrays. Ultimately, three key 

questions may be appropriate for consideration 

of cumulative effects in a given oceanographic 

region like the Pacific Northwest: 
61

1. How large can a single array of devices 

get before effects begin to accumulate? 

2. How many arrays can be deployed in a 

region before effects begin to 

accumulate? 

3. Over what time-frame is/are the effect(s) 

going to occur? 

One breakout session at the workshop was 

tasked with a systems view of cumulative 

impacts. 

Maintenance Effects 

Wave energy devices will require routine 

maintenance. Low-level maintenance will likely 

involve the use of service boats to perform 

maintenance activities in situ. Higher level 

maintenance or overhaul will likely require 

transport of devices by service boat to port 

where the work will take place. Effects would 

include those associated with operation of the 

vessel class of the service boats. 

Accident Effects 

System survivability is an issue with this 

new technology and the effects analysis should 

include some consideration of the effects of 

wave energy devices coming loose from their 

moorings. Maintenance may also be required in 

inclement conditions, thereby increasing the 

probability of accidents. A potential accidental 

effect is the loss of electrical insulating oil 

(mineral oil) which is housed with the 

transformers located in the subsea pods. 

Decommissioning Effects 

Decommissioning of wave energy facilities 

will include the use of service boats and/or 

barges to remove all deployed equipment, 

devices, anchoring systems, and transmission 

systems from the site. Removal of very large 

anchors may require jetting and could possibly 

cause more bottom disturbance than 

deployment. Balancing of decommissioning 

cost and benefits will also involve consideration 

of any artificial reef benefits from structures 

such as anchors. 

Policy Linkages for Effects Analysis 

One area in which natural resource 

management policy impacts the scientific 

discussion is the existence of federal and state 

lists of Threatened and Endangered species 

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). A 

preliminary list of ESA species possibly affected 

by wave energy development on the Oregon 

shelf is shown in Table 12 below. The 

workshop participants were asked to give some 

sense of priority to these resources that are 

already at risk. 
62

Table 12. Federal and state listed species found in the Oregon nearshore ocean. 

Common Name Scientific Name Lister Status 

Fish 

Snake River Chinook Salmon 

(spring/summer) 

Onchorhynchus tshawaytscha F T 

Snake River Chinook Salmon 

(fall) 

Onchorhynchus tshawaytscha F T 

Upper Willamette River Chinook 

Salmon 

Onchorhynchus tshawaytscha F E 

Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Onchorhynchus kisutch F T* 

Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon Onchorhynchus kisutch F E 

Columbia River Chum Salmon Onchorhynchus keta F T 

Upper Willamette River Steelhead Onchorhynchus mykiss irideus F T 

Lower Columbia River Steelhead Onchorhynchus mykiss irideus F T 

Upper Columbia River Steelhead Onchorhynchus mykiss gairdneri F T 

Snake River Steelhead Onchorhynchus mykiss gairdneri F T 

Snake River Sockeye Salmon Onchorhynchus nerka F E 

Reptiles 

Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas F E 

Leatherback Turtle Dermochelys coriacea F E 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta F T 

Pacific Ridley Sea Turtle Lepidochelys olivacea F T 

Birds 

Short-tailed Albatross Diomedea albatrus F E 

Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis F E 

Western Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus F T 

California Least Tern Sterna antillarum browni F E 

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus F T 

Mammals 

Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis F E 

Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus F E 

Fin Whale Balaenoptera physalus F E 

Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus S E 

North Pacific Right Whale Eubalaena japonica F E 

Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae F E 

Sperm Whale Physeter macrocephalus F E 

Northern (Steller) Sea Lion Eumetopias jubatus F T 

Key: Lister – S = State; F = Federal. Status – T = Threatened; E = Endangered; * = In litigation. 
63

Bibliography and Literature Cited 

AquaEnergy Group, Ltd. 2005. AquaBuOY Wave 

Energy Converter. Formerly online at 

http://www.aquaenergygroup.com. Currently: 

Finavera Renewables. c2007. Online at 

http://finavera.com [accessed 5 March 2008]. 

Archimedes Wave Swing. 2006. Archimedes wave 

swing website. c2004–2008, AWS Ocean 

Energy Ltd. Online at http://www.waveswing 

.com [accessed 5 March 2008]. 

Bedard, R. 2005. Oregon offshore wave energy 

demonstration project: Bridging the gap between 

the completed phase 1 project definition study 

and the next phase – phase 2 detailed design and 

permitting. Electrical Power Research Institute 

Report E2I EPRI WP-010 OR. Palo Alto, CA. 

Online at http://oceanenergy.epri.com/ 

attachments/wave/reports/Ph_15_Oregon 

_Wave_Final_RB_121305.pdf [accessed 1 

March 2008]. 

Bedard, R., G. Hagerman, M. Previsic, O. Siddiqui, 

R. Thresher, and B. Ram. 2005. Offshore wave 

power feasibility demonstration project: Final 

summary report, project definition study, EPRI 

Global WP 009–US Rev 1, Jan. 14, 2005. 

Electrical Power Research Institute. Palo Alto, 

CA. 

Bottom, D., J. A. Lichatowich, and C. A. Frissell. 

1998. Variability of Pacific Northwest marine 

ecosystem and relation to salmon production. In 

McMurray, G. R. and R. J. Bailey (eds.), Change 

in Pacific Northwest coastal ecosystems. NOAA 

Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series 

No. 11, NOAA National Centers for Coastal 

Ocean Science, Silver Spring, MD. 

Braun, G. M. 2005. Benthic infauna at the mouth of 

the Columbia River. Draft White Paper. 

Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State 

Univ., Corvallis. 

Cada, G., J. Ahlgrimm, M. Bahleda, S. D. Stavrakas, 

D. Hall, R. Moursund and M. Sale. 2007. 

Potential impacts of hydrokinetic and wave 

energy conversion technologies on aquatic 

environments. Fisheries 32:174–181. 

Christensen, L. 2006. Electronic mail from 

Christensen (Wave Dragon ApS, Copenhagen, 

Denmark) to L. Habegger (Argonne National 

Laboratory, Argonne, IL, U.S.A.), 22 June 2006. 

Cox, D. 2005. Sediment transport and nearshore 

hydrodynamics at the mouth of the Columbia 

River. Draft White Paper. Institute for Natural 

Resources, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 

Department of the Navy. 2003. Environmental 

Assessment, Proposed Wave Energy Technology 

Project, Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe 

Bay, Hawaii, Jan. 2003. 

EMEC. 2005. Environmental impact assessment 

(EIA) guidance for developers at the European 

Marine Energy Centre. European Marine Energy 

Centre, Ltd., Orkney, Scotland. Online at 

http://www.emec.org.uk/emec_documents.asp 

[accessed 23 August 2008]. 

Energetech. 2006. Media release: Port Kembla trial 

deployment results, Nov. 2005. Current citation: 

Oceanlinx. 2007. Online at http://www 

.oceanlinx.com/uploads/MediaUpdateNov2005 

.pdf [accessed 5 March 2008]. 

European Thematic Network on Wave Energy 

(ETNWE). 2003. Results from the work of the 

European Thematic Network on wave energy, 

ERK5-CT-1999-2001, 2000–2003. Online at 

http://www.wave-energy.net [accessed 5 March 

2008]. 

Faber Maunsell and METOC PLC. 2007. Scottish 

marine renewables strategic environmental 

assessment report. Prepared for the Scottish 

Executive by Faber Maunsell and METOC PLC. 

Online at http://www.seaenergyscotland.co.uk/ 

[accessed 7 May 2008]. 

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 

2006. Preliminary draft environmental 

assessment: Makah Bay offshore wave energy 

pilot project. FERC Docket No. DI02-3-002. 

FERC, Washington, DC. 

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 

2007. Pre-application document: Reedsport OPT 

wave park. Reedsport Wave Energy Project, 

LLC, FERC Project No. 12713. FERC, 

Washington, DC. 

Gallagher, E. D., P. A. Jumars, and D. D. Trueblood. 

1983. Facilitation of soft-bottom benthic 

succession by tube builders. Ecology 64:1200–

1216. 
64

GLOBEC (U.S. Global Ocean Ecosystem 

Dynamics). 1996. North Pacific Climate 

Change and Carrying Capacity (CCCC) Science 

Plan. Report Number 16. Online at http:// 

www.usglobec.org/reports/pdf/rep16.pdf 

[accessed 5 March 2008]. 

GLOBEC (U.S. Global Ocean Ecosystem 

Dynamics). 2001. Ocean surface drifters 

released off the Oregon coast; wind driven 

circulation off Oregon. GLOBEC Northeast 

Pacific Program. Online at http://diana.oce 

.orst.edu/drift/wind-driven.shtml [accessed 5 

March 2008]. 

Greenland, D. 1998. Variability and stability of 

climatic/oceanic regimes in the Pacific 

Northwest. In McMurray, G.R. and R.J.Bailey 

(eds.), Change in Pacific Northwest coastal 

ecosystems. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program 

Decision Analysis Series No. 11, NOAA 

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, 

Silver Spring, MD. 

Hagerman, G, and R. Bedard. 2004. Offshore wave 

power in the US: Environmental issues. Global 

Energy Partners, LLC Report E2I Global EPRI007-US. Online at http://oceanenergy.epri 

.com/attachments/wave/reports/007_Wave 

_Envr_Issues_Rpt.pdf [accessed 1 March 2008]. 

Hagerman, G., R. Bedard, and M. Previsic. 2004. 

E2I EPRI survey and characterization of 

potential offshore wave energy sites in Oregon. 

Electrical Power Research Institute Report E2I 

EPRI WP-OR-003. Palo Alto, CA. Online at 

http://oceanenergy.epri.com/attachments/wave/ 

reports/003_Oregon_Site_Report.pdf [accessed 1 

March 2008]. 

Herzing, D. L., and B. R. Mate. 1984. Gray whale 

migrations along the Oregon coast, 1978–1981. 

In M. L. Jones, S. Swartz and S. Leatherwood 

(eds.), The gray whale, p. 289–307. Academic 

Press, New York. 

Hodder, J. 2005. Marine mammal use of the 

nearshore waters along Clatsop Spit: An 

assessment of distribution, abundance, and 

potential effects from dredge spoil deposition 

adjacent to the south jetty of the Columbia River. 

Review Draft. Institute for Natural Resources, 

Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 

Keister J., and W. Peterson. 2003. Zonal and 

seasonal variations in zooplankton community 

structure off the central Oregon coast, 1998–

2000. Prog. Oceanogr. 57:341–361. 

Kosro, P. M. 2007. Ocean currents mapping lab. 

Online at http://bragg.coas.oregonstate.edu/ 

[accessed 6 March 2008]. 

Kröncke, I. 1990. Macrofauna standing stock of the 

Dogger Bank. A comparison: II. 1951–1952 

versus 1985–1987. Are changes in the 

community of the northeastern part of the 

Dogger Bank due to environmental changes? 

Neth. J. Sea Res. 25:189-198. 

JAMSTEC (Japan Marine Science and Technology 

Center). 2006. Wave Energy Research and 

Development at JAMSTEC, Offshore Floating 

Wave Energy Device, Mighty Whale. Online at 

http://www.jamstec.go.jp/jamstec/MTD/Whale/ 

index.html [accessed 6 March 2008]. 

Lamb, J., and W. Peterson. 2005. Ecological 

zonation of zooplankton in the COAST study 

region off central Oregon in June and August 

2001 with consideration of retention 

mechanisms. J. Geophys. Res.110, C10S15, 

doi:10.1029/2004JC002520. 

Lance, M. M., S. A. Richardson and H. A. Allen. 

2004. Sea Otter Recovery Plan. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife 

Program, Olympia, WA. Online at http:// 

wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversity/soc/recovery/ 

seaotter/final_seaotter_recovery_plan_dec2004 

.pdf [accessed 6 March 2008]. 

Landry, M. R., J. R. Postel, W. K. Peterson and J. 

Newman. 1989. Broad-scale patterns in the 

distribution of hydrographic variables. p. 1–41. 

In M.R. Landry and B.M. Hickey. Coastal 

oceanography of Washington and Oregon. 

Elsevier Press, Amsterdam. 

Lane, N. 2007. Issues affecting tidal, wave, and instream generation projects. Congressional 

Research Service Report RL33883. Online at 

National Council for Science and the 

Environment, CRS reports, http://www 

.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/07Sep/ 

RL33883.pdf [accessed 6 March 2008]. 

LASAR. 2007. Preliminary laboratory results for 

EPA-funded Coastal Environmental Monitoring 

and Assessment Program (EMAP). Lab 

Analytical Storage and Retrieval (LASAR) 

System, Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality, Laboratory Division, Portland. 
65

Mate, B. R., and J. Harvey. 1984. Ocean 

movements of radio-tagged gray whales. In M. 

L. Jones, S. Swartz, and S. Leatherwood (eds.), 

The gray whale, p. 577–589. Academic Press, 

New York. 

Mate, B. R., B. A. Lagerquist, and J. Urban-Ramirez. 

2003. A note on using satellite telemetry to 

document the use of San Ignacio Lagoon by gray 

whales (Eschrichtius robustus) during their 

reproductive season. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 

5:149–154. 

Mate, B. R., and J. Urban-Ramirez. 2003. A note on 

the route and speed of a gray whale on its 

northern migration from Mexico to central 

California, tracked by satellite-monitored radio 

tag. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 5:155–157. 

Michel, J., H. Dunagan, C. Boring, E. Healy, W. 

Evans, J. M. Dean, A. McGillis, and J. Hain. 

2007. Worldwide synthesis and analysis of 

existing information regarding environmental 

effects of alternative energy uses on the outer 

continental shelf. MMS OCS Report 2007-038. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Herndon, VA. 

MMS (Minerals Management Service). 2006. 

Technology white paper on wave energy 

potential on the U.S. outer continental shelf. 

Renewable Energy and Alternate Use Program, 

MMS, Reston, VA. 

MMS (Minerals Management Service). 2007. 

Programmatic draft environmental impact 

statement for alternative energy development and 

alternate uses on the OCS. MMS, Reston, VA. 

Niermann, U., E. Bauerfeind, W. Hickel, and H. V. 

Westernhagen. 1990. The recovery of benthos 

following the impact of low oxygen content in 

the German Bight. Neth. J. Sea Res. 25:215–

226. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2003. 

Large whale entanglement report 2001 (updated 

2003). NOAA National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Protected Resources Division, 

Gloucester, MA. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005. 

Pacific coast groundfish fishery management 

plan: Essential fish habitat designation and 

minimization of adverse impacts. Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. NOAA 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. 

Ocean Power Delivery Ltd. 2006. World’s first 

wave farm–shipping of first machine to Portugal, 

Press Release, March 14. Formerly online at 

http://www.oceanpd.com. Currently Greenjobs. 

c2004, 2006. Renewable Energy Industry News. 

Online at http://www.greenjobs.com/Public/ 

IndustryNews/i_news_00411.htm [accessed 6 

March 2008]. 

Ocean Power Technologies. 2006. Making Waves 

in Power. Online at http://www.oceanpower 

technologies.com [accessed 6 March 2008]. 

ODFW Nearshore Team. 2006. The Oregon 

nearshore strategy. Oregon Department of Fish 

& Wildlife, Marine Resources Program, 

Newport. 

Pearcy, W. G. 2005. Marine fishes. Draft White 

Paper. Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon 

State Univ., Corvallis. 

Pearson, W. H. 2005. Issues concerning Dungeness 

crabs and the demonstration project for the 

Columbia River Nearshore Beneficial Use 

Project. Review Draft. Institute for Natural 

Resources, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 

Pearson, T. H. and R. Rosenberg. 1978. 

Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic 

enrichment and pollution of the marine 

environment. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 

16:229–311. 

PFMC. 2006. Measures to prohibit fishing for krill 

in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the West 

Coast. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 

Portland, OR. 

Polaski, K. 2003. Waiting for the Waves. The IEA 

Ocean Energy Systems Newsletter, Issue 2, 

September. Online at http://www 

.iea-oceans.org/newsletters/ [accessed 7 March 

2008]. 

Rhinefrank, K. 2005. Wave energy research, 

development, and demonstration at Oregon State 

University. Presented at Energy Ocean 2005, 

April 26–28, Washington, DC. 

Richards, S. D., E. J. Harland, and S. A. S. Jones. 

2007. Underwater noise study supporting 

Scottish Executive strategic environmental 

assessment for marine renewables. QinetiQ Ltd., 

Farnborough, Hampshire. 

Sound & Sea Technology Ocean Engineering. 2002. 

Wave energy (WET) environmental impacts of 
66

selected components. Report 02-06. Prepared 

for Belt Collins Hawaii. 

Strong, C. 2005. Marine bird use of the nearshore 

waters along Clatsop Spit: an assessment of 

composition, abundance, and potential effects 

from dredge spoil deposition adjacent to the 

south jetty of the Columbia River. Review 

Draft. Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon 

State Univ., Corvallis. 

Sutor, M., T. Cowles, W. Peterson, and S. Pierce. 

2005. Acoustic observations of finescale 

zooplankton distributions in the Oregon 

upwelling region. Deep-Sea Res. Part II Top. 

Stud. Oceanogr. 52:109–121. 

Thorpe, T. W. 1999. A Brief Review of Wave 

Energy. ETSU Report R-122, prepared for the 

United Kingdom Department of Trade and 

Industry (as of 2007, the Department for 

Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform). 

USDOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2006. 

Proceedings of the hydrokinetic and wave energy 

technologies technical and environmental issues 

workshop. Prepared by RESOLVE, Inc. for U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind and 

Hydropower Technologies Program, 

Washington, DC. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 

1998. Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk 

Assessment Forum, Washington, DC. 

EPA/630/R-95/002F. 

Valberg, P. A. 2005. Memorandum addressing 

electric and magnetic field (EMF) questions. 

Cape Wind Energy Project, Nantucket Sound. 

Online at http://www.mms.gov/offshore/ 

PDFs/CWFiles/141.pdf [accessed 7 March 

2008]. 

Wave Dragon. 2005. Technology. Online at 

http://www.wavedragon.net [accessed 7 March 

2008]. 

WavePlane Production A/S (WPP A/S). 2006. 

Home page. Currently: WavePlane A/S. c2007. 

Home page. Online at http://www.waveplane 

.com [accessed 7 March 2008]. 

Wilson, B., R. S. Batty, F. Daunt, and C. Carter. 

2007. Collision risk between marine renewable 

energy devices and mammals, fish and diving 

birds. Report of the Scottish Executive for 

Marine Science, Oban, Scotland. PA37 1QA. 
67

Breakout Groups 

Introduction to the Breakout Groups 

John Meyer, Oregon State University, and 

Robin Hartmann, Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition

In order to vet the important interactions 

between wave energy projects and the natural 

environment, breakout sessions convened on 

both days of the workshop. Specifically, the 

breakouts were designed to accomplish the 

following: 

1. Initial assessment of the potential 

impacting agents and ecological effects 

of wave energy development in 

Oregon’s coastal ocean 

2. Development of a general conceptual 

framework of physical and biological 

relationships that can be applied to 

specific wave energy projects 

The goal of answering the breakout group 

questions was to document 

1. What we know 

2. What we don’t know, including key 

information gaps 

3. Level of uncertainty, level of agreement 

4. A sense of priority about environmental 

issues 

5. Any recommended studies or 

monitoring programs 

Breakouts on the first day consisted of 

workshop participants addressing the potential 

impacts of wave energy projects on specific 

sectors of the environment (i.e., receptors, such 

as benthic habitat and sea birds). On the second 

day, participants focused on specific aspects of a 

wave energy project (i.e., stressors, such as 

acoustics and energy-absorbing structures) and 

their potential effects on the environment as a 

whole. A final breakout group considered 

cumulative effects. 

The Steering Committee determined 

breakout group membership based on a person’s 

expertise on the subject, as well as the need to 

include participants with a diversity of 

knowledge. Each participant was assigned 

membership to one breakout group on the first 

day and to another on the second day. 

RECEPTOR breakout groups (Day 1): 

• Physical Environment 

• Pelagic Habitat 

• Benthic Habitat 

• Fish and Fisheries 

• Marine Birds 

• Marine Mammals 

STRESSOR breakout groups (Day 2): 

• Energy Absorbing Structures 

• Chemical Effects 

• Hard Structures and Lighting 

• Acoustics 

• Electromagnetic Effects 

• System View and Cumulative Effects 
68

Questions for the stressor groups included 

the following: 

• What is the status of knowledge of 

stressor X and the 

propagation/transmission of its direct 

and indirect effects? 

• What are the key information gaps and 

uncertainties about stressor X or its 

effects? 

• What are the key/vulnerable receptors 

for stressor X? 

• What are the appropriate baseline and 

monitoring parameters and possible 

management triggers for stressor X? 

• What are the known mitigation 

strategies for stressor X and their 

possible effectiveness? 

• Given our knowledge of stressor X and 

the system variability in time and space, 

can recommendations about the utility 

and applicability of control areas be 

made? 

Questions for the receptor groups included 

the following: 

• What are the key stressors of interest for 

receptor X? 

• What are the key information gaps for 

exposure and response for receptor X? 

• Given our knowledge of receptor X and 

the system variability over space and 

time, can key baseline and monitoring 

parameters be recommended? 

• Given our knowledge of receptor X and 

the system variability over space and 

time, can recommendations about the 

utility and applicability of control areas 

be made? 

• Can stressors for receptor X be 

estimated or ranked? 

• Can a response factor for receptor X be 

estimated or ranked? 

In the final breakout group, System View 

and Cumulative Effects, the above questions 

were integrated across the stressors, stressor 

processes, and receptors, culminating in the 

specific question: Are there any system 

vulnerabilities not apparent in the stressor- or 

receptor-specific analyses? 

Workshop participants were given several 

hours each day to work through the questions, 

facilitated by a single member from the Steering 

Committee. Discussions were captured on 

flipcharts and by one participant assigned to take 

notes in each group. All workshop participants 

reconvened at the end of each session to report 

the key points from their deliberations to the rest 

of the group. 
69

Receptor Breakout Group Report: The Physical Environment 

Participants: 

Jonathan C. Allan, DOGAMI 

Jack Barth, OSU 

Tuba Özkan-Haller, OSU 

Keith Kirkendall, NOAA-NMFS (Facilitator) 

Paul D. Komar, OSU (Chair) 

Curt Peterson, PSU 

Mirko Previsic, EPRI Ocean Energy Program 

Maria Stefanovich, OSU (Rapporteur) 

Key Findings 

The potential impacts of wave energy 

extraction facilities on the physical environment 

could be extensive depending upon the fraction 

of wave energy extracted. Concerns include 

consequences of the reduction in wave energy 

levels along the shore, potentially affecting the 

processes and stabilities of the beaches, and the 

effects of the structures on ocean currents, which 

in turn could alter the magnitudes and patterns 

of sediment transport and accumulation. 

Details, along with discussion of the literature 

and a proposed monitoring program, can be 

found in Appendix 5. Specific points of concern 

include the following: 

• Wave energy extraction units vary in 

design, in how they extract energy, in 

their efficiency, and in the amount of 

energy they reflect back seaward. These 

variations, as well as their site of 

installation, affect their impact on wave 

reduction and on ocean currents. 

• The magnitudes of the reduced wave 

heights become significantly greater, 

wave patterns more complex, and 

potential alterations of currents greater, 

when multiple extraction units are 

present. 

• Numerical models of wave reduction by 

wave energy complexes on other coasts 

suggest that lowered wave heights will 

be experienced on the beaches of the 

Pacific Northwest, affecting (both 

negatively and positively) a range of 

natural processes and the recreational 

activities of beach visitors. 

• There is a need for field investigations 

of the environmental changes that result 

from the construction of wave energy 

facilities. This is critical for those 

constructed on the Pacific Northwest 

coast, due to its extreme waves and 

currents and the fairly unique processes 

and responses of its beaches. 

• Our committee believes it is imperative 

that monitoring and experiments be 

undertaken at the first few sites 

developed along the Pacific Northwest 

coast. 

• A dialog needs to be established 

between the developers of the proposed 

wave facilities, specifically their 

engineers and scientists responsible for 

the technical analyses, experts in those 

areas available at the state universities 

and government agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations, and 

other stakeholder groups. It is important 

that we work together to address the 

complex issues raised. 

Top Environmental Issues 

Energy extraction technologies 

Wave energy extraction devices vary in their 

designs and fundamental mechanisms for 

deriving energy from the waves. The degree of 

wave reduction in the lee of the extraction unit 
70

depends on the amount of energy removed to 

generate electricity (about 5% to 20%), the 

amount of energy reflected seaward (about 10% 

to almost 100%), and the site of installation. 

Similarly, the different unit designs will have 

unique effects on ocean currents and watercolumn stratification, depending on their size, 

shape, and location. 

Most of our discussions focused on the use 

of multiple buoys placed in an array, as buoy 

systems are most feasible for application in the 

Pacific Northwest, and a buoy system will be 

used for the first Oregon facility at Reedsport. 

Collective impact of multiple units 

Having extracted and reflected energy from 

the waves arriving from offshore, a single unit 

will create a “shadow zone” of lowered wave 

heights in its lee. The magnitudes of the 

reduced wave heights become significantly 

greater and wave patterns more complex when 

multiple extraction units are present. Wave 

energy complexes will almost always consist of 

multiple lines of units, designed to maximize the 

wave energy extraction; there would be a greater 

reduction in wave heights in a multi-unit shadow 

zone compared with that for a single line of units 

(see the models of Venugopal and Smith 2007). 

It can therefore be expected that with the 

development of a full-scale wave energy 

complex consisting of a large number of 

extracting units in a two-dimensional array, 

there could be significant reductions in wave 

heights and energies along the coast, potentially 

extending for kilometers in the shoreward 

direction and affecting the beaches. 

Furthermore, the development of numerical 

models for such an array will be considerably 

more complex than that for a single line, 

increasing the uncertainties in the model’s 

capacity to predict the environmental impacts. 

In addition to affecting wave energies and 

patterns of diffraction and refraction, the 

presence of a wave farm will become an 

obstacle to the flow of wind-driven currents in 

the shallow-water continental shelf, and could 

alter the structure of the water column 

(variations in temperature and salinity with 

depth). While there will be some effect by 

individual extraction units, the collective 

impacts of a large number of units in an array 

could produce a measurable effect on the 

currents and the water column. 

Potential environmental impacts 

Sediment transport patterns—With wave 

energies on average being reduced, there will be 

a tendency for sediments to accumulate in the 

lee of the array, producing some shoaling and 

possibly a change in bottom sediment grain size 

(likely a shift to finer sediment, and possibly a 

change from a rocky seafloor to sand). Those 

changes will have a feedback effect on the 

processes, for example altering the patterns of 

wave refraction if shoaling significantly changes 

the water depths. Such a modification of the 

wave refraction will be carried to the shore, the 

altered angles of waves breaking on the beaches 

affecting the longshore currents and sand 

transport. 

Changes in beach processes—The range of 

beach processes can be expected to be directly 

affected by the installation of a wave energy 

facility, as most of those processes in shallow 

water are driven by the heights and energies of 

the waves (Komar 1998). With a reduction in 

wave heights on the beaches, surf-zone widths 

could be significantly reduced from their natural 

widths, and because the magnitudes of the 

longshore currents and sand-transport rates 

depend on the heights of the breaking waves, 

they could also experience reductions. Changes 

in nearshore currents and sand-transport could 

produce significant shifts in the shorelines, with 

erosion focused along some stretches of beach, 

and accumulation of the eroded and transported 

sand widening other stretches of beach. 

Reduction in surf energy—The existence 

of a high-energy surf is important to the mixing 

and dilution of pollutants that reach the 

nearshore, with the seaward-directed rip currents 

flushing them offshore; with coastal pollution 

increasingly becoming a problem along the 

Oregon and Washington shores, it could be 

exacerbated by the reduction in wave-energy 

levels. Significant negative impacts could also 
71

occur along the rocky shores to the tidepool life 

that is adapted to the presence of high waves and 

depends on their oscillations and wave-driven 

currents for the delivery of food and dispersal of 

larvae (discussed in other sections of this 

report). 

Scientific Uncertainty and Agreement 

The wave energy facility designs for the 

Pacific Northwest, as elsewhere, will be based in 

large part on numerical models. The models 

applied thus far have focused on analyses of the 

wave diffraction and refraction, beginning with 

the reduced wave heights after a significant 

portion of their energy has been extracted and 

following the waves as they move toward the 

shore. For the most part those wave models 

should yield reasonable results when applied to 

the Pacific Northwest; however, areas of 

uncertainty remain. 

Unit design 

As discussed by Venugopal and Smith 

(2007), problems remain if the analyses need to 

include the dynamics of the energy-extraction 

units, as will be the case when the units consist 

of buoys whose motions have a feedback effect 

on the waves. This may be important on the 

Pacific Northwest coast in that energy-extracting 

buoys are likely the most viable technology. 

Process investigations 

Modeling and investigations, such as 

described by Venugopal and Smith (2007) and 

Miller et al. (2007), provide guidance as to what 

the impacts on the physical environment might 

be and where they would be greatest. However, 

at this stage in the development of wave energy 

facilities, there has been only limited reported 

use of numerical models extended to 

assessments of the processes that would be 

responsible, such as the transport of sediment on 

the continental shelf and beaches. Of particular 

importance, there have yet to be reported field 

experiments to document on a prototype scale 

the impacts of individual unit designs, and no 

experience from the construction of a complete 

wave energy complex consisting of multiple 

units. 

Sediment transport 

It is unfortunate that there have been only 

limited investigations of sediment-transport 

processes on the continental shelves of the 

Pacific Northwest. The one region of 

concentrated research has been that in proximity 

to the mouth of the Columbia River (the 

Columbia River Littoral Cell), but the 

extrapolation of its results to the Oregon 

continental shelf is uncertain. Although 

numerical models may eventually include 

assessments of sediment transport affected by 

the construction of a wave energy facility, their 

predictions for the Oregon coast would be 

uncertain. For example, while it can be 

expected that there would be sediment 

accumulation in the shadow zone of a facility, it 

is doubtful whether one could predict with 

confidence whether that sediment was 

transported there by shelf currents modified by 

the array, or was carried offshore from the ocean 

beach. 

Particularly problematic in the design 

process will be the use of numerical models 

applied to analyze the transport of sediment by 

the modified waves and currents, to predict areas 

of seafloor erosion or sediment accumulation. 

In general the application of such models is a 

challenge with uncertain results. This is even 

more so in applications to the Pacific Northwest, 

because the physics of the processes on these 

high-energy, low-sloping (dissipative) beaches 

differ significantly from laboratory wave tanks 

and low-energy beaches (e.g., U.S. East Coast 

and European) where those models have been 

tested. 

Key Information Gaps 

• Applications of wave 

diffraction/refraction numerical models 

require accurate data on water depths, 

the bathymetry of the seafloor. This is 

seldom available from recent surveys 

along the Pacific Northwest coast, 

particularly for the intermediate water 
72

depths from 50 meters to the shore, 

including profiles of the beaches at the 

site of interest. 

• Design information on the wave energy 

units is needed for independently 

modeled assessments of wave energy 

facility impacts on the physical 

environment. 

• Experimental field data documenting 

environmental impacts, from both 

prototype-scale and multiple-unit wave 

extraction facilities, is lacking. 

Recommendations for Baseline and 

Monitoring Studies 

There has been little experience in the 

design, construction and operation of wave 

energy systems along the world’s coastlines. 

Therefore, the development of wave energy 

complexes along the Pacific Northwest coast 

should proceed with caution, requiring that 

during the design process analyses include 

projections of the potential environmental 

consequences, and that prior to and following 

construction the installation be monitored 

through the implementation of a data-collection 

program. The program of data collection in any 

proposed development site needs to be initiated 

during the design stage to supply the required 

depth surveys and preconstruction data on 

natural conditions that is needed for 

comparisons with the environmental changes 

that occur following construction. 

The extreme Pacific Northwest environment 

will place special demands on the wave energy 

device designs. It is important that the ensuing 

environmental responses be carefully 

documented, at least for the first few 

developments that will serve as tests of the 

designs and impacts. Our committee proposed a 

monitoring and sampling program designed 

specifically for the wave energy facility being 

proposed for development at Reedsport, because 

it is expected to be the first (Appendix 5). 

Although such a monitoring program would be 

complex and demanding, requiring a team of 

experienced investigators, it would be a good 

investment leading to the improved design of 

wave energy facilities that minimize the impacts 

on the physical environment and ecology. 

 Literature Cited 

Allan, J. C., and P. D. Komar. 2006. Climate 

controls on U.S. West Coast erosion processes. 

J. Coastal Res. 22:511–529. 

Komar, P. D. 1998. Beach processes and 

sedimentation. 2nd edition. Prentice Hall, New 

Jersey. 

Miller, D. L., H. C. M. Smith, and D. E. Reeve. 

2007. Modelling analysis of the sensitivity of 

shoreline change to a wave farm. Ocean Eng. 

34:884–901. 

Venugopal, V., and G. H. Smith. 2007. Wave 

investigation for an array of wave power devices. 

In Proc. 7th European Wave and Tidal Energy 

Conference, Porto, Portugal, 11–13 September 

2007. 
73

Receptor-specific effects table for the physical environment. KEY: L=low impact, M=medium impact, H=high impact, NA=not 

Activity (agent or stressor) Receptors 

Wave Energy 

Wave Height 

Turbulence 

Nearshore Current 

Speed 

Current Direction 

Net Sediment 

Transport Directiona 

Net Sediment 

Transport Amounta 

Littoral Cell Net 

Effecta 

Local Sedimentation at 

the Array 

Local Scouring 

Emplacement/Installation 

Mooring System L L L L L L L L L L Electrical Transmission Infrastructure L L L L L L L L L L Directional Drilling L L L L L L L L L L 

Operation 

Mooring System L L L/M L L L L L L M Buoy or Other Generation Device L/M L/M M M M L/M L/M L/M L/M L Electrical Transmission Infrastructure L L L L L L L L L L Chemical Coatings NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Decommissioning 

Buoy or Device Removal L L L L L L L L L L Transmission Infrastructure Removal L L L L L L L L L L Anchor Removal or Decommissioning L L L L L L L L L L 

a Focus of the conversations and ratings were on shoreline effects. 
74

Receptor Breakout Group Report: Pelagic Habitat 

Participants: 

Richard Brodeur, NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC 

Selina Heppell, OSU 

Susan Holmes, OSU (Rapporteur) 

Justin Klure, Oregon Wave Energy Trust (Facilitator) 

Bill Peterson, NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC 

Alan Shanks, Univ. of Oregon (Chair) 

Key Findings 

• The wave energy structures will likely 

have little or no effect on phytoplankton. 

• Antifouling coatings may have adverse 

affects on plankton if the coatings leach 

toxins. Nonleaching antifouling 

coatings should be used if at all 

possible. 

• The electromagnetic signals generated 

by the facilities may confuse fishes that 

use an electrical sense to orient toward 

prey or use a sense of earth magnetism 

for navigation. We know these 

organisms are very sensitive, so the 

shielding of the electromagnetic signals 

must be very good. 

• Wave energy extractors that are 

dependent on water movement through 

the apparatus will likely kill or damage 

large zooplankton such as jellyfish and 

ctenophores. 

• Benthic organisms will colonize the 

wave energy structures extensively. For 

most populations, the loss of larvae to 

settlement on the structures will be 

unimportant. For some populations 

(e.g., rockfish populations recovering 

from overfishing), this loss may be 

important. If juvenile rockfish 

associated with the wave energy 

structures are unable to successfully 

transition to a permanent adult habitat, 

then settlement of larval rockfish on the 

structures may represent a sink for these 

larvae. 

• The structures will act as Fish Attraction 

Devices (FADs). They will attract fish 

that feed on benthic organisms, a variety 

of water column fishes, and fish 

predators. 

Top Ecological Issues, Uncertainty, and 

Recommendations 

Antifouling coatings 

Antifouling coatings that work by releasing 

toxins into the water may harm any organism 

(phyto-, mero- or holoplankton) in the plankton 

community. Most of the effect will be localized 

to near the power-generating structures and will 

extend downstream for an unknown distance. 

The effect of one structure leaching toxins from 

antifouling coatings will probably be minimal, 

but the effect of leaching toxins from many 

structures in a wave energy facility and many 

facilities along the coast may not be minimal, 

particularly if there are bioaccumulative 

compounds. Utilization of antifouling coatings 

that rely on leaching toxins should be avoided in 

preference to nonleaching coating, but it is 

possible that grazing organisms may facilitate 

the release of these compounds. 

Water inflow entrainment 

Some of the devices designed to extract 

energy from waves pass water through the 

mechanism. During the passage of water 

through the device, large delicate organisms will 

be killed or damaged. Large zooplankton such 

as jellyfish, salps, and ctenophores are 

particularly susceptible to this type of damage. 

This stressor can be avoided by utilizing energy 
75

extraction devices that do not require the water 

to pass through a mechanism. 

Electromagnetic effects 

The wave energy extractors themselves and 

the generation of electricity by the devices will 

produce weak electric and magnetic fields. 

Elasmobranchs (sharks and rays) and some bony 

fishes are capable of detecting even very weak 

electric and magnetic fields. In general, in 

marine organisms, the electric sense is used to 

orient toward prey. Even the weak electric 

signal generated by dissimilar metals in contact 

with each other in seawater can disorient some 

shark species. In experimental settings, sharks 

can sense the electric signal from a clam buried 

in sediment. Several marine organisms can 

sense the earth’s magnetic field and may use it 

to aid in navigation. Few organisms have been 

investigated so we have no idea how widespread 

this capacity is. These organisms are quite 

likely very sensitive to magnetic signals if the 

best-studied organism (the pigeon) is any 

indication of the general sensory ability of 

organisms that navigate with earth magnetism. 

We know some marine organisms are very 

sensitive to both of these electromagnetic 

outputs and we are assured that the infrastructure 

utilized in wave energy extraction will be 

shielded to minimize the effect, but we currently 

do not have a clear idea as to how much 

shielding is adequate. Given the extreme 

sensitivity we suspect, shielding will have to be 

very very good if it is to minimize the effect on 

marine life. 

Entanglement on mooring lines 

 Mooring lines are used in most of the 

proposed wave energy extractors and in some 

designs there are a number of mooring lines. 

These will entangle some organisms. Large 

jellyfish with long tentacles (e.g., Pelagia sp.and 

Chrysaora sp.) will tangle on the mooring lines. 

This will kill or at least damage these organisms. 

Sea turtles and marine mammals can become 

entangled by lines, particularly slack mooring 

lines, leading to drowning. We could think of 

no way to mitigate against entanglement of 

jellyfish, but the major problem for sea turtles 

and marine mammals is slack lines. Hence, 

mitigation would be the avoidance of all loose 

lines. 

Effect of wave energy structures 

This report is based upon the assumption 

that the combined structures in wave energy 

facilities would have little or no effect on inner 

shelf currents or water structure. If this proves 

not to be the case, some of our conclusions will 

have to be modified. 

Most of the potential effects of the wave 

energy structures are related to the attraction of 

organisms to energy generating structures, 

mooring lines, anchors, etc. 

The wave energy facilities will be placed in 

nearshore areas of sandy bottom, areas with no 

or very little hard substrate. Larvae settling out 

of the plankton will quickly colonize this new 

hard substrate. The situation is very much like 

what has happened around offshore oil platforms 

in southern California, and many of the same 

organisms that have colonized those oil 

platforms will likely colonize the hard surface 

associated with wave energy extractors placed 

off Oregon. Organisms that settle on the wave 

energy structures, obviously, will not have the 

opportunity to settle on other hard substrates; the 

wave energy structures could, by removing 

larvae, be viewed as a sink. Most benthic 

organisms produce vast numbers of larvae and 

even at the end of the pelagic larval 

development phase, when larvae are ready to 

settle out of the plankton, there are generally far 

more competent larvae than needed to sustain 

populations. 

There are perhaps some exceptions to this 

generalization. Structures in the water, like 

floating rafts of seaweed and the wave energy 

structures, attract larval and juvenile fish from 

the plankton. Many of the rockfish species 

display this behavior. In the case of the wave 

energy structures, larval fish that “settle” in 

association with the structures may adopt an 

adult benthic existence associated with the 

structure. The oil platforms in southern 

California do support populations of associated 
76

fishes including rockfish. It is not clear, 

however, that the wave energy structures will 

actually represent adequate habitat for adult 

benthic fishes. If the structures associated with 

the wave energy extractors prove to be 

inadequate substrates for supporting adult fishes 

then the structures may be a drain on the larval 

pool. Current adult populations of some 

rockfish species are low due to overfishing and 

are in the process of recovery. Due to the low 

population sizes, larval production may also be 

low and the loss of larvae to the wave energy 

facilities may represent an important loss of 

larvae, which may slow the recovery of the 

populations. If like the oil platforms, the hard 

substrate associated with the wave energy 

extractors is adequate adult habitat, then the 

situation may be beneficial, providing new 

habitat into which populations of fishes can 

expand. The situation is ambiguous and only 

study of initial deployments of wave energy 

extractors will provide the information needed to 

address this question. 

Many of the jellyfish have complex life 

cycles with a planktonic sexual reproductive 

stage and a benthic asexual stage. The wave 

energy structures will definitely be colonized by 

hydrozoans and likely by the asexual stage of 

true jellyfish (Scyphozoans). By providing more 

habitat for the benthic asexual stage, wave 

energy structures may increase jellyfish 

population sizes. 

Many types of adult fishes are attracted to 

objects in the water. This behavior is so 

common that fishers in many parts of the world 

exploit it. Almost any structure placed in the 

water column can be used as an FAD. The wave 

energy extractors will act as FADs. Some of the 

fish attracted to FADs feed on the organisms 

clinging to the FAD. This will certainly be the 

case in the wave energy facilities as the 

structures not protected by antifouling coatings 

will rapidly become colonized. There are a 

number of species of fish that associate with 

FADs, but it is not clear what benefit they derive 

from this association. These are often smaller 

forage fish. Lastly, the accumulation of fish 

around FADs attracts fish predators (e.g., sharks, 

larger fish, sea lions, dolphins, etc.). After some 

period, a whole community of fish can become 

associated with a FAD. 

Species of fish that feed on the benthic 

organisms associated with the structures may 

benefit from the new hard-substrate habitats. 

The attraction of predators to the structures may 

enhance predation rates and on some types of 

fish (e.g., juvenile fall Chinook salmon 

[Oncorhynchus tshawytscha]) this may have 

adverse affects. The plan for sighting of the 

wave energy facilities places them right in the 

habitat of juvenile fall Chinook salmon. The 

habitat for fall Chinook during their first year at 

sea is the nearshore zone, from the surf zone out 

to only a few kilometers from shore. Although 

we do not know how or if the wave energy 

structures will impact these fishes, it is clear that 

the nearshore zone is where these endangered 

and threatened species do live. Thus, it is 

imperative that we work to determine if there is 

any negative conflict between the devices and 

the fishes. 
77

Receptor-specific effects table for pelagic habitat. KEY: L=low impact, M=medium impact, H=high impact, U=unknown, ?=so

associated with the estimate, + positive effect, - negative effect 

Activity (agent or stressor) Receptors 

Phytoplankton 

Neustonic Plankton 

Meroplankton 

Holozooplankton 

a

Mysids 

b

Jellyfish and 

Ctenophores 

Market Squid 

c

Sharks 

Migratory Fishes 

d

Forage Fishes 

Leatherback Sea 

Turtles 

e

Alteration of Currents f,g L? Antifouling Coatings h Lb La L Hydraulic Fuel Spill i LbWater Flow Entrainment j Ua Ua, n U HaStructure: 

Habitat k H?+/- b,n Ub,oAccumulation near k M+? M-H U H Growth on k H H+b,nAttraction to k M-H L+a,p H+?a,b,p Prey attraction to or growth on k

M+?a L+a,p M+a,b,p 

Predator attraction to k M-H Avoidance of k L+a,p

Mooring Lines (Entanglement) Ha,k M?m EMF Effects on Navigation l L?b M-H?a,b M-H?a,b M-H?a,b M-H?

a effect on individual b effect at local population level c Doryteuthis opalescens (formerly Loligo opalescens) d most migratory fish live further offshore than the proposed facility area e Dermochelys coriaceaf can mitigate effect by appropriate facility design g effect at community level h effects will be low if coatings do not leach toxins into the water; can mitigate by 

using appropriate coatings 

i low if double-walled containment is used 

j physical damage, device-specific; mitigate by avoidin

inflow 

k mitigation probably not possible l may be able to mitigate by using enough shielding m effect on individual, or population in case of rare spec

loose mooring lines 

n species-dependent o may affect spawning habitat, which is location-specifi

placing wave-energy facilities at known spawning sites 

p effect on schools 
78

Receptor Breakout Group Report: Benthic Habitat 

Participants: 

Ray Buckley, WDFW 

John Chapman, HMSC 

Bob Emmett, NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC 

Jack Engle, UCSB 

Hugh Link, Oregon Dungeness Crab Commission 

Bruce Menge, OSU 

John Meyer, OSU (Facilitator) 

Fred Piltz, MMS 

Erin Richmond, OSU (Rapporteur) 

Gil Rilov, OSU (Chair) 

Key Findings 

Benthos is the community of organisms that 

either live on the seabed substrate (epifauna), in 

the substrate (infauna), or have strong affinity to 

the substrate (for example, reef fish). Any 

structure added to the coastal environment and 

connected to the seabed will impact benthic 

communities and can be regarded as a stressor 

(Gill 2005). Stress is any type of change, 

whether “negative,” e.g., reduction/deletion of 

species, or “positive,” e.g., addition of species to 

the community. 

The vision of wave energy technology is to 

establish multiple facilities, each with multiple 

units, along the shore. The effect of a single unit 

does not necessarily scale up linearly with 

multiple units. Communities developing on 

multiple units and at multiple complexes can 

interact through connectivity and thus these 

projects could have net effects greater than the 

sum of their parts. We therefore used a “worstcase scenario” approach when dealing with the 

potential ecological effects of this technology. 

There are many potential technological designs 

that may be implemented in the future along the 

Oregon shore, but because all designs involve 

massive anchoring systems that will rest on the 

bottom, and objects with large volumes at or 

near the surface, we addressed this problem 

generically. As far as we know, all structures 

are planned to be situated on soft bottoms, 

therefore our discussion reflected this 

assumption. Specific key findings included the 

following: 

1. Assuming that wave energy facilities 

will include high numbers of large units 

at multiple locations along the coast, 

their ecological impact on the benthos 

could be considerable. Their physical 

presence will increase habitat 

complexity by adding structure to the 

soft bottom directly by the anchoring 

system and by altering local 

hydrodynamics; and indirectly by debris 

shedding off the mid- and surface-water 

structures during maintenance, or 

naturally as fouling grows and becomes 

heavy. The effects can scale up beyond 

a simple linear increase with size. 

2. Highest effects are expected during 

technology operation, less during 

deployment and decommissioning 

(unless those processes involve dragging 

structures across the bottom or 

abandoning structures). 

3. The structures could affect both 

nearshore hydrodynamics and sediment 

transport, indirectly affecting bottom 

communities, water velocities, and 

larval transport. 

4. If toxic antifouling paints are used on 

wave energy structures, considerable 

pollution effects are expected on the 

marine community within and beyond 

the location of the facilities. 
79

5. More basic information is needed before 

wave energy projects can be 

implemented sustainably. Areas with 

large information gaps include seafloor 

mapping, and modeling of changes in 

ocean circulation and wave energy 

patterns. Modeling can reveal potential 

effects of these changes on nearshore 

currents, and on sediment and larval 

transport. Models should examine 

changes resulting from multiple 

structures, and incorporate a broad range 

of seawater densities and offshore 

distances. Models should be validated 

as pilot scale facilities develop. 

6. A proper scientific approach should be 

used to test for possible ecological 

effects on the benthos while pilot wave 

energy studies are underway, and close 

monitoring should continue as full 

build-out occurs. This includes a 

Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) 

study design. 

7. Useful information can be readily 

obtained concerning existing 

communities on and below nearshore 

buoys or other upper water column 

structures already placed along the 

Oregon coast. 

Top Ecological Issues 

Anchoring system 

Community composition and species 

interactions—Based on the suggested designs, 

each unit will have a large anchoring system 

made of concrete and/or metal that will create a 

large footprint on the sea floor. This structure, 

plus bottom structures such as the subsea pod 

unit in the Reedsport OPT project and pipes 

containing electrical cables, will add structural 

complexity to the seabed. This will create de 

facto artificial reefs that will recruit hardbenthos organisms and change the local softbottom community structure. Apart from 

increasing local biological diversity, some 

organisms that will recruit or be attracted to 

those structures could affect organisms in 

adjacent habitats. For example, hard-bottom 

predators such as fish and crabs will probably 

prey on the surrounding natural soft-bottom epior infauna, thus expanding the impact beyond 

the footprint of the structures themselves 

(Langlois et al. 2005). 

Hydrodynamics and sediment 

composition—Large bottom structures alter 

bottom water flow and shear, which alter 

sediment deposition and composition. Benthic 

communities are highly sensitive to sediment 

composition and thus threatened by these 

changes. 

Mid- and surface-water structures 

Community composition and species 

interactions—Large mid- and surface-water 

structures proposed in the different technologies 

will be home for massive fouling communities 

unless coated by highly effective antifouling 

paints. These fouling communities will increase 

deposition to the bottom, as organisms fall off, 

or when they are cleaned off during maintenance 

to increase efficiency or reduce corrosion of the 

units. In Oregon, the fouling community 

includes many “ecosystem engineers” such as 

large mussels and barnacles. Therefore, it is 

expected that the shells of fouling organisms 

will pile on the bottom and over the years will 

increase the bottom structural complexity 

surrounding these units (see an example from oil 

rigs, Love et al. 1999). Furthermore, ocean 

waves and strong currents have the potential to 

spread the debris beyond the units’ area. 

Shedding is expected to be facilitated during 

winter storms. Large amounts of decaying 

organic matter on the bottom can also reduce 

dissolved oxygen levels, potentially contributing 

to the “dead-zone” phenomenon that has 

developed along Oregon shores in recent years. 

Hydrodynamics and sediment 

composition—The large piles of fouling debris 

could alter bottom water flow and sediment 

deposition and composition, potentially 

impacting benthic communities. Vertical 

movement of floating mid-water structures can 

also create vertical currents and suspend 
80

sediments, affecting sediment dynamics and 

community structure. 

Trapping algal drift mats—Surface 

structures and mooring lines can entangle large 

kelp mats floating on the ocean surface. 

Trapped mats will affect local communities by 

providing extra shelter and food for 

invertebrates and fish. Pelagic juvenile 

rockfishes recruited to the drift mat habitats will 

have normal migration patterns (i.e., drift 

trajectories) disrupted, and may suffer increased 

mortality. Drift mats could also facilitate kelp 

growth on the hard structures by shedding kelp 

propagules, as well as add organic matter to the 

benthos as they decay. 

Circulation—Many large, stationary, 

floating devices influence wave and current 

regimes. These changes can affect nearshore 

sediment flow and beach erosion. The floating 

units can affect larval fronts (for example in 

upwelling fronts) and thus dispersal and 

recruitment to the benthic habitat at the site or 

upstream or downstream of it. 

Dislodged structures—Storms, collisions 

with ships, or equipment failure can dislodge 

units or their components. These structures can 

tangle with other structures, drag along the 

bottom, find their way to the bottom and add 

structure there (see above for potential effects), 

or wash up on a sandy beach or a rocky shore. 

The huge structures proposed in most designs 

will not be easily removed from the shore and 

thus could have considerable effects on 

longshore sediment transport on sandy beaches, 

and on intertidal benthic communities. 

Antifouling 

If toxic antifouling paints are used on the 

floating devices, pollution of the water column 

and bioaccumulation through the food web is 

certain. The magnitude of the pollution depends 

on the compound, the matrix in which it is 

embedded, erosion rate (dependent on degree of 

water movements including swells and currents), 

and the number and size of units. 

Scale 

One or several sparingly spaced units will 

probably serve mostly as population sinks within 

a network of metapopulations. However, many 

large units spread over large areas could create 

extensive connected communities that could 

interact by movement of adults and/or larvae and 

will become population sources for other 

artificial and natural hard substrata in the region. 

Pollution from antifouling paints from hundreds 

of large units could affect marine organisms on a 

coastal scale. 

Stepping-stones for invasive species 

The Oregon coast has large expanses of 

sandy beaches and seabed with no hard 

substrate. This natural seascape can potentially 

reduce the spread of hard-substrate-dwelling 

invasive species with short dispersal ranges. 

Dotting soft-bottom areas with many large hard 

structures increases the potential for such 

species located north or south of the Oregon 

coast to spread along the shore by supplying 

habitat necessary for recruitment and growth, 

creating populations that can then serve as 

sources of dispersal further along the shore. 

Effective closure of wave energy project 

areas—the protected areas effect 

The effective closure of portions of the 

ocean floor from extractive activities can result 

in an increase in the abundance and size of softbottom-dwelling organisms such as crabs and 

fish. This may result in a spillover effect, i.e., 

the export of adults or young outside of the 

protected area to the potential benefit of fisheries 

around it (Gell and Roberts 2003). The 

community that forms on the hard structures will 

also be protected and as stated above could 

export adults and young to other areas. 

Scientific Uncertainty and Agreement 

There are many levels of uncertainty with 

regard to the potential direct and indirect effects 

of the proposed wave energy technologies on 

Oregon’s nearshore benthic habitat. Nothing of 

the magnitude of the proposed projects has ever 
81

been placed in the Oregon ocean, or perhaps 

anywhere else. The only equivalents may be oil 

and gas rigs, and recently, nearshore wind farms. 

Publications on the assessed ecological 

implications of offshore renewable energy 

development projects (Gill 2005) are not yet 

available, except for the effects on birds by wind 

turbines. Our assessments here are therefore 

based on general knowledge of benthic ecology, 

and on the long-known effects of artificial reefs 

(e.g., Davis et al. 1982, Rilov and Benayahu 

2002). 

Key Information Gaps 

Lacking first and foremost are detailed maps 

of the seafloor along the Oregon coast. Maps 

will reveal where placements will be most likely 

to avoid rocky reefs. We encourage the 

implementation of a detailed inner-shelf seafloor 

mapping program before any large-scale 

deployment of the technology takes place. This 

mapping should include both physical (type of 

substrate and its features) and biological 

(communities) information. There is already 

benthos data out there (most in gray literature) 

that needs to be compiled, synthesized, and 

analyzed. The Dungeness crab (Cancer 

magister) fishers could also provide information 

on areas that are “biological hot spots” that need 

some degree of protection. These types of data 

would help identify areas where wave energy 

project activity should preferably be avoided. 

Another large knowledge gap is the effects 

of large stationary objects in the nearshore on 

ocean currents and larval transport. Such effects 

can vary greatly among designs of individual 

technologies, and the number and distance 

between units and complexes. Models of 

nearshore oceanography will assist efforts to 

estimate larval transport effects and effects on 

sediment transport. 

Information on the fouling communities that 

develop on large stationary floating structures 

along the Oregon shore, and their rates of 

development in different ocean conditions, is 

lacking. Monitoring of fouling of existing 

nearshore buoys (and of the debris that piles on 

the bottom underneath them) might be a first 

step in that direction, and monitoring of wave 

energy structures placed for any pilot study will 

be highly valuable. 

Feasibility and Effectiveness of Mitigation 

There is no way to effectively reduce the 

impact of the bottom structures except for 

scraping organisms off the surface, packing 

them, and bringing them back to shore, or 

alternately using antifouling paints that could 

cause pollution if toxic. Burying the anchors 

entirely under the sediments when in use and 

removing them at the end of their use will 

reduce their effects. Nontoxic antifouling paints 

(see for example Perez et al. 2007, and Univ.of 

California 1998–2007 for epoxy alternatives) on 

mid- and surface-water structures will reduce 

impacts, but we are not sure that epoxy paints 

are effective on stationary structures. 

Placing structures farther offshore is 

recommended to reduce potential effects on 

nearshore currents and onshore communities, as 

is keeping the units as small as possible. 

Recommendations for Baseline and 

Monitoring Studies 

Testing and monitoring the potential 

ecological effects of the developing technology 

on the benthos requires Before-After-ControlImpact approaches with sufficient replication for 

statistical analyses. 

Potential sites for deployment should be 

monitored before deployment for at least a year 

(to capture seasonal variability). Multiple 

adjacent sites to the north and south (distance to 

be determined by the size of units and of the 

entire complex) should be monitored as controls. 

The size of the monitoring plots and their 

distance should be based on ecological 

considerations, including dispersal and 

movement ranges of dominant organisms. 

Samples of water, sediment, and organisms 

should be taken at increasing distances from 

point sources to test the potential effects of toxic 

antifouling paints. If bioindicators for the 

specific pollutants exist, they should also be 

used. 
82

Literature Cited 

Davis, N., G. R. VanBlaricom, and P. K. Dayton. 

1982. Man-made structures on marine 

sediments: effects on adjacent benthic 

communities. Mar. Biol. 70:295–303. 

Gell, F. R., and C. M. Roberts. 2003. Benefits 

beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine 

reserves. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18:448–455. 

Gill, A. B. 2005. Offshore renewable energy: 

ecological implications of generating electricity 

in the coastal zone. J. Appl. Ecol. 42:605–615. 

Langlois, T. J., M. J. Anderson, and R. C. Babcock. 

2005. Reef-associated predators influence 

adjacent soft-sediment communities. Ecology 

86:1508–1519. 

Love, M. S., J. Caselle, and L. Snook. 1999. Fish 

assemblages on mussel mounds surrounding 

seven oil platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel 

and Santa Maria Basin. Bull. Mar. Sci. 65:497–

513. 

Perez, M., M. Garcia, G. Blustein, and M. Stupak. 

2007. Tannin and tannate from the quebracho 

tree: an eco-friendly alternative for controlling 

marine biofouling. Biofouling 23:151–159. 

Rilov, G., and Y. Benayahu. 2002. Rehabilitation of 

coral reef-fish communities: the importance of 

artificial-reef relief to recruitment rates. Bull. 

Mar. Sci. 70:185–197. 

University of California, Sea Grant Extension 

Program. c1998–2007. Nontoxic antifouling 

strategies project. Online at http://seagrant 

.ucdavis.edu/nontoxicdemo.htm [accessed 28 

August 2008] 
83

Receptor-specific effects table for benthic habitat. KEY: L=low impact, M=medium impact, H=high impact 

Activity (agent or stressor) Receptors 

Sediment Grain Size 

Percent Organics 

Current Speeds 

Turbulence 

Fouling Community 

Polychaete Worms 

Molluscs 

Crustacean Infauna 

Crustacean Epifauna 

Emplacement 

Mooring System L L L L L L L L L Electrical Transmission Infrastructure L L L L L L L L L 

Operation 

Mooring System H H H H H H H H H Buoy or Other Generation Device H H H H H H H H H Electrical Transmission Infrastructure aChemical Coatings b L L L L L L L L L Equipment Loss L L L L H H H H H 

Decommissioning 

Buoy or Device Removal L L L L L L L L L Transmission Infrastructure Removal L L L L L L L L L Anchor Removal or Decommissioning L L L L L L L L L 

Routine Maintenance 

Vessel Traffic, Maintenance Activities L L L L L L L L L Biofouling Removal c M H L L H H H H H 

a If buried, impacts will be all low; if above the sediment surface, impacts will all be medium to high. b Impacts will be low if U.S. Coast Guard recommendations are followed. c Cleaning the buoys, lines, etc., will require care to prevent deposition of raining organic matter on the seafloor. d Ammodytes hexapterus
84

Receptor Breakout Group Report: Fish and Fisheries 

Participants: 

David Baldwin, NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC 

George Boehlert, OSU (Facilitator) 

Ann Scarborough Bull, MMS 

Matt Cutlip, FERC 

John Ferguson, NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC (Chair) 

Mike Fitzpatrick, FINE 

David Fox, ODFW 

Kaety Hildenbrand, OSU 

Steve Kajiura, Florida Atlantic University 

Laurel Kellner, OSU (Rapporteur) 

Bob Thresher, National Wind Technology Center 

Waldo Wakefield, NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC 

Key Findings 

Discussions focused on the positive and 

negative effects on fish and fisheries that may 

result from installing, operating, and maintaining 

wave energy generating structures in nearshore 

ecosystems along the Oregon coast. A high 

degree of diversity exists in the habitats and in 

the biological communities that are present in 

the areas proposed for wave energy facilities, 

and in the various fisheries that target this 

diversity. There is a lack of adequate 

information and a high level of scientific 

uncertainty regarding the effects these structures 

may have on the diverse fish communities and 

their associated commercial and recreational 

fisheries communities. We reached the 

following overall conclusions from the breakout 

session: 

1. The installation, operation, and 

maintenance of wave energy generating 

devices in the nearshore ecosystems will 

change the physical structure of the 

benthic and pelagic habitat available to 

fishes and limit its accessibility to 

fishers. Physical structures will be 

placed in the water column and on the 

bottom where none currently exist. The 

structures may function to attract fishes 

and affect the species composition of 

fish populations that occupy these 

habitats on daily, seasonal, annual, and 

decadal scales. They may affect the 

relationships between predators and 

their prey, and thus the food web and 

trophic structure of the nearshore 

ecosystems at wave energy installation 

sites. 

2. The wave energy devices are being 

placed in the corridors some species use 

to migrate along the coast or up onto the 

continental shelf. This may have direct 

effects on certain species such as 

juvenile and adult salmonids, Dungeness 

crab (Cancer magister), green sturgeon 

(Acipenser medirostris), and 

elasmobranchs, whose behavior may 

change in the vicinity of the developed 

area during migrations. The energy 

devices may also indirectly affect fish 

using such migration corridors by 

emitting electromagnetic, acoustic, and 

chemical fields at levels that interfere 

with fish navigation and orientation 

systems; by altering their preferences for 

certain habitat types; and by deterring 

fish from entering the area. 

3. The amount of data on the impacts wave 

energy devices may have on the biology 

of fishes and their physical environment, 

and how those impacts scale with the 

size of a given installation, is very 

limited. This lack of information results 

in a high degree of uncertainty 
85

associated with our ability to quantify 

and forecast potential effects on fish, 

coastal ecosystems and communities, 

and the associated fisheries. To address 

this uncertainty, we recommend that 

biological and ecological study sites be 

established or incorporated into 

proposed wave facility demonstration 

sites. In study sites, baseline and 

postinstallation information should be 

gathered to quantify any shifts in species 

composition, community structure, and 

predator-prey relationships. Studies 

should also assess offsite effects such as 

1) changes in fishing effort; 2) physical 

changes in nearshore habitat structure 

and function (due to altered wave 

energy patterns and current attenuation) 

and their effects on the type and amount 

of habitat available to fishes; and 3) 

effects from irregular but potentially 

significant events such as oil or 

chemical spills and structures dislodged 

during storm events. 

Top Ecological Issues 

New structures 

The addition of cables, floats, mooring 

systems, and energy-generating devices 

themselves will add physical structure to benthic 

and pelagic habitats where none exists currently. 

This may change the access fishes have to these 

habitats, the food-web structure, and the fish 

communities that use the habitat. Depending on 

the species, this could be a positive change (e.g., 

the structure attracts forage fish species that are 

prey), or a negative change (e.g., the physical 

nature of the wave energy attenuation changes 

the structure of sand waves on the bottom and 

alters crab migration corridors). 

Protected areas 

The wave energy facility sites may function 

as surrogate marine protected areas (MPAs) 

because fishing activities may be excluded by 

changes to either regulations or physical access 

to the sites. Studies of fish responses and 

changes in community structure within existing 

MPAs could be a source of information for 

evaluating the potential effects of wave energy 

development along the coast. 

Fish populations in nondeveloped areas may 

be depleted due to a shift in fishing pressure 

from the wave energy complex area to other 

fishing sites. 

Noise, EMF, and chemicals 

The wave energy structures, mooring cables, 

and devices may emit noise; electromagnetic 

fields (EMF); and chemicals from antifouling 

coatings, zinc anodes, and hydraulic or 

vegetable oil reservoirs. If the noise, EMF, and 

chemicals are above sensory threshold levels, 

they may affect fish sensory systems and the 

ability of individual fish to orient to their 

environment, find prey, and avoid predators. 

Dislodged structures 

The impact on coastal ecosystems from 

wave energy structures breaking away during 

high storm events is unknown. The group felt 

that these events are certain to occur, but their 

frequency, and any impacts that equipment loss 

or associated maintenance activities may have 

on benthic habitat, shoreline structure, and local 

biological communities are unknown. 

Wave attenuation 

Wave energy structures will convert the 

physical energy contained in waves into 

mechanical energy, which will change the 

magnitude and patterns of waves approaching 

the shoreline. The physical effects of wave 

attenuation on bottom habitat structure are 

unknown, as is the response of biological 

communities to any such changes. 

Cumulative effects 

The cumulative impacts of several wave 

energy facilities may be greater than impacts 

that can be anticipated from a single site. 

Consideration of cumulative impacts needs to be 

incorporated into any program examining the 

effects of wave energy development. 
86

Scientific Uncertainty and Agreement 

Although the level of uncertainty associated 

with any of our comments is high, courses of 

action are available to reduce this uncertainty. 

First, specific experiments that examine the 

effects of wave energy devices on the various 

species of fish and invertebrates in the wave 

energy facility area should be conducted. For 

example, these could include studies of effects 

of acoustic, electromagnetic, and chemical levels 

that are produced by wave energy generators on 

fish olfactory, hearing, and navigation sensory 

systems. The “dose” could be measured and 

related to the “response” by individual fish in 

the laboratory, and ultimately scaled to 

population-level effects through quantitative 

modeling. 

Second, impact studies that measure 

ecological characteristics over time should be 

conducted to look for evidence of differences 

(impacts) between developed and control sites. 

Presumably, any differences will be attributed to 

the impact, but close attention will have to be 

paid to the experimental design, the 

randomization of study sites, and replication. 

The timing of the installation must be known in 

advance so that baseline information can be 

collected, and data should be collected over a 

period of several years to incorporate 

interannual environmental variability. The 

ecosystems along the Oregon coast are 

characterized by a high degree of variability 

over daily, seasonal, annual and decadal scales, 

and this variability will have to be factored into 

any study designs, such as those using a BACI 

(Before-After-Control-Impact) design. 

Key Information Gaps 

The following are unknown: 

1. Effects of electromagnetic emissions on 

fish behavior, especially feeding and 

migration. 

2. Effects of noise emissions on fish 

behavior. 

3. Effects of wave energy facilities and 

energy generating devices on the 

structure of the demersal and pelagic 

communities within the wave energy 

facility and surrounding areas. 

4. The leaching rates of chemicals used in 

wave energy facilities (e.g., antifouling 

chemicals, epoxy resins, and oils and 

lubricants necessary for fabrication and 

maintenance); the effects of ambient 

levels of these chemicals on fish and 

crab behavior and toxicology; and the 

degree that chemicals enter the food 

chain and bioaccumulate. 

5. Effects wave energy facilities will have 

on crab migrations from deep to shallow 

habitats. The Dungeness crab fishery is 

the largest fishery (based on dollars) 

along the Oregon coast. 

6. Effects on green sturgeon. Wave energy 

facilities may be placed in the depth 

zone of green sturgeon migration 

corridors. This species migrates north 

and south seasonally each year at depths 

around 28 fathoms (about 51 m). Green 

sturgeon populations are depleted and at 

risk. 

7. Effects on salmon. Wave energy 

facilities may also affect the migrations 

of juvenile salmon along the shore, 

onshore, and offshore; and adult salmon 

during homing migrations to natal rivers 

and while waiting near river mouths for 

river hydraulic conditions to improve. 

8. Effects on the ontogenetic migrations of 

demersal fishes. 

9. Effects of maintenance activities on the 

local demersal and pelagic communities. 

These would include the use of highvelocity water jets to remove organisms 

that have attached to buoys and cables, 

and their subsequent accumulation on 

the bottom. 
87

Feasibility and Effectiveness of Mitigation 

Generating electrical energy from wave 

energy is a relatively new and untested 

technology. Thus, the feasibility and 

effectiveness of mitigation measures for key 

ecological impacts are unknown. The potential 

effects of wave energy structures and how to 

mitigate for their effects in coastal Oregon 

ecosystems could be examined through several 

concurrent approaches. First, the results of 

studies that have been conducted on prototype 

wave energy structures and facilities in Europe 

over the past 10 years should be reviewed for 

applicability in the Pacific Northwest. Second, 

baseline biological information should be 

collected at proposed development sites. Third, 

small-scale experiments with prototype 

structures should be conducted at locations 

dedicated for such research. One such site has 

been proposed by Pacific Gas & Electric for the 

northern California coast, and a second 

demonstration site is planned for the coast off 

Newport, Oregon. Studies of the physical 

impacts to both sandy and rocky substrates 

should be evaluated, along with the concomitant 

responses by the biological communities 

associated with each type of habitat. 

Recommendations for Baseline and 

Monitoring Studies 

1. Wave energy demonstration facilities 

should also be biological and ecological 

monitoring sites, whereby baseline 

biological information is gathered 

alongside the engineering, deployment, 

and operational tests of prototype 

systems. 

2. Close attention will have to be given to 

the experimental designs associated with 

efforts to measure biological impacts 

(see Scientific Uncertainty and 

Agreement above). 

3. Uniform monitoring protocols need to 

be developed so that sampling results 

from before and after installation are 

comparable. 

4. Fish and benthic community population 

sizes should be monitored throughout 

the sampling period (year) to evaluate 

seasonality effects and monitor 

aggregation behavior and periods. 

5. Information on how fish communities 

respond to existing MPAs could be used 

to inform wave energy facility siting 

considerations, and develop 

baseline/control study areas. 

6. Changes in the behavior of migratory 

fish in and near wave energy facilities 

should be monitored using tagging 

technologies and telemetry procedures. 

7. The tissues of fish and benthic 

organisms should be sampled if 

chemical leaching is suspected or has 

been documented. Ideally, tissue 

samples should be taken and archived 

prior to the installation of facilities to 

allow for the establishment of baseline 

levels of contaminants. 

8. Unique, site-specific monitoring 

requirements should be identified and 

incorporated into sample design and 

evaluation protocols. For example, a 

specific wave energy facility location 

may include a unique feature such as 

strong upwelling or a physical feature 

that warrants special consideration. 
88

Receptor-specific effects table for fish and fisheries. KEY: L=low impact, M=medium impact, H=high impact, U=unknown, ?=

associated with the estimate, + positive effect 

Activity (agent or stressor) Receptors 

Market Squid

a

Dungeness Crab 

Pink Shrimp

b

Sharks 

Salmon and 

Steelhead

c

Albacore Tunab,d

Smelts, herring, 

sardines, anchovies 

Rockfish, Lingcod

e

Other Demersal 

Roundfishes 

Emplacement 

Mooring System L L L L L L L L L Electrical Transmission Infrastructure L L L L L L L L L 

Operation 

Mooring System & benthic habitat (shell mounts) H+ H M+ M+ Mg M+ L H+ H+ Buoy or Other Generation Device L L L M+ Mg M+ L H+ H+ Electrical Transmission Infrastructure(EMF) L M? L H H? L L M? M? Chemical Coatings L H L L H L L M M Wave and Current Attenuation U U U U U U U U U Acoustics L L L L H? L M M? M? 

Decommissioning 

Buoy or Device Removal L L L L L L L L L Transmission Infrastructure Removal M M M L M L L M M Anchor Removal or Decommissioning M M M L M L L M M 

Routine Maintenance 

Vessel Traffic, Maintenance Activities L? L? L? L? L? L? L? L? L? 

a Doryteuthis opalescens (formerly Loligo opalescens) b Low vulnerability given our understanding of the current wave energy 

structures and technology 

c Sea-run rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss d Thunnus alalunga e Ophiodon elongates 

f Ammodytes hexapterus g positive effect for adults, negative for juveniles h positive or negative effect, varies with species 
89

Receptor Breakout Group Report: Marine Birds 

Participants: 

Holly Campbell, OSU (Rapporteur) 

Robin Hartmann, Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition (Facilitator) 

Jan Hodder, OIMB (Chair) 

Roy Lowe, USFWS 

Rob Suryan, OSU 

Jen Zamon NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC 

Key Findings 

For purposes of this document, our 

definition of “marine birds” included not only 

seabirds that spend their entire lives in marine 

waters, but also waterbirds, waterfowl, and 

shorebirds that are seasonal visitors to marine 

waters or use marine flyways during migration. 

We divided the stressors introduced by 

facilities harvesting wave energy into two broad 

categories: 1) direct effects from wave energy 

structures, which include impacts such as 

mortality, injury, and attraction/avoidance of an 

area, and 2) indirect effects such as changes in 

bird habitat or food webs. Stressors may be new 

stressors that are introduced to the environment 

as a result of wave energy infrastructure; or 

enhanced existing stressors that are already 

present in the environment but whose impact 

will be increased due to the addition of wave 

energy infrastructure. Following are specific 

conclusions from our discussion: 

• Given currently existing information, 

collisions with structures above the sea 

surface have the largest potential direct 

impacts on marine birds. Lighting and 

structures may result in unusual 

attraction and collisions. 

• The most important indirect effects are 

likely to be the alteration of coastal 

ocean food webs and the physical 

effects of wave energy alteration on the 

beach, which have the potential to affect 

shorebirds that forage and nest there. 

• We have significant data gaps in the 

spatial and temporal abundance of birds. 

In particular, we do not know if there 

are important areas of bird activity in the 

ocean to avoid, or what birds do at 

night, particularly during migration. 

Top Ecological Issues 

Direct effects of wave energy structures 

New stressors for marine birds—New key 

stressors for marine birds include any wave 

facility structures above the sea surface. 

Specific issues identified with new stressors are 

as follows: 

1. Presence of any continuous lighting 

associated with wave energy facilities 

will attract birds to the structure at night, 

thus causing distribution or behavior 

changes that may lead to collisions. 

2. Flying birds may collide with hard 

structures above the surface during 

times of high winds or poor visibility 

(storm conditions, fog, and darkness). 

3. Oil leakage from any part of the 

structures, even nontoxic oils, will foul 

feathers and disrupt their waterproofing 

and thermoregulatory functions. 

Collision hazards for flying birds are 

documented by studies that monitor wind energy 

harvesting devices. The greatest direct mortality 

occurs when improper site selection places wind 

energy structures within a migration corridor. 

We are therefore very concerned about proper 

site selection for wave energy structures. 
90

It is possible to collect information on 

marine bird migrations and commuter flyways, 

and thus increase the probability of low-impact 

site selection (see below). However, unlike the 

land-based collision hazard studies, we currently 

lack an effective methodology to detect and 

measure collision injury or collision mortality of 

birds at sea. This critical uncertainty about one 

of the most significant direct stressor impacts 

will remain unless a method for measuring bird 

collisions with wave energy structures can be 

developed. 

Enhancement of existing stressors for 

marine birds—Stressor types (e.g., vessels, 

mooring lines) already present within the 

environment due to existing human uses, but 

which will be added to or enhanced by wave 

energy structures, include vessel activity and 

subsurface lines associated with wave energy 

facilities. Specific key issues identified with 

enhancement of existing stressors include the 

following: 

1. Deck lights from installation or 

maintenance vessel activity at night will 

attract birds. 

2. Vessel accidents or vessel collisions 

with wave energy structures could result 

in oil spills. 

3. Subsurface structures may alter foodweb dynamics, food distribution, 

habitat, or habitat accessibility for birds. 

Indirect effects of wave energy structures on 

habitat and food webs 

We anticipate that arrays of wave energy 

structures will have effects on physical habitat as 

well as on other marine organisms such as 

benthic invertebrates and fish. Specific effects 

are contained in reports from other receptor 

groups. Those impacts likely to affect marine 

birds include the following: 

1. Food-web changes (e.g., distribution, 

abundance, or behavior of fishes and 

invertebrates) may have positive or 

negative impacts on foraging by marine 

birds. 

2. “Shadow” effects caused by energy 

absorption in the structures may affect 

the physical environment of the sandy 

shore, thus affecting shorebird habitat. 

Effects on sanderlings (Calidris alba) 

and snowy plovers (Charadrius 

alexandrinus) are the principal concerns. 

Scientific Uncertainty and Agreement 

Available data 

There are limited contemporary data on 

Oregon marine birds. These data were collected 

under a variety of mandates and methods, and 

information has not been synthesized. Below is 

a summary of contacts and information sources 

of which we are aware: 

1. Scientific literature and presentations 

address historical species presence or 

absence and community composition on 

the Oregon coast, and approximate 

depth ranges within which species are 

most abundant. 

2. Roy Lowe (USFWS) has a catalog with 

locations of Oregon coast seabird 

breeding sites, and information on 

snowy plovers. The Habitat 

Conservation Plan for the snowy plover 

(OPRD 2005) and Designation of 

Snowy Plover Critical Habitat (USFWS 

2005) are available online. 

3. Jen Zamon (NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC) 

has at-sea bird distribution data from 

Newport, Oregon, north to the 

Washington state border, collected 

primarily in May and June from 1 to 25 

nautical miles (1.85–46.3 km) offshore 

during 2003 to 2007. 

4. Rob Suryan (OSU) has at-sea bird 

distribution data from the Newport 

Hydrographic line from 1 to 25 nmi 

offshore during 2007, and satellite 

telemetry on endangered albatross 

(Suryan et al. 2007). 

5. Craig Strong (Crescent Coastal 

Research) has at-sea bird distribution 
91

data from the surf zone to about 3 nmi 

(about 5.5 km) offshore, as part of the 

marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus 

marmoratus) surveys during 1992–1996 

and 2000–2004; and a dredged-material 

assessment report for Clatsop Spit, 

Oregon (Strong 2005). 

6. Dave Ainley (HT Harvey & Associates) 

has at-sea bird distribution data from 

Newport, Oregon, south to the 

California border in 2000 and 2002 

(Ainley et al. 2005, Ainley and Tynan 

2005). 

7. Lisa Ballance (NOAA-NMFS, SWFSC) 

has at-sea bird distribution data from 

three biannual offshore CSCAPE 

(Collaborative Survey of Cetacean 

Abundance and the Pelagic Ecosystem) 

survey lines in Oregon. 

8. Glenn Ford (R. G. Ford Consulting) has 

compiled some of these disparate data 

sets, including MMS aerial surveys 

(Ford et al. 2004). 

9. Greg Gillson (The Bird Guide, Inc.) has 

qualitative information on distribution 

and seasonal occurrence in central 

Oregon and elsewhere from pelagic 

bird-watching trips (Gillson 1994). 

10. Range Bayer (Bayer Research, 

rbayer@orednet.org; http://www 

.orednet.org/~rbayer/), Phil Pickering 

(private citizens) and Mike Patterson 

(Celeta Research Associates) have 

qualitative, land-based bird observation 

data from headlands, especially 

concerning seasonal occurrence and 

migrations. 

Items of common knowledge, but lacking 

quantitative data 

Two items of common knowledge about 

marine birds and habitat use were highlighted: 

1. Large numbers of marine (and 

nonmarine) birds migrate within state 

waters of the territorial sea (0 to 3 nmi 

from shore), particularly during the 

spring and fall. 

2. Large numbers of birds make daily 

feeding commutes from river mouths 

and breeding colonies to feeding areas 

in nearshore or open ocean areas. These 

flyways occur within or cross through 

state waters of the territorial sea. 

Key Information Gaps 

Distribution and habitat use data 

Comprehensive spatial and temporal data on 

the distribution and habitat use for marine birds 

along the Oregon coast are lacking. Methods for 

obtaining these data include ship-, aircraft-, or 

land-based surveys for daytime distribution; and 

satellite or radio tagging for habitat use and 

residence time. 

Maps are needed of important bird feeding 

or staging areas (“hot spots”) along the Oregon 

coast. Data for these maps could be obtained by 

aircraft or ship surveys for daytime distributions, 

and satellite or radio tagging for habitat use both 

day and night. 

We do not know which species fly at night 

or how far above the sea surface flight paths are. 

Information on migration patterns and behavior, 

including flight patterns at night and in storms, 

could be obtained through radar studies at night, 

and satellite or radio tagging. 

Existing stressor analogs may provide useful 

insight 

We have no information on wave energy 

structure impacts for Oregon coast marine birds 

or marine ecosystems because, at this time, only 

single devices have been deployed in Oregon for 

engineering tests or proof-of-concept. However, 

there is information available from other 

ecosystems that may provide useful insight, such 

as the following: 

• Offshore wind-energy farms 

• Offshore oil platforms 
92

• Wave energy development in other parts 

of the world 

Feasibility and Effectiveness of Mitigation 

It is possible that direct and indirect effects 

of stressors can be decreased with appropriate 

design and deployment strategies. Several ideas 

that should be investigated were mentioned 

during the workshop discussion: 

1. Avoid installing wave energy structures 

near breeding colonies, primary foraging 

areas, and migration corridors. 

2. Constant bright light at night will attract 

birds or interfere with night-vision birds. 

Intermittent light should reduce light 

impacts. Intermittent lights should be 

off more than on during each lighting 

cycle. 

3. Birds are probably attracted more to 

certain colors of light than others, so 

color of lighting could be a mitigation 

measure. This would require specific 

data or experiments. 

4. Night work by vessels is more 

detrimental than daytime work. 

5. Design of surface structures should 

minimize potential for roosting by birds. 

Simple and proven devices already exist 

to discourage roosting. 

6. Underwater lines should be rigid and 

large to minimize underwater collision 

potential. 

7. Structures should use multiple layers of 

containment for oils. 

8. Above-surface structures should 

minimize height above the sea surface to 

reduce collision potential. 

Recommendations for Baseline and 

Monitoring Studies 

It will be impossible to provide responsible 

measures of stressor impacts or minimize such 

impacts through wise site-selection or design 

improvements without data on existing 

coastwide bird use and distribution. 

Furthermore, site-specific data must be collected 

to make Before-After-Control-Impact 

comparisons of positive, negative, and negligible 

impacts on marine birds. Below are some 

recommendations for the types of data needed to 

examine stressor impacts. 

Baseline studies 

Coastwide baseline studies prior to site 

selection should be used to recommend where 

stressor impacts are likely to be lowest and 

should consider 

• Spatial and temporal distributions, 

habitat use by marine birds 

• Migration and flight patterns 

• Ecologically sensitive habitats (e.g., 

breeding, feeding areas) 

Preinstallation studies 

Once a site is selected, but prior to 

installation of wave energy structures, sitespecific studies need to document preinstallation 

conditions, such as 

• Bird distribution, abundance, behavior, 

and habitat use 

• Comparisons within, near, and outside 

the spatial footprint of the installation 

Postinstallation studies 

Site-specific monitoring while structures are 

in place should document both positive and 

negative impacts, such as 

• Bird distribution, abundance, behavior, 

and habitat use 

• Comparisons within, near, and outside 

the site of the installation 

• Comparisons with nearby control sites 

• Direct mortality caused by collision or 

oiling 
93

Literature Cited 

Ainley, D. G., L. B. Spear, C. T. Tynan, J. A. Barth, 

S. D. Pierce, R. G. Ford, and T. J. Cowles. 2005. 

Physical and biological variables affecting 

seabird distributions during the upwelling season 

of the northern California Current. Deep-Sea 

Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 52:123–143. 

Ainley, D. G., and C. T. Tynan. 2005. GLOBEC 

NEP Northern California current bird data, and 

current bird metadata, R/V New Horizon cruises 

NH0005 and 0007. Online at http://globec 

.whoi.edu/jg/dir/globec/nep/ccs/ [accessed 3 

February 2008]. 

Ford, R. G., D. G. Ainley, J. L. Casey, C. A. Keiper, 

L. B. Spear, and L. T. Ballance. 2004. The 

biogeographic patterns of seabirds in the central 

portion of the California Current. Mar.Ornithol. 

32:77–96. 

Gillson, G. 1994. The Bird Guide, Inc. Online at 

http://thebirdguide.com [accessed 2 February 

2008]. 

OPRD (Oregon Parks and Recreation Department). 

2005. Habitat conservation plan for the western 

snowy plover. Draft. Online at http://www 

.oregon.gov/OPRD/PLANS/docs/masterplans/ 

osmp_hcp/HCP11-17-04.pdf [accessed 3 

February 2008]. 

Strong, C. S. 2005. Marine birds of the near shore 

waters of Clatsop Spit: An assessment of 

composition, abundance, and potential effects 

from dredge spoil deposition adjacent to the 

south jetty of the Columbia River. Crescent 

Coastal Research, Crescent City. Online at 

http://inr.oregonstate.edu/download/marine 

_birds_final_strong.pdf [accessed 3 February 

2008]. 

Suryan, R. M., K. S. Dietrich, E. F. Melvin, G. R. 

Balogh, F. Sato, and K. Ozaki. 2007. Migratory 

routes of short-tailed albatrosses: use of 

exclusive economic zones of North Pacific Rim 

countries and spatial overlap with commercial 

fisheries in Alaska. Biol. Conserv. 137:450–460. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005. 

Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

Designation of critical habitat for the Pacific 

Coast population of the western snowy plover; 

Final rule. Federal Register [Regulation 

Identifier Number 1018-AT89, 26 September 

2005] 70(188):56970–57119. Online at 

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ 

getdoc.cgi?dbname=2005_register&docid= 

fr29se05-14 or at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ 

fr/retrieve.html [accessed 3 February 2008]. 
94

Receptor-specific effects table for marine birds. KEY: L=low impact, M=medium impact, H=high impact 

Activity (agent or stressor) Receptors 

Loons and Grebes 

Albatrosses 

Petrels 

Shearwaters and 

Fulmars 

Pelicans 

Cormorants 

Gulls 

Terns 

Common Murres 

Marbled Murrelets 

Pigeon Guillemots 

Auklets 

Emplacement 

Mooring System M L L M L M L L M M L M Electrical Transmission M L L M L M L L M M L M Lighting on vessels and equipment 

L L H H L L M L L L L H 

Operation 

Mooring System M L L M L M L L M M L M Buoy or Other Generation H L L H L H L L H H L H Electrical Transmission M L L M L M L L M M L M Chemical Coatings L L L L L L L L L L L L Lighting on Buoys L L H H L L L L L L L H 

Decommissioning 

Buoy or Device Removal L L L L L L L L L L L L Transmission Infrastructure M L L M L M L L M M L M Anchor Removal or Decommissioning 

L L L L L L L L L L L L 

Lighting L L H H L L L L L L L H 

Routine Maintenance 

Vessel Traffic, Maintenance L L L L L L L L L M L L Lighting L L H H L L M L L L L H 
95

Receptor Breakout Group Report: Marine Mammals 

Participants: 

Steve Bartell, E2 Consulting Engineers 

Robin Brown, ODFW 

Debbie Duffield, guest Nelio Barros, PSU 

Jim Hastreiter, FERC 

Bruce Mate, OSU 

David Mellinger, OSU, NOAA 

Brycen Swart, OSU (Rapporteur) 

Cathy Tortorici, NOAA-NMFS (Chair and Facilitator) 

Kate Wing, NRDC 

Key Findings 

• Information about the effects of wave 

energy on cetaceans and pinnipeds is 

lacking. It is critical to synthesize basic 

baseline data (e.g., cetacean and 

pinniped biology, presence or absence, 

species diversity, information on prey 

species) in areas where these species are 

seasonally abundant to identify their 

migration corridors and home ranges, 

and to understand potential impacts in 

both the short- and long-term. 

• It is important to monitor cetaceans and 

pinnipeds (e.g., strandings, movements, 

dive behavior, and habits) by tagging, 

videography, vessel surveys, etc., to 

understand how they interact with wave 

energy buoy facilities. Monitoring 

should be expanded to include other 

components of the coastal marine 

ecosystem (primary and secondary 

producers and consumers). 

• Of all agents or stressors considered, 

mooring cable design (slack vs. taut, 

horizontal vs. vertical, diameter, 

density) is most likely to affect the 

magnitude of cetacean entanglement 

incidents for large whales. Cable design 

is even more critical for slack 

“attendant” lines attached to adjacent 

buoy lines, which may be used (pickedup) by service vessels to secure the 

wave energy buoy. Similar, but smaller, 

“double” buoys on commercial crab pots 

form the major present risk to gray 

whales (Eschrichtius robustus) from 

commercial fisheries off of Oregon. 

• Harbor porpoises (Phocena phocena) 

were considered to have the potential for 

high impact from acoustic disturbances. 

Pinnipeds as a group might sustain 

lower impact from wave energy devices 

unless the devices were near a rookery. 

Top Ecological Issues 

The following list is prioritized by likely 

significance of impacts. The group emphasized 

the need for monitoring to determine if these are 

the most significant impacts for both pilot- and 

commercial-scale projects. These priorities 

should be thought of as a preliminary list of 

potential factors to be included in development 

of subsequent impact statements. 

Mooring cables 

The biggest potential biological and 

ecological threat to cetaceans is probably 

mooring and “attendant” cables. The group 

doubted that whales would actually see the 

mooring cables, and as a result could strike them 

or become entangled in them and be injured or 

killed. Depending on the density, spacing, and 

distance of the cables from the water’s surface 

and ocean floor in a wave energy buoy array, the 

mooring lines could have a “wall effect” that 

would force whales around them, potentially 

change migration routes of gray whales in 
96

particular, and block feeding habitat underneath 

the array. Presently, designers are suggesting 

50- to 100-meter spacing. 

Thin mooring cables are more dangerous 

than thick ones because they may cause 

lacerations and entanglements, although thick 

cables may cause blunt-force trauma. Slack 

cables are more dangerous than taut ones for 

entanglement risk, and depending on where they 

are in the water column, horizontal cables are 

more dangerous than vertical lines. In this 

respect, even short tag lines attached to a buoy 

with a slack horizontal line pose a significant 

risk for entanglement. 

In addition, if the transmission cables and/or 

anchor lines associated with a wave energy array 

are buried less than 1 m, gray whales could dig 

them up while feeding, so this point needs to be 

factored in as arrays are designed. 

Buoys 

Effects on gray whales could be high if 

project construction and decommissioning occur 

when whales are migrating through the area or 

in areas of significant feeding. 

Decommissioning or demolition (with 

explosives) should not be done while gray 

whales are in the area. Collision and injury 

could occur if a whale swam into a buoy. The 

greater the surface area of the buoy occurring 

below the ocean surface, the greater the chance 

there is for a whale strike. Loud acoustic output 

from buoys could disrupt feeding or migration 

behavior for whales and dolphins. Modest 

acoustic noise from buoys may be an asset for 

whales to detect the buoys themselves, but any 

desirable effect may vary with sea state as the 

signal-to-noise ratio changes. 

It will be important to install pinniped 

exclusion devices on the wave energy buoys that 

are oriented vertically or diagonally in the water 

column to ensure that seals and sea lions do not 

haul out on the devices and thus be targets for 

possible illegal shootings and endanger the buoy 

itself. Although California sea lions (Zalophus 

californianus) are the most likely to attempt 

using buoys as haulouts, Steller sea lions 

(Eumetopias jubatus) are the species of most 

concern (due to their ESA status) during open 

ocean implementation and decommissioning as a 

result of vessel traffic in the ocean. Harbor seals 

(Phoca vitulina) are most likely to be affected 

by the same vessel traffic, but in estuaries before 

the ships move out to sea. Elephant seals 

(Mirounga angustirostris) are probably the least 

likely to be affected by wave energy buoy arrays 

because they are deep water feeders at sea and 

absolute numbers are relatively low in Oregon, 

the northern extent of their range. 

The group strongly agreed that horizontal 

“Pelamis” type devices present the highest risk 

of whale strikes. It may also be difficult to keep 

seals and sea lions off their large surfaces. For 

both buoy configurations and larger “Pelamis” 

type devices, if the devices attract fish, this 

could compound interactions with marine 

mammals, as harbor seals, California sea lions, 

and Steller sea lions would be drawn to feed on 

those fish. 

Acoustics 

Depending on the sound emitted from a 

buoy array, the sound could warn cetaceans to 

stay away from the array or attract them to it. 

Either situation could have an impact. 

Avoidance behavior associated with sound could 

result in changes to cetacean migration routes, 

especially the nearshore gray whale. If the 

mooring cables form any type of essential 

barrier, then cetaceans pushed together into a 

smaller migration corridor could be more 

vulnerable to predators, like killer whales 

(Orcinus orca), and have reduced foraging 

ability. Killer whales could also then interpret 

sounds from an array as a signal for aggregation, 

which could result in increased exposure to 

predation for other species. 

Chemicals 

Chemical spills are not a high threat to 

cetaceans and pinnipeds. However, the group 

emphasized that prompt cleanup of chemical 

spills from wave energy buoys (especially those 

washed up on the shore) is critical to minimizing 

exposure to cetaceans and pinnipeds, and to 
97

shallow water benthic habitats where gray 

whales feed. 

Electromagnetic fields 

Not much is known about the effects of 

electromagnetic fields on cetaceans and 

pinnipeds. If predatory fish like sharks are 

attracted to wave energy arrays, this could create 

a dangerous situation for marine mammals, 

particularly dolphins and porpoises, which are 

naturally occurring nearshore (especially harbor 

porpoises) and may also be attracted to the 

vicinity of a wave energy array. 

Scientific Uncertainty and Agreement 

 The level of uncertainty and scientific 

agreement concerning the impacts of wave 

energy generating devices on cetaceans and 

pinnipeds depends on the species, device, 

number of devices, and the mooring cable 

arrangement for the array. The ReceptorSpecific Effects Table below details impacts and 

levels of uncertainty. 

Feasibility and Effectiveness of Mitigation 

Impact minimization measures for mooring 

cables must consider the cable diameter, length, 

and density; and whether the cables are slack or 

taut. It might be possible to develop a model 

and crude approximation of cable density to 

probability of strike or entanglement, to identify 

configurations that pose sufficient risk to require 

appropriate minimization and mitigation actions. 

It might also be possible to place acoustic 

warning systems on buoys. There is some 

evidence from NMFS’ Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center that acoustic warning systems 

have worked on fishing nets to minimize 

entanglement. The strongest evidence on the 

use of acoustic warning systems has been 

demonstrated in studies on aquaculture facilities. 

These warning devices were designed to keep 

pinnipeds away, but have been shown to drive 

away harbor porpoises as well. However, there 

is still a high level of uncertainty concerning 

whether such a system would deter whales at a 

wave energy buoy array. In designing such a 

system, it is important to consider sound 

emission levels that are loud enough to deter the 

animal, but not loud enough to damage hearing. 

Such devices should not exclude whales from 

identified foraging areas. The devices also need 

to adapt to varying levels of background noise 

associated with different sea states to avoid 

excessive noise (and affected areas) when low 

sea states do not require loud sources. 

The group also considered if there is an 

“ocean corridor” outside of known migratory 

routes that could be identified and considered by 

the industry for placement of wave energy buoy 

arrays, to minimize impacts to pinnipeds and 

cetaceans. For pinnipeds, the group 

recommended specifically that these projects not 

be sited near rookeries (i.e., Cape Arago), and 

that seasonal buffer zones be placed around the 

rookeries so as not to disturb them. 

Recommendations for Baseline and 

Monitoring Studies, 

Key Information Gaps 

The most important information needed is 

baseline information prior to the development of 

wave energy facilities. The general habits of 

most of the cetaceans and pinnipeds that could 

be affected by the development of wave energy 

off the Oregon coast are not well understood. 

The following data collection needs were 

identified as top priorities: 

• General biological information on 

cetaceans and pinnipeds, starting with a 

literature review of available 

information. Initial information could 

be obtained from the petroleum industry 

and regulatory authorities, and/or the 

various NMFS’ Fisheries Science 

Centers. 

• Seasonal distribution, migration 

patterns, and residency information on a 

species-by-species basis. 

• Dietary information on a species-byspecies basis. 

• Abundance and distribution information 

on a species-by-species basis. 
98

• Information on bottom habitats where 

wave energy arrays are proposed to be 

placed. 

• Assessment of behavioral interactions of 

marine mammals with wave energy 

conversion devices and cables. 

The group emphasized that baseline and 

survey work should include an average weather 

year, an El Niño year, and a La Niña year. This 

information should be collected over a 3–5 year 

period to account for variability in ocean 

conditions, and cetacean and pinniped species 

abundance and behavior. An important 

component of baseline data collection could be 

the development of a migration corridor model 

for cetaceans and pinnipeds based on tagging. 

The baseline information should form the 

building block of any monitoring work 

conducted on any single wave energy project, or 

group of projects, along the Oregon coast. The 

group specifically discussed different 

monitoring techniques that could be used for 

cetaceans and pinnipeds: 

• Animal spotting from the beach or from 

moored vessels in areas of proposed 

development 

• Forensic diagnostics (necropsy) on all 

beach-cast (dead or injured) marine 

mammals to identify if a strike or injury 

has occurred and the nature of that 

injury 

• Tagging whales to track them using 

satellite data, including pop-off tags on 

migrating whales 

• Aerial surveys 

Due to low water visibility conditions off 

the Oregon coast, videotaping would not be 

effective to monitor cetacean and pinniped 

behavior in and around the array. 
99

Receptor-specific effects table for marine mammals. KEY: L=low impact, M=medium impact, H=high impact, NA=not applica

associated with the estimate. 

a Sea otters (Enhydra lutris) are not an issue on the Oregon coast because they do not occur there. b Steller sea lions would be impacted by implementation and decommissioning due to vessel traffic movement and noise. c Harbor seals would be affected primarily as vessels are deployed from estuaries to construct and maintain the wave energy facility. d Phocoenoides dalli

Activity (agent or stressor) Receptors 

Sea Otter

a

Steller Sea Lion

b

California Sea Lion 

Harbor Seal

c

Beaked Whales 

Killer Whale 

Harbor Porpoise 

Dall’s Porpoise

d

Gray Whale

e

Elephant Seal

f

Emplacement 

Mooring System NA M L L M? L M? L? M-H? L Electrical Transmission Infrastructure NA M L L M? L M? L? M? L Vessel Traffic NA M L L M? L M? L? M? L 

Operation 

Mooring System NA L L L M? L M? L? M-H? L Buoy or Other Generation Device NA L L L M? L M? L? M? L Electrical Transmission Infrastructure NA L L L M? L M? L? M? L Chemical Coatings NA L L L L L L L? L L Acoustics NA L L L L-M? L? L-M L? L-M? L EMF NA L L L L? L L? L? L? L Vessel Traffic, Maintenance Activities NA L L L M? L L L? M? L 

Decommissioning 

Buoy or Device Removal NA M L L M? L M? L? M? L Transmission Infrastructure Removal NA M L L M? L M? L? M? L Anchor Removal or Decommissioning NA M L L M? L M? L? M? L 
100

e Effects to the gray whale population for a pilot project rate as medium. For a commercial project, the effects could be high. This is a 

If installation is done when whales are there, then the effect could be high. If the population has seasonally migrated to Baja, then the c

be low, but overall effect would remain a medium. 

f Elephant seals are deep-water feeders and because of this behavior are not predicted to be greatly affected by construction or operationg Uncertainty for humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) and minke (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) whales relates to whether the animals 

construction and operation. 

h Physeter catodon
101

Stressor Breakout Group Report: Energy Absorbing Structures 

Participants: 

Keith Kirkendall, NOAA-NMFS (Chair and Facilitator) 

Hugh Link, Oregon Dungeness Crab Commission 

Bill Peterson, NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC 

Maria Stefanovich, OSU (Rapporteur) 

Jen Zamon, NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC 

Key Findings 

The discussion centered on the potential 

impacts of energy absorbing structures (of all 

types) on the ecology of the nearshore 

environment. All issues were intimately related 

to the topics discussed by other working groups. 

The reader should consult those working group 

reports for more detail, especially for receptors. 

Three main ideas arose as themes: 

• The inshore area (depths < 100 m, but 

especially < 40 m) off the coast of 

Oregon is a particularly sensitive 

ecological zone. Any energy absorbing 

structure placed here will have impacts 

on not just one or two receptors, but on 

a suite of related ecological receptors. 

Wise site-selection before installation is 

one of the least expensive and most 

effective ways to avoid undesirable 

impacts on both the ecology. 

• Energy absorbing structures that trap 

water (overtopping devices) are likely to 

be the most problematic designs, 

especially in nearshore environments, 

because they will also trap or focus 

marine organisms or debris. This will 

affect the functioning of the device as 

well as ecological functions. 

• Effective cleaning and maintenance 

schedules for energy absorbing 

structures need to take into account what 

is known about naturally occurring 

physical and biological cycles. 

This list should be viewed only as a starting 

point for continued discussion of stressor 

impacts, not a comprehensive list of all possible 

issues of concern. 

Top Ecological Issues 

The biologically productive nearshore zone 

Because of the combination of tidally driven 

mixing, wind mixing, and upwelling, shelf 

habitat inshore of 100 m depth, and particularly 

inshore of 40 m depth, is the most biologically 

productive marine zone (see overview by 

Peterson in this volume, as well as reports from 

receptor working groups). 

The productivity in this zone includes 

important pelagic and benthic food webs. In 

addition to supporting communities of marine 

birds, mammals, fishes, invertebrates, and even 

a reptile (the leatherback turtle, Dermochelys 

coriacea); each of these food webs supports 

important commercial and recreational harvests 

of finfish and shellfish (e.g., salmon, sardines, 

bottom fish, rockfish, and Dungeness crab 

[Cancer magister]). Several protected species 

also include this zone in their critical habitat; 

impacts on those species are significant for legal 

purposes. 

Many potential impacts were discussed 

based on what is known about energy absorbing 

structure design and how organisms, human and 

nonhuman, might react to those structures. The 

severity of actual impacts will remain unknown, 

however, unless well-designed monitoring 

programs are in place to measure those impacts 

by documenting the response of the biota. 

Exclusion zone—Any device or array of 

devices will necessarily have an exclusion zone 

surrounding it to prevent collisions or 
102

entanglements between the device and ships or 

fishing gear. Exclusion zones will have 

immediate impacts on existing uses by maritime 

vessel traffic and fishing. 

Microscopic organisms—While 

microscopic organisms at the base of the food 

web (phytoplankton, zooplankton) might not be 

adversely affected by any one individual energy 

harvesting structure, arrays of many structures 

are expected to have impacts on distribution and 

abundance of such organisms by changing 

currents, mixing, and wave energy within and 

near the array (see results from the physical 

environment receptor working group). 

Migration paths—Devices and arrays in 

the nearshore zone will be in the path of 

migrating birds, mammals, and fishes. Of 

particular concern are 

• Birds colliding with above-surface 

structures, especially during low 

visibility and adverse weather (see 

additional discussion in the marine bird 

receptor working group report). 

• California gray whales (Eschrichtius 

robustus), especially cows and calves, 

becoming either herded further offshore 

where calves may be more vulnerable to 

predation, or becoming trapped or 

entangled in mooring lines of dense 

arrays (see additional discussion in the 

marine mammal receptor working group 

report). Calves in distress are of special 

concern because mothers will remain 

with them. 

• Salmon migrations becoming disrupted 

in some fashion (physically, chemically, 

or electrically) when juveniles migrate 

alongshore during their first summer at 

sea, or when adults make their return 

migration to spawning grounds. 

Biofouling—Any structure or device below 

the waterline will be subject to biofouling. 

Fouling communities are known to affect 

benthic habitats below and adjacent to them 

because organisms in those communities 

generate excreta and detritus. Decreased 

buoyancy and increased drag caused by fouling 

may also make the device itself more vulnerable 

to being torn away during extreme weather 

events. 

Electromagnetic fields and acoustics—

Many organisms are known to be sensitive to 

changes in electromagnetic fields and 

underwater sounds. There are concerns, 

particularly in the fishing community, that large 

metal structures generating electromagnetic 

fields and underwater sound, or the use of 

certain metals such as those used in sacrificial 

anodes, will cause certain species to avoid areas 

occupied by energy absorbing structures. 

Overtopping structures 

Overtopping devices (which trap and 

contain surface water) will serve as collectors 

for near-surface organisms and debris. Not only 

the items being collected, but also the 

performance and function of the devices will be 

affected. 

Impacts of biology on devices: clogging—

Natural physical and biological cycles in the 

nearshore can generate dense aggregations of 

certain organisms or debris. If these organisms 

are trapped or focused into certain parts of the 

energy harvesting device, then that device could 

become clogged or its operation could be less 

than optimal. For example, it is known from 

research surveys that very dense aggregations of 

a coastal jellyfish, Chrysaora fucescens, occur in 

the nearshore waters of Oregon during summer 

and early autumn. This jellyfish bloom is likely 

to clog water intakes. In some years, large rafts 

of “by-the-wind-sailors” (Velella velella), a type 

of jellyfish, are found off the coast and these 

will certainly become trapped by overtopping 

devices. Perhaps more importantly, endangered 

steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), which 

live at the sea surface, will almost certainly be 

captured (and likely killed) by overtopping 

devices. Finally, the onset of winter rains can 

wash large amounts of debris, such as logs, into 

the coastal ocean from rivers. This debris may 

also impair the function of devices that focus or 

trap near-surface water. 
103

Impacts of devices on biology: 

entrapment—Near-surface organisms will 

likely become trapped or concentrated within 

any water-trapping device. This trapping or 

concentration could result in the following 

negative impacts: 

• Injury or death of organisms passing 

through the energy harvesting 

mechanism 

• Injury or death of organisms trying to 

escape 

• Increased vulnerability of trapped 

organisms to predation 

• Trapping of attracted predators, with 

possible consequent damage to the 

device 

Cleaning and maintenance 

Any device deployed in the marine 

environment—regardless of the mechanism it 

uses to convert wave energy to electrical 

energy—will be subject to biofouling by marine 

organisms. These organisms could change the 

following properties of the device: 

• Buoyancy 

• Drag 

• Turbulence 

Changes in those properties could affect the 

efficiency of the device, if fouling affects 

moving parts essential to buoy function, as well 

as device vulnerability to damage or dislocation 

during heavy weather. 

Regular cleaning and checks of the devices 

will be necessary and to be most effective, 

cleaning and maintenance should account for 

natural cycles of organism settlement and 

growth. Fouling organisms will settle on 

mooring lines and hard structures primarily in 

spring with greatest growth in summer. It would 

be wise to clean the structures during late 

summer and early autumn so that the drag on 

mooring lines is decreased before storms arrive. 

We also recommend that cleaning be carried 

over an extended period of time so that there is 

not a single massive deposition of material to the 

seafloor over the course of a few days. 

Key Information Gaps 

At this time, the State of Oregon lacks a 

comprehensive, integrated inventory of 

coastwide marine resources. If the State of 

Oregon is going to proceed with wise 

development of wave energy as a renewable 

resource, then it is imperative that the State 

generate such information. Lacking this 

information, it is much more difficult to evaluate 

good locations vs. bad locations during the siteselection process. 

Feasibility and Effectiveness of Mitigation 

Suggestions for how to mitigate the 

undesirable impacts of wave energy structures 

included the following: 

1. Locate devices/arrays at depths that do 

not compromise highly productive 

waters; certainly greater than 40 m, and 

possibly greater than 100 m. This 

avoids use conflicts with nearshore 

vessel traffic and fishers, known 

nearshore migratory pathways for 

protected species, and placement of 

stressors in sensitive environments 

where effects on suites of 

interdependent receptors is likely. 

2. Avoid using devices that physically trap 

water, as they will also trap organisms, 

such as endangered steelhead trout, and 

debris. Trapped organisms or debris 

could also compromise functioning of 

the device. 

3. Use what is known about seasonal 

cycles in physics and biology to design 

effective cleaning and maintenance 

routines. Work with biologists to 

optimize cleaning intervals. 
104

Recommendations for Baseline and 

Monitoring Studies 

The development of wave energy facilities 

within the Oregon coastal ecosystem is a new 

event. The type and magnitude of impacts—

either positive or negative—that such facilities 

will have on the ecology of Oregon will remain 

only educated speculation unless well-planned 

studies are in place to monitor and measure 

those impacts. 

Studies of potential impacts need to consider 

the following: 

• Effect of a single device vs. an array of 

devices 

• Effect of array design on impacts 

• Water depths in which the devices are 

placed 
105

Stressor-specific effects table for energy absorbing structures. KEY: L=low impact, M=medium impact, H=high impact 

Activity (agent or stressor) Receptors 

Ocean Waves 

Ocean Currents 

Benthic Habitats 

Plankton 

Fouling Community 

(e.g., epipelagic 

species)

a

Pelagic Fish 

Forage Fish and 

Invertebrates 

Demersal Fish 

Epibenthic 

Macroinvertebrates 

Benthic Infauna 

(e.g., clams, worms)

Point Absorber Deviced

Wave Energy Absorption (buoy) M M H M H H H L H H Drag and Turbulence M M L L H 

Attenuator Device (e.g., sea snake) 

Wave Energy Absorption L L L L L L L L L L Drag and Turbulence L L L L L L L L L L 

Oscillating Water Column Device 

Wave Energy Absorption L L L L L L L L L L Drag and Turbulence L L L L L L L L L L 

Overtopping Devicee

Wave Energy Absorption H H H H H H H H H H Drag and Turbulence H H H H H H H H H H 

a Addressing issues with the fouling community means that regular cleaning of the devices and mooring structures needs to occur; every

to be “zinced” or have zinc anodes included in the device design. 

b Structure design should focus on keeping pinnipeds off the devices. c The group was most concerned about the impact these structures would have to young cetaceans. d To minimize overall effects of point absorbing structures, the industry should focus on placement of devices in water depths beyond 1

industry should avoid device placement in 40 m of water or less, and be aware that environmentally sensitive areas and physical actions 

occur out to 100 m in depth. 

e Overtopping devices can trap and focus water and increase potential impacts, and are therefore an undesirable design. 
106

Stressor Breakout Group Report: Chemical Effects 

Participants: 

David Baldwin, NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC (Chair) 

Matt Cutlip, FERC 

Debbie Duffield, PSU 

Susan Holmes, OSU (Rapporteur) 

Justin Klure, Oregon Wave Energy Trust (Facilitator) 

Bruce Menge, OSU 

Gil Rilov, OSU 

Key Findings 

In assessing the impacts of chemicals, the 

group found it useful to distinguish the 

unintentional release from leaks or spills from 

the expected release from antifouling paints or 

sacrificial anodes. Examples of the former 

would include the release of hydraulic fluid from 

a device, or fuel from a vessel due to a collision. 

This could be considered to have a low 

probability of occurrence, but to have a high 

impact. Examples of the latter would include 

the release of dissolved metals such as copper or 

zinc. This could be considered to be continually 

occurring, but to perhaps have a lower impact. 

However, as mentioned elsewhere, the 

magnitude of these impacts is uncertain and 

likely variable. 

Chemical effects are of low concern for 

ocean waves and ocean currents, but of concern 

for all biological receptors. 

Top Ecological Issues 

Extent of chemical exposure 

Released chemicals are likely to spread over 

a large area and, in high concentrations or with 

prolonged exposure, affect entire communities 

of organisms. For example, since dissolved 

metals do not degrade, they can be transported 

some distance by currents. Additionally, 

because they will persist in the environment, 

they can accumulate in tissue and be transferred 

between trophic levels (i.e., in the diet). Finally, 

if a device breaks free and washes ashore, the 

location of any impacts of chemicals would shift 

from offshore habitat to shoreline habitat. 

Lethal and sublethal effects 

Chemical effects do not have to be lethal for 

important biological responses to occur. Many 

chemicals, dissolved metals such as copper and 

zinc being good examples, are known to have 

sublethal effects on many aspects of a species’ 

biology such as sensory systems, growth, and 

behavior. These effects can occur at lower 

concentrations of exposure than those producing 

mortality. Reductions in the sensory function or 

growth of an individual can reduce the 

likelihood of survival or reproduction. 

Behavioral responses to chemicals that are 

detectable can include avoidance. By causing 

animals to avoid the area of a device, chemicals 

could alter migration routes used by resident 

species to travel to and from feeding areas or by 

transient species to pass through the area. If 

these changes lead to increases in predation or 

decreases in feeding, they could also reduce the 

likelihood of survival or reproduction for an 

animal. The potential for chemicals to produce 

sublethal effects such as these needs to be 

assessed. 

Indirect effects 

In addition to the direct effects of chemical 

exposures on a species discussed above (whether 

lethal or sublethal), the potential indirect effects 

of chemicals on a species should also be 

considered. For example, even if a species is not 

itself affected by a chemical, if a prey species is 

affected, e.g., through mortality, the indirect 

effect of the chemical on the predator species 
107

could be a reduction in growth due to a 

reduction in available food. 

Key Information Gaps 

In order to assess the potential effects of 

chemicals on receptor species it is necessary to 

define the chemical exposure. This represents a 

critical information gap and requires answers to 

several questions: 

1. What are the specific chemical 

compounds present in the devices that 

might be released to the environment? 

For example, while copper from 

antifouling paint was discussed, it was 

also mentioned that epoxy-based paints 

would likely be used instead. Similarly, 

whether the devices would have 

sacrificial zinc anodes or not was 

unclear. 

2. For each of the chemicals, how much is 

being released into the environment? 

For example, for copper-based 

antifouling paints, estimates should be 

available of the leaching rate of copper 

from the device based on the application 

of the paint. This would allow an 

estimate of the concentration of 

dissolved copper likely to be observed 

in the water near the devices. 

3. What is the fate of each chemical once 

in the environment? For example, 

dissolved metals will not degrade and 

could travel with prevailing currents or 

attach to particulate material and settle 

to the bottom with the potential of 

resuspension. 

The better the definitions of the chemical 

exposures, the better the impacts on receptor 

species can be addressed. 

Feasibility and Effectiveness of Mitigation 

The best form of mitigation would be 

avoiding the use of toxic chemicals in the first 

place. This would include the appropriate 

choice of hydraulic fluids and antifouling paints. 

The use of epoxy-based antifouling paint would, 

for example, reduce concerns over the continual 

leaching of dissolved copper into the 

environment. There was recognition by the 

group that mitigation efforts such as this will 

likely have other consequences, such as more 

frequent cleaning of devices, hence more 

servicing trips, and a greater buildup of fouling 

detritus below the devices. However, not using 

toxic compounds was considered a feasible and 

important mitigation strategy. 

For chemical releases from spills or leaks, 

mitigation involves accident prevention and 

cleanup preparedness. Minimizing servicing 

trips by vessels, for example, would reduce the 

risk of spills or collisions. Having the ability to 

contain and clean spills always on standby 

would mitigate the impacts should a spill occur. 

Recommendations for Baseline and 

Monitoring Studies 

Monitoring studies will be critical in 

assessing the impacts of chemicals. Such 

studies, however, need to be carefully designed 

and implemented. Several issues in the design 

of monitoring studies were identified: 

• To help define the chemical exposures, 

samples of water, tissue, and sediment 

need to be analyzed for the specific 

chemicals that may be released to the 

environment (e.g., zinc and copper). 

• Monitoring for the effects of chemicals 

on organisms needs to include not just 

the presence of mortality, but also 

changes in abundance and movement. 

Changes in movement may, however, be 

due to behavioral responses to the 

physical structure of the devices as well 

as any chemicals released. This is one 

instance where controlled studies may 

be useful, in this case perhaps 

monitoring the same structure but with 

and without antifouling paint. 

Numerous other controlled studies may 

also be warranted. 

• Multiple locations and times should be 

monitored, since the chemical exposures 

and effects are likely to be variable. For 

example, identifying how far and in 
108

which direction a specific chemical will 

move requires sampling multiple 

locations in and around the area of a 

device. Similarly, even reference or 

control sites may vary in time depending 

on what is being monitored (e.g., species 

abundance). Ideally baseline monitoring 

should occur before the installation of a 

device, for comparison with monitoring 

at the same location after installation. 

Other locations to be used as reference 

sites need to be chosen carefully to 

match as many of the important features 

of the device location as possible. 

• Finally, any monitoring study needs to 

consider that while the impact of a 

single device may be subtle and hard to 

detect, the cumulative impact of dozens 

to hundreds of devices may be 

appreciable. The effects of chemical 

exposure are likely to increase with 

increased numbers of devices. 

Monitoring studies involving only a few 

devices need to be able to detect 

exposures and effects that are as small 

as possible. 
109

Stressor-specific effects table for chemical effects. KEY: L=low impact, M=medium impact, H=high impact, ?=some uncertain

estimate. 

Activity (agent or stressor) Receptors 

Ocean Waves 

Ocean Currents 

Benthic Habitats 

Plankton 

Fouling Community 

Pelagic Fish 

Forage Fish and 

Invertebrates 

Demersal Fish 

Epibenthic 

Macroinvertebrates 

Benthic Infauna 

Organicsa

Hydraulic Fluids L L L/M L? M? H? H M L/M L/M Spills (Fuel, Oil) L L L/M L? M? H? H M L/M L/M 

Metalsb

Sacrificial Anodes (Zn++) L L M M? M? H? H? M? M? M 

Toxicsb

Tributyltin (Sn+++) L L M M? M?/Hc H? H? M? M? M Antifouling Coatings (Cu++) L L M M? M?/Hc H? H? M? M? M 

a Mitigation for organics is to prevent spills, reduce likelihood, and prepare for cleanup. b Mitigation for metals and toxics is to not use or minimize use of chemicals. c Impact high on buoy community, but not on community in general. 
110

Stressor Breakout Group Report: Hard Structures and Lighting 

Participants: 

Robin Brown, ODFW 

Ray Buckley, WDFW 

Ann Bull, MMS 

Jan Hodder, OIMB 

Roy Lowe, USFWS 

John Meyer, OSU (Facilitator) 

Fred Piltz, MMS (Chair) 

Erin Richmond, OSU (Rapporteur) 

Rob Suryan, OSU 

Key Findings 

High interactions between receptors and 

hard structures and lighting associated with 

wave energy facilities were those interactions 

that the group concluded had a higher 

probability of occurrence and/or potentially 

significant impacts: These included the 

following: 

• Exposed surfaces provide perches for 

seabirds or haul-outs for pinnipeds. 

• Lighting on surface structures may 

attract seabirds. Birds could be injured 

after flying into small structures on the 

exposed parts of wave energy devices; 

these include radio telemetry towers and 

lines, and meteorological instruments. 

• Hard structures may act as Fish 

Attraction Devices (FADs); this may be 

both a positive and negative interaction. 

• Mooring lines from the wave energy 

structures to anchors on the sea bottom 

may entangle algal drift mats and 

fishing gear (causing ghost fishing). 

Anchor lines, depending upon their size 

and distribution, may be a hazard to 

cetaceans. 

• Mooring lines and anchors may bring 

changes to the benthic habitat and 

associated benthic communities 

surrounding wave energy devices. 

Fouling communities naturally develop 

on any hard structure in the ocean. 

Changes will occur because of the 

natural sloughing-off of these fouling 

communities or because of their removal 

during periodic maintenance cleaning of 

the wave energy device. 

Top Ecological Issues 

Dislodged structures 

Top ecological issues included the potential 

ecological impacts that would occur if and when 

a large wave energy device broke loose of its 

moorings during a severe Pacific storm event. 

Such an event could create ecological effects 

from bottom scouring as a large device moved 

along the bottom and similar physical damage to 

shoreline habitats such as rocky intertidal areas. 

Should a large array of wave energy devices 

break free, blockage of estuarine habitats might 

occur for some time until the devices could be 

removed. 

Litter fall from fouling communities 

Changes in the benthic habitat will occur 

due to the litter fall from marine fouling 

communities that will form on the wave energy 

devices, mooring lines, and anchors. 

Discussions focused on wave energy facilities in 

soft-bottom or unconsolidated sediment 

environments, but we did not conclude that the 

ecological changes caused by the litter fall on 

such benthic habitats would be either good or 

bad. They would, however, present significant 

changes in the benthic communities from those 
111

characteristic of soft sediments to communities 

associated with coarser sediments or cobble-type 

environments. 

Seabird encounters 

There is a potential for negative effects on 

seabirds and seabird populations from 

encounters with the exposed wave energy 

devices. Of most concern is that lighting that 

may be required on the wave energy devices 

could attract birds that may collide with the hard 

surfaces that are above the water. These include 

radio antennae, small-diameter wires, or small 

meteorological instruments that might be part of 

the device. 

Legal protection issues 

A significant issue was raised that is 

ecologically-based but more significantly related 

to federal legal protection for marine mammals 

and seabirds. The Marine Mammal Protection 

Act, Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act, and Essential Fish Habitat laws will 

greatly influence the development of wave 

energy facilities on the Oregon coast. Further 

analysis should indicate whether interactions of 

animals protected by these laws cross thresholds 

that require mitigation, selective placement, or 

other limits or special conditions for the wave 

energy device or facility. 

Scientific Uncertainty and Agreement 

There was good general agreement among 

the participants in this breakout group as to the 

significant findings and key ecological issues 

described above. Additionally, there was good 

agreement as to the scientific bases for our 

conclusions related to benthic effects and the 

interaction between hard structures and fish. 

The conclusions with regard to potential 

significant effects on the benthic communities 

and habitats were based upon similar effects 

demonstrated under offshore oil and gas 

platforms in southern California and described 

in the literature. The scientific bases for 

concerns related to the interactions between hard 

structures, mooring lines, anchors, and the 

marine mammal and seabird fauna were not 

fully explored in the breakout group. Much of 

the uncertainty associated with these animals 

and wave energy devices and facilities is better 

defined in the reports from the breakout sessions 

concerning marine mammals and seabirds. 

It should be noted that participants in this 

breakout group identified the uncertainty of the 

eventual extent of wave energy development off 

the Oregon coast as a major unknown that will 

limit more exact analysis of potential 

environmental impacts. This was coupled to 

some extent with uncertainty about the type or 

types of wave energy devices that might actually 

be deployed offshore Oregon. The devices 

described to participants in the plenary sessions 

differ widely and therefore significantly in the 

potential for ecological effects, and in some 

cases differ in the types of ecological effects that 

they might create. The uncertainty about the 

extent of wave energy development and the 

actual devices to be used in commercially scaled 

energy projects will remain as a source of 

uncertainty in environmental analysis for some 

time. 

Key Information Gaps 

• Coastal habitat mapping (at a minimum) 

needs to be done early in site selection 

to understand the area being considered 

for wave energy development. Such 

maps, when ground truthed via 

Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) 

observations to characterize the benthic 

habitat, can be used to determine areas 

that need to be avoided. A coastwide 

map and analysis is needed. 

• Sampling in the proposed wave energy 

project area and in a buffer zone around 

it should begin as soon as possible to 

establish a preinstallation and therefore 

preimpact baseline against which to 

measure any changes. The sampling 

may need to be expanded, and scaled up 

as wave energy facilities grow in size. 

The data collected will form the basis of 

a long-term data set. 
112

• Existing data need to be synthesized to 

identify areas of greatest potential 

biological effects (“hotspots”). 

• The rate of change in bottom 

characteristics that affect benthic 

communities needs to be understood. 

• The first wave energy project needs to 

be tied to a long-term study to help 

shape future projects; state and federal 

governments need to fund this effort if 

they are genuinely interested. 

Feasibility and Effectiveness of Mitigation 

• Mitigation for surface structure impacts 

could include lowering structures into 

the water as much as possible, reducing 

bird interactions by lowering antennae 

and other projections, and making steep 

haul-out structures to minimize pinniped 

haul-out opportunities. 

• Entanglement of fishing gear and ghost 

fishing could be a major problem; 

monitoring of entanglement and regular 

cleanup should be required. 

• Mooring and cable lines need to be large 

and tight; tag lines should be minimized. 

• Service and maintenance should be 

limited as much as possible to the 

daytime because of lighting issues for 

birds. This depends on the extent of 

lighting for maintenance boats at 

night—one boat might not create a big 

problem, but many boats could. 

Recommendations for Baseline and 

Monitoring Studies 

As discussed above, the first wave energy 

project needs to be tied to a long-term study to 

help shape future projects. Ecosystem 

monitoring should start with the Reedsport 

Project. 
113

Stressor-specific effects table for new hard structures and lighting. KEY: L=low impact, M=medium impact, H=high impact. 

Activity (agent or stressor) Receptors 

Ocean Waves 

Ocean Currents 

Benthic Habitats 

Plankton 

Fouling Community 

Pelagic Fish 

Forage Fish and 

Invertebrates 

Demersal Fish 

Epibenthic 

Macroinvertebrates 

Benthic Infauna 

Exposed Surface (Landing or Haul-out) L L L L L L L L L L Hard Surface Area (i.e., Cross-section) L L H L H H H L L L Mooring Lines L L H L H H L L L L Anchors L L H L H L H H H H Lighting L L L L L L L L L L 
114

Stressor Breakout Group Report: Acoustics 

Participants: 

John Ferguson, NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC 

David Fox, ODFW 

Bruce Mate, OSU 

David Mellinger, OSU 

Brycen Swart, OSU (Rapporteur) 

Bob Thresher, National Wind Technology Center 

Cathy Tortorici, NOAA-NMFS (Chair and Facilitator) 

Waldo Wakefield, NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC 

Key Findings 

• The level of noise that will be generated 

by wave energy structures off the 

Oregon coast is unknown, but may have 

a significant impact on the behavior and 

feeding ecology of both resident and 

migratory cetaceans and fish. 

• It is possible to measure or model the 

magnitude, frequencies, and duration of 

noises generated by wave energy 

structures. Field observations or 

laboratory studies should be conducted, 

and both these physical changes and any 

effects they have on the coastal 

environment, such as effects on fish and 

marine mammals, should be measured. 

Quantifying impacts to resident and 

migratory organisms would aid in the 

identification of possible mitigation 

strategies. 

• Wave energy facilities (buoy arrays) 

could create a sound barrier that certain 

cetaceans and fish species may avoid. 

Top Ecological Issues 

Our discussion was based on wave energy 

facilities being located 2.5 to 3 miles (4 to 4.8 

km) off the Oregon coast. That may not always 

be the case. As the industry evolves, these 

recommendations must be revisited to 

accommodate new siting conditions. 

Noise generation 

Noise associated with wave energy facility 

development can be generated from a variety of 

different sources, both natural and 

anthropogenic. All these sources of noise need 

to be considered when generating conclusions 

about the environmental impact of noise from 

the development of wave energy buoy arrays: 

• Wind (background sound as well as 

noise associated with a buoy). 

• Waves (background sound as well as 

noise associated with a buoy). 

• Rain (background sound as well as noise 

associated with a buoy). 

• Internal waves (under the water). 

• Internal machinery of buoys. 

• Waves slapping on buoys. 

• Transmission cables, substations, and 

power convertors used to connect 

individual buoy cables back to shore. 

• Synchronous movement of array 

components—depending on how buoys 

and mooring cables are arranged and the 

direction and spacing of swell, the parts 

of the array could move synchronously, 

creating a much louder noise than if they 

were moving separately from one 

another. 

• Installation and maintenance equipment 

used to construct and service the buoy 

array. This includes the vessels needed 
115

to install, service, monitor, and respond 

to emergencies at the wave energy 

facility. 

• Strum and other flow noise of mooring 

cables (varying with thickness, number, 

tension, and orientation). 

• Breaking of cables during storm events. 

• Organisms (e.g., snapping shrimp) that 

could be attracted to the wave energy 

facility. 

General effects 

Noise generated from wave energy buoys is 

likely to be low frequency. That being the case, 

one would expect animals with sensitivity to low 

frequencies, such as baleen whales and fish, to 

be most affected. The more variable the 

generated noise is, the more likely it is to affect 

marine mammals such as cetaceans. Effects on 

animals probably would be mostly behavioral 

rather than physical, but that determination 

needs to be confirmed during actual testing of 

noise being produced by a buoy or array of 

buoys. 

Depending on the sound emitted from a 

buoy array, the noise could warn cetaceans 

and/or fish to stay away from the array or 

conversely, attract them to the site. Either 

situation would have an impact. Avoidance 

behavior associated with a noise could alter a 

cetacean’s migration route. Fish and marine 

mammals may assume that a wave energy buoy 

array could be a rock or shore because it creates 

an acoustic barrier to be avoided. This could 

result in pushing them or “choking” them 

together into a smaller migration corridor that 

could then reduce their ability to forage and 

make them more vulnerable to predators like 

killer whales (Orcinus orca). Construction 

noises like pile driving, vessel traffic from 

routine maintenance of the arrays, or repetitive 

noises from old or malfunctioning machinery 

could all cause an avoidance response in 

cetaceans. 

Noise could also be interpreted as a signal 

for aggregation, which could also result in 

whales and/or fish having additional exposure to 

increased predation. 

The group discussed key receptors (i.e., 

cetaceans, pinnipeds, and fish) and how each 

marine mammal or fish species discussed might 

respond to noise generated by wave energy 

buoys and the associated equipment in the wave 

energy facility. 

Gray whales 

Gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) 

respond to anthropogenic sounds: 50% of 

observed whales were affected at a received 

level of 120 dB re 1 μPa continuous (Moore and 

Clarke 2002). Since ambient noise in the ocean 

is roughly 90 dB re 1 μPa, depending on weather 

and wave conditions, noise generated from a 

wave energy facility could be masked by 

background noise. Anthropogenic noise can 

have more impact when there is relatively little 

ambient noise (during calm weather conditions) 

than when there is a great deal of ambient noise 

(during rough weather conditions). In addition, 

these whales react more strongly to mobile 

sounds than static sounds. So if the noise 

generated by the wave energy facility is not 

masked by background noises, whales could 

veer away from it, especially when migrating, 

resulting in them getting “choked” into a 

narrower migration route along the beach. For 

non-migrating whales, the noise disturbance 

may be such that they will simply leave the area 

and not come back. For both migrating and nonmigrating whales, this behavioral avoidance 

reaction could result in their having less food, a 

reduced feeding area, and increased 

vulnerability to predation by killer whales. 

Humpback whales 

While humpback whales (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) periodically can be found close to 

shore, they transit primarily farther offshore than 

the current location of all of the proposed wave 

energy facilities off the Oregon coast. They are 

seasonally resident, most likely for feeding, in 

some areas. These include Heceta Bank and 

south of Cape Blanco (Tynan et al. 2005), areas 

that should be avoided for wave energy 
116

installations. Potential impacts to them from 

noise generation from wave energy facilities 

would be similar to that of gray whales, but at 

lower impact levels because they transit farther 

offshore. Impacts would also vary from year to 

year as the humpback population size changes. 

Killer whales 

Killer whales are found off the Oregon coast 

all year long, with most being sighted in the late 

spring and early summer. It is possible that 

background noise could mask the noise 

generated from wave energy facilities for killer 

whales. It is likely that killer whales could be 

initially startled by encountering an array, but 

would soon desensitize to them and even be 

attracted to an array. Killer whales could react 

to wave energy arrays in the same manner that 

they do to large ships when searching for prey. 

Killer whales will chase prey up against the 

ship’s side and in effect “corner” it to catch it. 

Thus wave energy arrays could act similarly, as 

a bottleneck, forcing prey such as fish and other 

whales into a bottleneck or choke point, making 

them more vulnerable to predation. 

Dolphins and porpoises 

Dolphins and porpoises are less likely to be 

affected by wave energy facilities than whales 

because they are more likely to swim around any 

wave energy buoys encountered. Dolphins and 

porpoises are also sensitive to high-frequency 

sound rather than the low-frequency sound the 

group assumed would come from wave energy 

devices. However, that assumption needs to be 

confirmed during actual testing of noise 

produced by a buoy or array of buoys. 

Sea lions and seals 

While Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) 

are more sensitive to noise than California sea 

lions (Zalophus californianus), pinnipeds in 

general are not likely to be greatly affected by 

the noise generated from wave energy facilities. 

They are most likely to avoid the facility, or be 

desensitized to the noise and be attracted in if 

prey fish are also attracted to the area. 

Fish 

Virtually all fish have some form of auditory 

sensory mechanisms that allow them to sense 

their sound-filled, hydrodynamic environment. 

Fishes use their inner ear for sound detection 

and balance, and their lateral line system to 

sense movement of water (Moyle and Cech 

2000). In addition to being able to detect 

sounds, many species of fish are known to be 

sound-producing or soniferous. Recently, it has 

been estimated that over 800 species of fish 

from 109 families are soniferous; however, 

many more species are likely to have this 

capability (Rountree et al. 2006). Sound 

production as a form of communication is 

associated with feeding, schooling, reproduction, 

etc. Salmon, sardines, herring, rockfish, 

midshipman (Porichthys sp.), and a number of 

other groundfish species are all thought to be 

particularly noise-sensitive. For example, 

midshipman are more acoustically oriented than 

other fish species and courting midshipman 

males hum to attract egg-laying females. 

Herring hearing may be sensitive enough to 

detect predator ultrasound in a manner that may 

parallel the evolution of a mechanism by moths 

to detect their bat predators. 

There are two potential effects on fish ear 

and/or lateral line function from noise generated 

by wave energy structures: the immediate (and 

possibly temporary) effects on hearing or lateral 

line detection of hydrodynamic stimuli (Popper 

et al. 2003), and longer term effects that lead to 

permanent loss of sensory capabilities. The 

most likely cause of temporary or permanent 

loss of sensitivity is alteration of the capabilities 

or health of the mechanosensory hair cells found 

in the ear and lateral line. However, it is not yet 

clear whether damage to sensory hair cells in 

fishes is permanent or temporary because in 

fishes, unlike in humans, there is a constant 

proliferation of sensory hair cells for most of a 

fish’s life. There is also some evidence of repair 

to these cells after damage (Lombarte et al. 

1993). The fundamental question becomes how 

long the impairment lasts and whether it 

becomes permanent. 
117

Because fish are food sources for other fish 

and marine mammals, any effects wave energy 

development might have on their abundance, 

feeding ecology, or behavior could result in 

disruption to the food chain for other fish 

species, including commercially important 

species, and cetaceans. Species like crab, tuna, 

and sharks would be the least impacted from 

noises generated from wave energy facilities. 

Scientific Uncertainty and Agreement 

 The level of uncertainty and scientific 

agreement concerning wave energy facility noise 

impacts on cetaceans, pinnipeds, and fish 

depends on an analysis of the species that could 

be found near these arrays in relationship to the 

noise generated (see Receptor-Specific Effects 

table below). 

Key Information Gaps 

There is a substantial lack of information 

concerning the hearing sensitivity and capability 

of cetaceans, pinnipeds, and fish that could 

encounter a wave energy buoy array. The 

following information gaps need to be filled as 

baseline information is developed prior to 

project construction: 

• What ambient sounds are being 

produced in the location of a potential 

wave energy facility? 

• What is the hearing sensitivity of 

cetaceans, pinnipeds, and fish (all 

species), and how do they respond to 

noise of frequencies that could be 

generated by a wave energy buoy or 

buoy array? 

• What is generally known about the 

schooling behavior of fish in 

relationship to pressure waves and 

acoustics? 

While one buoy would provide an initial 

start on monitoring sound, a small array of 

buoys (at least three) would be necessary to 

generate data to assess effects statistically. It is 

also important to model the sound field (output 

from buoy and buoy array) and do so on a 

seasonal basis to encompass the full array of 

noises that could be generated. 

Feasibility and Effectiveness of Mitigation 

A variety of potential mitigation measures 

could reduce noise generation from wave energy 

buoy arrays: 

• Varying the array design (buoy and 

mooring cable arrangements in the 

water) could reduce the production of 

synchronous sound. 

• Looser cables strum at lower levels than 

tighter cables and would not produce as 

much noise, but this must be balanced 

against the need to reduce the potential 

for cetacean entanglement. 

• Thicker cables produce a lower 

frequency sound than thinner cables. 

Therefore, to reduce noise generation, 

limit the total number of cables to fewer, 

larger, vertical cables. 

• Use antistrum (sheath/fairing) devices 

on cables where possible. 

• Companies developing wave energy 

technology should include noise 

reduction of internal parts of their buoys 

and underwater substations as a design 

criterion. 

• Sounds that sweep in frequency are 

more likely to disturb marine mammals 

than constant-frequency sounds. 

Devices that emit a constant frequency 

are preferred to ones that vary. The 

same is true, though perhaps to a lesser 

extent, for sounds that change in 

amplitude. 

• Because cable fouling might change the 

noise spectrum of cables, decisions 

about when and how often to clean 

cables should include noise as a factor in 

decision-making. 
118

Recommendations for Baseline and 

Monitoring Studies 

The group discussed a variety of potential 

monitoring actions necessary to understand the 

effects of wave energy buoy arrays. 

Monitoring of sound levels 

It is critical to monitor the sound level of a 

single wave energy buoy and multiple buoys in 

an array: 

• To measure the acoustic signature for 

each device and group of devices, both 

inside and outside of the array. This is 

especially important to address the 

generation of synchronous or 

asynchronous noise generated by an 

array. 

• To study noise under different ocean 

conditions to differentiate background 

noise from the buoy/array noise, and to 

understand how noise generation 

changes under different environmental 

conditions. 

• To monitor buoy and mooring cable 

noise over time, to see how it changes as 

the devices age and mooring cables 

become fouled. 

Modeling 

The noise generated by a buoy/array can and 

should be modeled to predict noise generation 

for differently sized and shaped arrays over a 

variety of environmental conditions. An array 

of four rows of three or four buoys each would 

be a starting point for such an experiment. Such 

modeling is possible since analogous models 

exist for wind power devices. 

Studies of marine mammal and fish behavior 

Surveys—Marine mammal and fish 

behavior around buoys and arrays should be 

surveyed to determine changes in behavior as a 

result of noise. 

Morphological studies—Some 

morphological studies have shown loss of 

sensory hair cells for a few species following 

exposure to intense sounds (Hastings et al. 1996; 

McCauley et al. 2003), but other studies have 

not found an effect (Popper et al. 2005). The 

problem with morphological studies is that they 

only show the most severe damage, and do not 

show if there is transient damage to the sensory 

system. 

Physiological methods—A better approach 

has been to use some physiological method to 

assess hearing response immediately following 

exposure to a signal. This approach has 

demonstrated temporary, and recoverable, 

hearing loss in response to exposure to pure 

tones, seismic air-guns, boats, and sonar, and to 

long-term exposure to lower intensity sounds. 

The method known as auditory brainstem 

response (ABR) measures evoked signals in the 

brain of fish to sounds of different levels. This 

method is noninvasive, can be done immediately 

after or even during exposure to sounds, and is 

highly automated. ABR basically measures the 

response of the ear (and possibly first levels of 

the auditory portion of the brain) to sound 

stimuli, and measures of auditory sensitivity 

(thresholds) can be made. The same method 

could also be easily adapted to the lateral line. 

However, ABR measures the response of the ear 

(and possibly brain) but does not indicate how a 

fish would respond to the sound, and the 

measure of sensitivity provided is not the best 

sensitivity of the animal since the technique does 

not examine the processing that may occur in the 

brain which could improve sensitivity (e.g., by 

improving the signal-to-noise ratio by 

averaging). Thus, use of ABR requires the 

extensive use of controls that exposed animals 

are compared to, and any changes in sensitivity 

are relative to these controls. Finally, the 

acoustic setup for the tests must be very 

carefully defined; animals that are pressure 

sensitive must be tested with a pressure 

stimulus, and animals sensitive to particle 

motion (most fish) need to be tested with respect 

to that stimulus. 

Tagging—Fish monitoring also could be 

accomplished using sonic or passive integrated 
119

transponder tags. Marine mammal tags 

incorporating acceleration sensors (e.g., Johnson 

and Tyack 2003) can be used to observe finescale behavior and responses to noise. Fish 

finders can be placed into the array to monitor 

movement. It is also critical to have a control 

area with which to compare animal movement 

and behavior in the array area. 

Wave energy research facility 

The group agreed that since many of the 

questions being asked about the generation of 

noise from a buoy/array are so basic in nature, 

they would be best addressed in a “wave energy 

research facility” before full-scale development 

of wave energy begins. The cost of developing 

the wave energy research facility should be 

funded in a cooperative fashion by private, state, 

and federal funds. A facility like this could also 

serve as a control area for comparison against 

actual wave energy facilities. 

Literature Cited 

Hastings, M. C., A. N. Popper, J. J. Finneran, and 

P. J. Lanford. 1996. Effect of low frequency 

underwater sound on hair cells of the inner ear 

and lateral line of the teleost fish Astronotus 

ocellatus. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 99:1759–1766. 

Johnson, M., and P. L. Tyack. 2003. A digital 

acoustic recording tag for measuring the 

response of wild marine mammals to sound. 

IEEE J. Oceanic Engr. 28:3–12. 

McCauley, R. D., J. Fewtrell, and A. N. Popper. 

2003. High intensity anthropogenic sound 

damages fish ears. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 

113:638–642. 

Moyle, P. B. and J. J. Cech, Jr. 2000. Fishes: an 

introduction to ichthyology. 4th edition, Prentice 

Hall. 

Lombarte, A., H. Y. Yan, A. N. Popper, J. C. Chang, 

and C. Platt. 1993. Damage and regeneration of 

hair cell ciliary bundles in a fish ear following 

treatment with gentamicin. Hear. Res. 66:166–

174. 

Moore, S. E., and J. T. Clarke. 2002. Potential 

impact of offshore human activities on gray 

whales (Eschrichtius robustus). J. Cetacean Res. 

Manage. 4:19–25. 

Popper, A. N., R. R. Fay, C. Platt, and O. Sand. 

2003. Sound detection mechanisms and 

capabilities of teleost fishes. In S. P. Collin and 

N. J. Marshall (eds.), Sensory processing in 

aquatic environments, p.3–38. Springer-Verlag, 

New York. 

Popper, A. N., M. E. Smith, P. A. Cott, B. W. Hanna, 

A. O. MacGillivray, M. E. Austin, and D. A. 

Mann. 2005. Effects of exposure to seismic 

airgun use on hearing of three fish species. J. 

Acoust. Soc. Am. 117:3958–3971. 

Rountree, R .A., R. G. Gilmore, C. A. Goudey, A. D. 

Hawkins, J. J. Luczkovich, and D. A. Mann. 

2006. Listening to fish: applications of passive 

acoustics to fisheries science. Fisheries 31:433–

445. 

Tynan, C. T., D. G. Ainley, J. A. Barth, T. J. Cowles, 

S. D. Pierce, and L. B. Spear. 2005. Cetacean 

distributions relative to ocean processes in the 

northern California Current System. Deep Sea 

Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 52:145–167. 
120

Stressor-specific effects table for acoustics. KEY: L=low impact, M=medium impact, H=high impact, NA=not applicable, ?=so

associated with the estimate 

Activity (agent or stressor) Receptors 

Ocean Waves and 

Currents 

Benthic Habitats, 

Plankton, Fouling 

Community 

Fish

a

Forage Fish and 

Invertebrates 

Demersal Fish 

Epibenthic 

Macroinvertebrates 

Benthic Infauna 

Seabirds 

Pinnipeds 

Harbor Propoise

b

Acoustic Frequency Signatures NA NA H? H? H? L L L? L H 

Point Absorber NA NA H? H? H? L L L? L H Attenuator NA NA H? H? H? L L L? L H Oscillating Water Column NA NA H? H? H? L L L? L H Overtopping NA NA H? H? H? L L L? L H 

Mild Weather Acoustics (Quiet Days)d NA NA H? H? H? L L L? L H Heavy Weather Acoustics (Loud Days)d NA NA H? H? H? L L L? L H Important Frequencies for Key Biota NA NA H? H? H? L L L? L H Amplitude Effects (Overpressure) NA NA NA NA NA L L L? L H Service Boats and Equipment NA NA M? M? M? L L L? L H Calm Weather Daye NA NA H? H? H? L L L? L H 

a Most concern is for acoustically sensitive fish like herring and midshipman. b Harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) are very affected by acoustic pingers and the use of pingers at wave energy facilities is being c The effect of a lack of acoustic signature of the wave energy facility is of special concern for gray whales. d Based on Bruce Mate’s statement that about 90% of ocean sound on a stormy day is nonanthropogenic (natural), whereas about 90% 

anthropogenic; ergo, a possible rationale for considering differential effects. 

e Calm is different from mild weather, as the threat in calm weather is the complete lack of sound and consequent risk of the animals be

or cables and blundering into them. 
121

Stressor Breakout Group Report: Electromagnetic Effects 

Participants: 

George Boehlert, OSU (Facilitator) 

Ric Brodeur, NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC 

Bob Emmett, NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC 

Mike Fitzpatrick, Fishermen Interested in Natural Energy 

Stephen Kajiura, Florida Atlantic Univ. 

Laurel Kellner, OSU (Rapporteur) 

Greg McMurray, Oregon DLCD (Chair) 

Key Findings 

The electromagnetic field (EMF) is 

comprised of an electric field (E field) and a 

magnetic field (B field). The E field is 

contained by the insulation within the generation 

devices, subsea pods, and cables. The B field is 

generally detectable outside of this componentry 

and can induce a second electric field (the iE 

field) which is produced when conductive 

animals move through it. Galvanic fields are 

caused by electrochemical interactions of metals 

in contact with seawater (an electrolyte). 

Following are our key findings on potential 

electromagnetic effects of wave energy 

facilities: 

• EMF is most likely to affect animals that 

use magnetic fields for orientation or 

electrical fields for feeding. 

• The key receptors for EMF are salmon, 

crab, sturgeon, sharks and rays, and 

albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga, for 

offshore waters). 

• Both induced and galvanic electrical 

fields are of concern and may have 

impacts. 

• There are major areas of uncertainty on 

receptors for both electrical (E) and 

magnetic (B) fields. 

• Baseline measurements before and after 

development are needed to establish 

extent and magnitude of local magnetic 

fields. 

• Armoring and trenching are likely 

effective mitigation for cabling, but we 

need demonstration of Faraday cage 

effectiveness in the field for all 

generation devices and also for the 

subsea (rectifying) pods, when and if 

used. 

• The participants recommended that the 

2007 COWRIE mesocosm experiments 

be used as a guide to the value of 

stressor-response experiments prior to 

trying to test local species. 

Top Ecological Issues 

• Galvanic or induced electrical fields 

may modify behavior of animals that 

use electrical fields for feeding. Species 

affected probably include sharks and 

rays (elasmobranchs), crab, sturgeon, 

albacore tuna (if present), and possibly 

marine birds. 

• Attraction or repulsion of prey species 

by EMF may affect foraging ability of 

other prey species, such as seabirds. 

• Magnetic fields may affect movement 

and behavior patterns of animals that 

use magnetic fields for orientation. 

Affected animals include salmon, 

elasmobranchs, sturgeon, albacore tuna 

(if present), and likely some cetaceans. 

• System breakages resulting in ground 

faults (i.e., short circuits to the ocean) 

would likely have lethal but very local 

effects. 
122

• Both galvanic electrical fields and 

induced electrical fields may have 

ecological effects. 

• Due to physical proximity, EMF from 

generation devices would likely affect 

only the pelagic biota, whereas EMF 

from subsea pods would likely affect 

only the demersal biota. However, 

some species utilize the entire water 

column over a diurnal cycle (for 

example, Chinook salmon 

[Oncorhynchus tshawytscha]). 

Scientific Uncertainty and Agreement 

• There was a high level of uncertainty 

about the response of pinnipeds, 

cetaceans, plankton, turtles, squid and 

baitfish, and benthic infauna to EMF as 

expressed by magnetic and induced 

electrical fields. 

• There was a significant level of 

uncertainty about the response of 

salmon to electrical fields. These fields 

can affect catch rates for salmon trollers. 

• There was a high level of scientific 

agreement among the participants in the 

breakout group about the major 

ecological issues, levels of uncertainty, 

key information gaps, and likely 

feasibility of mitigation. 

Key Information Gaps 

There is a general lack of information about 

the sensitivity of many animal groups to EMF, 

including that for pinnipeds and cetaceans, 

seabirds, sturgeon, squid and baitfish, flatfish, 

rockfish and lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus), and 

plankton. 

Feasibility and Effectiveness of Mitigation 

• Conversion of electricity to 60 Hertz 

synchronous AC and armoring and 

trenching of the cabling from the 

rectifying pods to the shore are very 

likely effective mitigation measures for 

the undersea cables. 

• Ground-fault interruption (similar to 

home GFI circuits) is likely effective 

mitigation for short circuiting of all 

components of the system, but should be 

backed up with real-time data 

telemetered to a control station. 

• Mitigation for magnetic fields (and 

therefore, induced electrical fields) is 

dependent on both the effectiveness of 

the application of Faraday caging in the 

generation devices and subsea pods, and 

the conversion of asynchronous AC at 

less than 1 Hertz to 60 Hertz AC. 

• Adequate armoring should protect 

vertical transmission cables from 

generating devices to subsea pods from 

biting by sharks and rays, as has 

occurred with communication cables. 

• Areas of outcrop (i.e., reefs) along the 

paths of transmission cables should be 

avoided, as they will make burial 

unfeasible. 

Recommendations for Baseline and 

Monitoring Studies 

• Baseline studies should include 

magnetic surveys of sites before and 

after deployment of energy-generating 

and transmission equipment in order to 

establish local magnetic background and 

possible relevance of superimposed 

magnetic fields from the electrical 

currents produced and transmitted. 

• Monitoring for wave energy generated 

electric and magnetic fields should 

accompany facility buildouts. 

• Studies of animal responses to EMF 

conducted in situ will be difficult and 

likely expensive. Dedicated control 

areas may not be very helpful in 

assessing EMF effects. The possibility 

of studying the equipment with and 

without electrical current production 

would likely be a better approach, and 
123

would help address the difficulty of 

separating the effects of multiple 

stressors. This approach would 

probably require the ability to switch 

from transmission to dummy loads. 

Other Information 

At the time of this writing, COWRIE 

mesocosm studies are intended to be conducted 

in the British Isles during the 2007 field season 

and should be completed by February 2008 and 

reported on by June 2008. The results of these 

studies, when published, should be valuable in 

scoping studies of the response of local species 

to EMF. Further information is available at two 

web sites: 

COWRIE (Collaborative Offshore Wind Research 

Into the Environment). No date. Offshore 

windfarms: putting energy into the UK. Online 

at http://www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/ 

Research/ResearchAreas/ElectromagneticFields/

EMFPhase1.aspx [accessed 8 February 2008]. 

Gill, A.B., I. Gloyne-Phillips, K.J. Neal, and J.A. 

Kimber. 2005. Cowrie 1.5 Electromagnetic 

fields review. The potential effects of 

electromagnetic fields generated by sub-sea 

power cables associated with offshore wind farm 

developments on electrically and magnetically 

sensitive marine organisms—a review. Online at 

http://www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/ 

Downloads/1351_emf_phase_one_half_report 

.pdf [accessed 8 February 2008]. 
124

Stressor-specific effects table for electromagnetic effects. KEY: L=low impact, M=medium impact, H=high impact, U=unknow

associated with the estimate 

Activity (agent or stressor) Receptors 

Salmon 

Dungeness crab 

Sturgeon 

Pinnipeds 

Sharks (pelagic) 

Sharks & skates 

(demersal) 

Rockfish & lingcod 

Flatfish 

Plankton – mysids 

and cumaceans 

Cetaceans 

Turtles 

Generating Devices 

Galvanic E field U L L U H L L L U U U Induced E field U L L U H L L L U U U Magnetic field H L L U H L L L U U U 

Collecting/Rectifying Devices 

Galvanic E field U H H U L H U U U U U Induced E field U H H U L H U U U U U Magnetic field H U H U L H U U U U U 

Transmission System

Galvanic E field U H H U L H U U U U U Induced E field U H H U L H U U U U U Magnetic field H U H U L H U U U U U 

Catastrophic Ground Fault H H H H H H H H H H H 
125

Breakout Group Report: System View and Cumulative Effects 

Participants: 

S.M. Bartell, E2 Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Chair) 

Holly Campbell, OSU (Rapporteur) 

John Chapman, HMSC 

Jack Engle, UCSB 

Robin Hartmann, Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition (Facilitator) 

Selina Heppell, OSU 

Kaety Hildenbrand, OSU 

Curt Peterson, PSU 

Alan Shanks, OIMB 

Kate Wing, NRDC 

Introduction 

The breakout session participants were 

challenged to address the cumulative 

environmental effects of wave energy 

technologies within the coastal ecosystem. The 

purpose was not to perform the actual 

assessment, but to discuss important 

environmental aspects and issues of such a 

comprehensive analysis. The socioeconomic 

and policy considerations attendant to 

cumulative effects assessment were recognized 

as important. However, the participants agreed 

to focus on the environmental effects—

consistent with the overall technical theme of the 

workshop. 

There was no substantive discussion of the 

requirements of a cumulative effects assessment 

(e.g., under the National Environmental Policy 

Act [NEPA] and the Council on Environmental 

Quality [CEQ]) and it was not clear that a 

framework for assessing cumulative effects of 

wave energy technologies produced by the 

sessions need conform to such requirements. 

Nevertheless, brief attention to these 

programmatic approaches helped to organize the 

results of the session discussion and might 

suggest a useful path forward towards a 

cumulative assessment of the environmental 

effects of wave energy technologies. 

Cumulative impact is defined under NEPA 

as follows: 

“Cumulative impact” is the impact on the 

environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added 

to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person 

undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor 

but collectively significant actions taking 

place over a period of time. [40 CFR 

1508.7, CEQ 1987] 

The CEQ (1997) recommends 11 steps for 

assessing cumulative effects. These steps can be 

conveniently categorized as scoping, organizing, 

screening, evaluating, and mitigating (including 

monitoring and adaptive management). Senner 

et al. (2002) attempt to simplify the process, yet 

provide a systematic and consistent framework 

for assessment. Halpern et al. (2008) developed 

a qualitative, subjective framework for assessing 

the cumulative effects of various environmental 

stressors on marine ecosystems, including 

coastal systems. 

Characterizing the incremental effects in 

relation to past and current actions underscores 

the technical and analytical perspectives in 

assessing cumulative effects (e.g., Bedford and 

Preston 1988). Characterizing impacts in 

relation to the reasonably foreseeable future 

suggests an intractable assessment from an 

analytical perspective. However, an emphasis 
126

on future actions emphasizes cumulative effects 

assessment as an exercise in environmental 

planning (e.g., Stakhiv 1988). In practice, both 

analysis and planning contribute valuably to a 

cumulative assessment (Smit and Spaling 1995). 

Although the implications of future actions 

garnered less attention, both perspectives were 

evident in the breakout session discussions. 

Key Findings 

The session participants identified the 

following as key aspects in assessing the 

cumulative environmental effects of wave 

energy technologies: 

1. The cumulative effects of wave energy 

technologies will depend importantly on 

the number, size, location, and 

configuration of wave energy projects 

that become operational within the 

nearshore coastal environment. 

Assessment of cumulative impacts will 

require periodic, systematic, multistep 

evaluations as the energy facilities 

increase in scale and extent. 

2. As the number and extent of wave 

energy facilities increase, new effects or 

risk assessment endpoints might emerge 

that were not evident at smaller scales. 

As the wave energy landscape increases 

throughout the coastal zone, thresholds 

might be surpassed whereby wholesale 

modifications of the physical circulation 

and sediment dynamics of the nearshore 

environment become evident. 

3. Adaptive management, long-term 

monitoring, and public involvement are 

necessary components of a cumulative 

assessment that continues as the wave 

energy industry increases in its scale of 

deployment. 

4. A significant deployment of wave 

energy technologies might redirect and 

potentially focus other ongoing coastal 

zone activities (e.g., shipping, 

commercial fishing, whale migration), 

with associated environmental impacts 

that should be included in the 

cumulative assessment. 

High Uncertainty: Incomplete 

Understanding and Sparse Data 

Session participants repeated concerns that 

the lack of information and data describing the 

nature of the wave energy technologies, and the 

incomplete understanding of marine resources 

and coastal zone dynamics, introduce substantial 

uncertainty into the assessment of cumulative 

effects. The nature of the technologies actually 

implemented will influence the number and 

spacing of cables used to anchor these devices. 

Injury and death due to entanglement or 

collision were considered the major impacts on 

marine mammals resulting from these 

technologies. Spatial-temporal distributions and 

population sizes of potentially impacted marine 

organisms are poorly quantified. The coastal 

zone physical environment, including wave 

energies, patterns of circulation, sediment 

transport, and deposition remain incompletely 

described for the areas potentially occupied by 

wave energy complexes. Such basic information 

is needed to undertake a meaningful cumulative 

effects assessment. The participants questioned 

if other states or countries might provide 

examples of effective programs for assessing 

cumulative effects. 

One interesting and important unknown is 

whether the physical conditions favorable for 

selecting locations for wave energy projects are 

also favorable conditions for attracting marine 

resources or increasing biological productivity. 

If so, the potential for continuing and cumulative 

environmental impacts will be increased. If not, 

the impacts of wave energy technologies might 

be substantially reduced. 

Site-selection and location could be used in 

mitigating effects. For example, avoiding 

known areas of whale migration in locating 

wave energy devices could reduce the likelihood 

of entanglement or collision. 

Spatial and Temporal Scale 

Session participants considered the 

importance of spatial and temporal scales 

implied by a cumulative effects assessment of 

wave energy technologies. As indicated, a small 
127

number of widely spaced facilities might prove 

to be of minimal risk to marine resources or the 

local coastal physical environment. However, as 

the number, size, and proximity of wave energy 

facilities increase, thresholds might be exceeded 

where impacts become sudden and dramatic. A 

small array of buoys might simply dampen wave 

energy, while a large array could modify 

sand/sediment transport and deposition, with a 

major cumulative impact in the nearshore 

environment. Similarly, smaller arrays might 

result in minor rates of associated injury or 

mortality to marine mammals. However, 

compounding of these mortalities by multiple 

and larger arrays could produce significant 

population-level impacts, especially for 

populations characterized by low numbers and 

low rates of reproduction. One animal killed 

might be one too many. 

Concerns were also expressed that 

deleterious effects might require considerable 

time to manifest. For example, significant 

longer term consequences of an accumulation of 

minor short-term impacts could require years of 

monitoring before the significance was realized. 

Therefore, it appears imperative to implement 

some level of assessment from the very 

beginning of technology deployment. 

Wave Energy Technologies 

The session participants recognized that the 

different technologies for capturing wave energy 

might pose different risks to the coastal 

environment and associated biota. Given the 

different performance characteristics of these 

technologies and attendant risk, a risk:benefit 

analysis might contribute meaningfully to an 

assessment of cumulative effects. Technologies 

that were efficient transformers of wave energy 

into electricity and posed minimal 

environmental risks would logically be favored. 

Clearly, the cost of the technologies would 

factor into such an assessment. 

Regardless of the specific technology, cables 

would be necessary to maintain the position of 

the device. The number, size, and geometry of 

the anchoring cables represent important aspects 

of each technology in determining the likelihood 

of collision or entanglement with marine 

organisms, particularly marine mammals. Loose 

thin cables likely pose greater risks for 

entanglement than taut thick cables. However, 

taut thick cables might pose greater risks for 

collision and injury or death. The geometrical 

complexity of the anchoring cables increases in 

importance, perhaps nonlinearly, as the number 

of deployed devices increases. 

Modeling and Monitoring 

The group expressed considerable optimism 

that the effects of wave energy technologies and 

wave facilities could be mathematically 

modeled. This was particularly emphasized for 

physical aspects of the coastal marine 

environment between the wave project and the 

shore. Changes in wave energies, current 

velocities, and water depths might be modeled 

with sufficient accuracy to inform the 

cumulative assessment process. The importance 

of using models to characterize the dynamics of 

sand scour, transport, deposition, underwater 

dune formation, and dune migration was also 

discussed. Simple models that estimate the 

probability of encounter with a cable might be 

constructed from knowledge of the physical 

dimensions of marine mammals, swimming 

behavior, and the geometry of the cable system 

defined by a technology and the dimensions of 

the wave energy facility. 

Given information on the physical attributes 

of the anchoring system, it might also prove 

possible to model the accumulation and 

associated productivity of marine fouling 

communities that inhabit the cables. The 

spatial-temporal accumulation of hard-bottom 

habitat (e.g., mussel shell mounds) could also be 

modeled. It is conceivable that the distribution 

and magnitude of this habitat type would 

increase substantially during the operational life 

cycle of the wave energy facilities. An 

underwater landscape dominated by physically 

connected mussel mounds might interfere with 

the cross-shelf movements or migrations of 

critically important benthic resources (e.g., 

Dungeness crab [Cancer magister]). At the 

same time, soft-bottom habitat of value to other 
128

marine resources might correspondingly 

decrease. 

In addition to modeling, the group 

underscored the importance of using deployed 

wave energy facilities (or individual devices or 

buoys) as opportunities for long-term 

monitoring. The results of the monitoring could 

be used to evaluate model predictions. These 

data could also directly inform an adaptive 

management process for assessing and 

mitigating the cumulative effects of wave energy 

technologies. 

Decommissioning 

Session participants recognized the potential 

risks posed by the removal of wave energy 

technologies at the end of their usefulness. 

Particular attention was paid to the removal of 

the large concrete blocks used as anchors. If 

these structures demonstrate ecological value in 

terms of their attached communities and 

associated fisheries, political pressures might be 

brought to leave the structures in place. 

However, some states (e.g., Oregon) already 

have taken positions that these structures shall 

be removed regardless. If underwater 

demolition is required, additional risks must be 

included in the cumulative effects assessment. 

Increases in navigation by vessels involved in 

the decommissioning process might pose 

additional risks to be considered. 

Stressor-Response Functions, Risk, and 

Effects Assessment 

 Cumulative effects can to some degree be 

assessed by simply adding up risks posed by 

each stressor to each receptor. This requires the 

derivation of separate stressor-response 

functions for the relevant combinations of 

stressors and receptors. Initial functions might 

be more qualitative and subjective in form until 

the necessary data are developed. Where data 

permit, the functions can be quantitatively 

described and used in a manner consistent with 

probabilistic risk estimation. Previous 

experience suggests that the cumulative 

assessment might well distill to a small number 

of key risks involving subsets of stressors and 

receptors (e.g., cables and marine mammals). 

Session participants emphasized the need for 

detailed quantitative assessments of risks posed 

to Dungeness crabs and endangered salmonids. 

A matrix wherein columns define the 

stressors associated with wave energy 

technologies (i.e., construction, operation and 

maintenance, decommissioning) and rows 

identify the responses (i.e., effects) of interest 

should be developed as a framework for 

assessing cumulative effects. Risks should be 

estimated for each (applicable) combination of 

stressor and response. Risks can be integrated 

over stressors (column “sums”) or effects (row 

“sums”) to characterize cumulative effects and 

overall risk. Inspection of the matrix would 

quickly identify key stressors and effects. 

Developing this matrix based on existing 

information and data might be fraught with 

uncertainty. Key combinations of stressors and 

responses that appear significant, but uncertain, 

could be used to guide research and monitoring 

efforts. Subsequent revisions to the matrix 

could be performed until the remaining 

uncertainties were acceptable and the results 

summarized in the matrix usefully informed an 

adaptive risk management and mitigation 

process. 

The matrix can be expanded to include 

additional columns that identify other past and 

continuing human and natural stressors that 

might generate additional effects. These should 

be included in the cumulative effects assessment 

(CEQ 1997). For example, current recreational 

or commercial fishing will be dislocated from 

wave energy facilities and relocated in other 

areas. The net effect might be an increase in 

fishing pressures in these areas outside of the 

wave energy facilities. Risks to the fishing 

industry would be a component of the 

cumulative effects assessment. The location of 

wave energy projects might alter the migration 

habits of whales and force them into deeper 

waters and shipping lanes, where opportunities 

for collision might increase. 

Finally, columns should be added that 

speculate concerning additional stressors 

(human or natural) that might be relevant for the 
129

reasonably foreseeable future (CEQ 1997). 

Continuing changes in climate and associated 

upwelling characteristics of the coastal marine 

environment might exacerbate some risks posed 

by the operation of the wave energy facilities; 

alternatively, other risks might be reduced. 

Clearly, speculation of future risk remains 

highly uncertain. 

The cumulative effects assessment would 

then require integration across all the stressors 

(past, present, and future) that are associated 

directly with the wave energy technologies, as 

well as other actions in the affected environment 

that could conceivably bear upon the responses 

of concern. 

Cumulative Effects Matrix 

Much of the session discussion focused on 

individual stressors and receptors. It was 

inevitable that important issues raised during 

day one of the workshop were revisited. The 

discussion of individual stressors and receptors 

has been summarized in the cumulative effects 

matrix below. The matrix uses a ranking system 

of low, medium and high, but within each 

ranking the magnitude and potential of the 

effect, if any, would be a function of the scale 

and extent of deployment. This matrix has been 

expanded to include stressors and receptors not 

specifically discussed during the cumulative 

effects session. 

Related Issues 

Related topics addressed during the session 

that pertain to cumulative effects, but not 

specifically identified in the cumulative effects 

matrix, included the following: 

• Magnetic fields should be carefully 

examined because small changes might 

result in impacts to fish. Additional 

consideration of noise as a disturbance 

is similarly suggested. 

• Fishers know ways to reduce the seabird 

perching and nesting problem. These 

methods are well understood and might 

be used to reduce potential problems 

associated with wave energy devices. 

• Assessing cumulative effects might 

require the consideration of any 

increased dredging in rivers and harbors 

necessary to support the vessels that 

service the wave energy industry. 

Dredging has the potential to negatively 

impact nursery areas and other critical 

marine habitats. 

• “Bounding” the cumulative effects 

assessment was further discussed. For 

example, if the deployment of wave 

energy technologies permits reductions 

of other energy technologies (e.g., dam 

removals), should the corresponding 

reductions in environmental effects 

associated with these other technologies 

be included in the cumulative 

assessment of wave energy 

technologies? 

• One approach to mitigation of 

cumulative effects might be to 

concentrate deployment of wave energy 

complexes, rather than distribute them 

widely throughout the coastal ocean. 

• There needs to be some kind of an 

organization responsible for monitoring 

and assessing the effects of wave energy 

technologies coastwide. 

Literature Cited 

Bedford, B. L. and E. M. Preston. 1988. Developing 

the scientific basis for assessing cumulative 

effects of wetland loss and degradation on 

landscape functions: status, perspectives, and 

prospects. Environ. Manage. 12:751–771. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. 

Considering cumulative effects under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Prepared by 

the CEQ, Executive Office of the President, 

Washington, D.C. 

Halpern, B., S. Walbridge, K. A. Selkoe, C. V. 

Kappel, F. Micheli, C. D’Agrosa, J. Bruno, K. S. 

Casey, C. Ebert, H. E. Fox, R. Fujita, 

D. Heinemann, H. S. Lenihan, E. M. P. Madden, 

M. Perry, E. R. Selig, M. Spalding, R. Stenek, 

and R. Watson. 2008. A global map of human 

impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319:948–

952. 
130

Senner, R. G. B., J. M. Colonell, J. D. Isaacs, S. K. 

Davis, S. M. Ban, J. P. Bowers, and D. E. 

Erikson. 2002. A systematic but not-toocomplicated approach to cumulative effects 

assessment. 22nd Annual Conference of the 

International Association for Impact Assessment, 

The Hague, June 15–21, 2002. 

Smit, B., and H. Spaling. 1995. Methods for 

cumulative effects assessment. Environ. Impact 

Assess. Rev. 15:81–106. 

Stakhiv, E. Z. 1988. An evaluation paradigm for 

cumulative impact analysis. Environ. Manag. 

12:725–748. 
131

Stressor-receptor matrix for cumulative effects. KEY: L=low impact, M=medium impact, H=high impact. 

Stressors

 Emplacement Operation Decommissioning Other stre

presen

Receptors/ responses 

Construction 

navigation 

Mooring system 

Transmission 

infrastructure 

Mooring system 

Generation 

device 

Transmission 

infrastructure 

Chemical 

coatings 

Decommission 

navigation 

Device removal 

Mooring cable 

removal 

Anchor removal 

Fishing pressure 

Climate change 

Ocean waves M L M Ocean currents L M L L L M Sediments L L L M L L L L Plankton L L L Fouling community H H H L H H H Migratory fish L L L M L L L L L M L Forage fish L L L M L L L L L M L Demersal fish L L M M L L L L M L Invertebrates L L L M L L L L L L L Epibenthic macroinvertebrates 

L L M M L L L L L L 

Benthic infauna L L M M L L L L L Seabirds M L M L M L Pinnipeds L L L L L L L M L Cetaceans L L L H M M L L L L H M 

133

Workshop Integration and Synthesis 

Cathy Tortorici, NOAA-NMFS

The goals of the workshop were to develop 

1) an initial assessment of the potential 

impacting agents and ecological effects of wave 

energy development in the coastal ocean and 2) 

a general framework that can be applied to 

specific wave energy projects. To accomplish 

these goals, we explored key questions in a 

series of breakout sessions: 

1. What is known about wave energy 

facilities, their associated components 

(such as cables, anchors, and buoys), 

and their effect on the physical and 

biological components of the 

ecosystem? 

2. What is unknown about these 

relationships, and what are key 

information gaps? 

3. What is the level of uncertainty or 

agreement among scientists about these 

interactions? 

4. Can we prioritize important ecological 

issues (e.g., key interactions)? 

5. What studies, monitoring, or mitigation 

measures should be employed to help 

minimize effects? 

As stated in the workshop prospectus, 

This workshop [did] not attempt to discuss 

and vet policy issues pertaining to wave 

[facilities]; rather, it [focused] on building 

capacity to more adequately address the 

potential ecosystem impacts of wave energy 

development along the Oregon coast. In 

addition, the broader U.S. marine science 

community may not be aware of the ocean 

energy momentum building in Oregon and 

will benefit from understanding the 

proposed projects and a framework for the 

ecological context in which they will 

operate. 

The workshop shared current understanding 

and initiated a broad discussion of the potential 

ecological effects of ocean energy. The morning 

plenary session presentations provided a 

common understanding of wave energy 

technology and scientific issues involved. The 

afternoon and following morning provided a 

forum of structured breakout groups and 

interaction among the groups. These disciplinebased groups generated written summaries for 

this proceedings volume to disseminate the 

workshop results. Below is a summation of key 

cross-cutting messages from all breakout groups. 

Importance of the Ocean Environment is 

Vital to Keep in Mind 

Both in the plenary session and in the 

breakout groups, the importance of the nearshore 

ocean environment was emphasized as an 

underlying principle. All agreed that workshop 

participants should keep this in mind as they 

considered the ecological effects of wave energy 

development off the Oregon coast. 

The Energy Absorbing Structures breakout 

group summarized this sentiment best when they 

wrote, 

Because of the combination of tidally driven 

mixing, wind mixing, and upwelling, shelf 

habitat inshore of 100 m depth, and 

particularly inshore of 40 m depth, is the 

most biologically productive marine 

zone .... 

The productivity in this zone includes 

important pelagic and benthic food webs. In 

addition to supporting communities of 

marine birds, mammals, fishes, 

invertebrates, and even a reptile (the 

leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea); 

each of these food webs supports important 

commercial and recreational harvests of 

finfish and shellfish (e.g., salmon, sardines, 

bottom fish, rockfish, and Dungeness crab 

[Cancer magister]). Several protected 

species also include this zone in their critical 
134

habitat; impacts on those species are 

significant for legal purposes. 

Lack of Information around Potential 

Effects Needs to be Recognized as Wave 

Energy Projects are Considered 

A major concern was the lack of information 

by which to judge ecological and physical 

effects from the development of wave energy 

projects. For example, the Cumulative Effects 

breakout group said, “Session participants 

repeated concerns that the lack of information 

and data describing the nature of the wave 

energy technologies, and the incomplete 

understanding of marine resources and coastal 

zone dynamics, introduce substantial uncertainty 

into the assessment of cumulative effects.” The 

Electromagnetic Effects (EMF) group said, 

“There is a general lack of information about the 

sensitivity of many animal groups to EMF, 

including that for pinnipeds and cetaceans, 

seabirds, sturgeon, squid and baitfish, flatfish, 

rockfish and lingcod,...and plankton.” The Fish 

and Fisheries breakout group stated, “There is a 

lack of adequate information and a high level of 

scientific uncertainty regarding the effects these 

structures may have on the diverse fish 

communities and their associated commercial 

and recreational fisheries communities.” 

All emphasized the need to collect data and 

general baseline information at each wave 

energy buoy array and specific information 

through monitoring to assess impacts on 

individual species and the overall nearshore and 

ocean ecosystems. For example, the following 

pieces of information were judged necessary to 

begin to understand the impacts of wave energy 

buoy arrays on seabird populations: 

• Comprehensive spatial and temporal 

data on the distribution and habitat use 

for marine birds along the Oregon coast 

• Maps of important bird feeding or 

staging areas along the Oregon coast 

• Information on migration patterns and 

behavior, including flight patterns at 

night and in storms 

Modeling is an Important Tool that can 

Help Answer Questions 

Modeling was highlighted as a method to 

obtain information about the effects of wave 

energy on the physical and biological 

environment. For example, the Physical 

Environment breakout group emphasized that 

modeling can be used to assess the impact of the 

physical location of wave energy buoy arrays 

and their effects on changes in wave heights and 

sedimentation processes along the Oregon coast. 

Their detailed report (Appendix 5) stated, 

“There are numerical models that have been 

developed to quantitatively evaluate sediment 

transport rates under combined waves and 

currents, so there is the potential that model 

analyses can be expanded to assess the changes 

in sediment-transport patterns in the shadow 

zone of a proposed wave farm.” 

Those participants evaluating acoustic 

effects noted that it is possible to measure or 

model the magnitude, frequencies, and duration 

of noises generated by wave energy structures: 

The noise generated by a buoy/array can and 

should be modeled to predict noise 

generation for differently sized and shaped 

arrays over a variety of environmental 

conditions. An array of four rows of three 

or four buoys each would be a starting point 

for such an experiment. Such modeling is 

possible since analogous models exist for 

wind power devices. 

We note here that model validation studies 

should be conducted on demonstration, pilot, 

and commercial facilities as they are developed. 

Monitoring is a Must to Understand 

Effects 

All groups pointed out that given the lack of 

baseline information and information concerning 

effects of the construction and operation of wave 

energy structures, monitoring is a key 

component to the development of wave energy 

projects. Monitoring specific fauna (e.g., sea 

birds, marine mammals) is needed to understand 

the changes that could occur for project 

construction and implementation. 
135

For example, the Acoustics breakout group 

said, 

It is critical to monitor the sound level of a 

single wave energy buoy and multiple buoys 

in an array: 

• To measure the acoustic signature for 

each device and group of devices, both 

inside and outside of the array. This is 

especially important to address the 

generation of synchronous or 

asynchronous noise generated by an 

array. 

• To study noise under different ocean 

conditions to differentiate background 

noise from the buoy/array noise, and to 

understand how noise generation 

changes under different environmental 

conditions. 

• To monitor buoy and mooring cable 

noise over time, to see how it changes 

as the devices age and mooring cables 

become fouled. 

The Chemical Effects breakout group 

suggested that “Monitoring for the effects of 

chemicals on organisms needs to include not just 

the presence of mortality, but also changes in 

abundance and movement. ... Multiple 

locations and times should be monitored, since 

the chemical exposures and effects are likely to 

be variable.” 

The Benthic Habitat breakout group 

suggested, 

Potential sites for deployment should be 

monitored before deployment for at least a 

year (to capture seasonal variability). 

Multiple adjacent sites to the north and 

south (distance to be determined by the size 

of units and of the entire complex) should be 

monitored as controls. The size of the 

monitoring plots and their distance should 

be based on ecological considerations, 

including dispersal and movement ranges of 

dominant organisms. Samples of water, 

sediment, and organisms should be taken at 

increasing distances from point sources to 

test the potential effects of toxic antifouling 

paints. If bioindicators for the specific 

pollutants exist, they should also be used. 

The Marine Mammal breakout group agreed 

that the most important information needed to 

collect is baseline information prior to the 

development of wave energy: 

The general habits of most of the cetaceans 

and pinnipeds that could be affected by the 

development of wave energy off the Oregon 

coast are not well understood. The 

following data collection needs were 

identified as top priorities: 

• General biological information on 

cetaceans and pinnipeds, starting with a 

literature review of available 

information. Initial information could 

be obtained from the petroleum industry 

and regulatory authorities, and/or the 

various NMFS’ Fisheries Science 

Centers. 

• Seasonal distribution, migration 

patterns, and residency information on a 

species-by-species basis. 

• Dietary information on a species-byspecies basis. 

• Abundance and distribution information 

on a species-by-species basis. 

• Information on bottom habitats where 

wave energy arrays are proposed to be 

placed. 

• Assessment of behavioral interactions 

of marine mammals with wave energy 

conversion devices and cables. 

The EMF breakout group suggested that 

monitoring for wave energy generated electric 

and magnetic fields should accompany facility 

build outs. 

The Physical Environment breakout group 

emphasized that it is “imperative” that 

monitoring/experiments, e.g,, as outlined in their 

detailed report (Appendix 5), be undertaken at 

the first few wave energy sites developed along 

the Pacific Northwest coast. 

Risk and Uncertainty are Important to 

Characterize 

A number of the breakout groups 

emphasized that understanding the risk and 

uncertainty surrounding wave energy 
136

development is critical to the ultimate 

development of this industry. For example, the 

EMF breakout group noted that “There was a 

high level of uncertainty about the response of 

pinnipeds, cetaceans, plankton, turtles, squid and 

baitfish, and benthic infauna to EMF as 

expressed by magnetic and induced electrical 

fields. There was a significant level of 

uncertainty about the response of salmon to 

electrical fields.” The Hard Structure and 

Lighting breakout group noted that “the 

uncertainty about the extent of wave energy 

development and the actual devices to be used in 

commercially scaled energy projects will remain 

as a source of uncertainty in environmental 

analysis for some time.” 

The Physical Environment breakout group 

noted, “As things stand, there will be significant 

levels of uncertainty in the design of wave farms 

to be constructed in the Pacific Northwest. It is 

therefore important that the ensuing responses of 

the environments be carefully documented, at 

least for the first few developments that will 

serve as tests of the designs and impacts” 

(Appendix 5). 

The Fish and Fisheries breakout group noted 

that uncertainty could be reduced through 

specific experiments that examine the effects of 

wave energy devices on the various species of 

fish and invertebrates, and through studies that 

look for evidence of differences (impacts) 

between treatment and control sites by 

measuring ecological characteristics over time. 

The Acoustics breakout group 

acknowledged that there is uncertainty around 

the impacts of noise generated from wave 

energy facilities on cetaceans, pinnipeds, and 

fish. The level of uncertainty depends on an 

analysis of the species that could be found near 

these arrays in relationship to the noise 

generated from a single buoy and/or a buoy 

array. 

Cumulative Effects Must be Understood 

Cumulative effects were a key point of 

conversation in the closing session at the 

workshop. Workshop participants described the 

need to address cumulative effects in the context 

of necessary modeling, monitoring, adaptive 

management, and balancing the scientific and 

social aspects of project impacts. Cautious 

development by the wave energy industry was a 

primary message of the entire workshop. 

The Cumulative Effects breakout group 

summarized this need in the following manner: 

“The cumulative effects of wave energy 

technologies will depend importantly on the 

number, size, location, and configuration of 

wave energy projects that become operational 

within the nearshore coastal environment. 

Assessment of cumulative impacts will require 

periodic, systematic, multistep evaluations as the 

energy facilities increase in scale and extent.” 

This group also emphasized that, “The 

cumulative effects assessment [requires] 

integration across all the stressors (past, present, 

and future) that are associated directly with the 

wave energy technologies, as well as other 

actions in the affected environment that could 

conceivably bear upon the responses of 

concern.” 

Mitigation may be Possible 

A number of groups identified potential 

mitigation measures that could be tested and 

employed to ameliorate the physical and 

biological effects as wave energy buoy arrays 

are constructed and implemented. 

The Acoustics breakout group discussed a 

variety of potential mitigation measures to 

reduce noise generation from wave energy buoy 

arrays: 

• Varying the array design (buoy and 

mooring cable arrangements in the 

water) could reduce the production of 

synchronous sound. 

• Looser cables strum at lower levels than 

tighter cables and would not produce as 

much noise, but this must be balanced 

against the need to reduce the potential 

for cetacean entanglement. 

• Thicker cables produce a lower 

frequency sound than thinner cables. 
137

Therefore, to reduce noise generation, 

limit the total number of cables to 

fewer, larger, vertical cables. 

• Use antistrum (sheath/fairing) devices 

on cables where possible. 

• Companies developing wave energy 

technology should include noise 

reduction of internal parts of their buoys 

and underwater substations as a design 

criterion. 

• Sounds that sweep in frequency are 

more likely to disturb marine mammals 

than constant-frequency sounds. 

Devices that emit a constant frequency 

are preferred to ones that vary. The 

same is true, though perhaps to a lesser 

extent, for sounds that change in 

amplitude. 

• Because cable fouling might change the 

noise spectrum of cables, decisions 

about when and how often to clean 

cables should include noise as a factor 

in decision-making. 

The Chemical Effects breakout group noted 

that the best form of mitigation would be 

avoiding the use of toxic chemicals in the 

construction of the wave energy buoys. They 

stated that 

The use of epoxy-based antifouling 

paint, would, for example, reduce concerns 

over the continual leaching of dissolved 

copper into the environment... For chemical 

releases from spills or leaks, mitigation 

involves accident prevention and cleanup 

preparedness. Minimizing servicing trips by 

vessels, for example, would reduce the risk 

of spills or collisions. Having the ability to 

contain and clean spills always on standby 

would mitigate the impacts should a spill 

occur. 

The Marine Birds breakout group noted 

eight mitigation techniques that should be 

considered during the siting and development of 

a wave energy facility: 

• Avoid installing wave energy structures 

near breeding colonies, primary 

foraging areas, and migration corridors. 

• Constant bright light at night will attract 

birds or interfere with night-vision 

birds. Intermittent light should reduce 

light impacts. Intermittent lights should 

be off more than on during each lighting 

cycle. 

• Birds are probably attracted more to 

certain colors of light than others, so 

color of lighting could be a mitigation 

measure. This would require specific 

data or experiments. 

• Night work by vessels is more 

detrimental than daytime work. 

• Design of surface structures should 

minimize potential for roosting by 

birds. Simple and proven devices 

already exist to discourage roosting. 

• Underwater lines should be rigid and 

large to minimize underwater collision 

potential. 

• Structures should use multiple layers of 

containment for oils. 

• Above-surface structures should 

minimize height above the sea surface 

to reduce collision potential. 

The Fish and Fisheries breakout group 

suggested that looking to other similar examples 

of wave energy development off the coast of 

Europe may be helpful as one method to gather 

ideas about mitigation. 

The Marine Mammal breakout group stated 

that 

Impact minimization measures for 

mooring cables must consider the cable 

diameter, length and density, and whether 

the cables are slack or taut. It might be 

possible to develop a model and crude 

approximation of cable density to 

probability of strike or entanglement, to 

identify configurations that pose sufficient 

risk to require appropriate minimization and 

mitigation actions. 

It might also be possible to place 

acoustic warning systems on buoys. There 

is some evidence from NMFS’ Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center that acoustic 

warning systems have worked on fishing 

nets to minimize entanglement. The 
138

strongest evidence on the use of acoustic 

warning systems has been demonstrated in 

studies on aquaculture facilities. These 

warning devices were designed to keep 

pinnipeds away, but have been shown to 

drive away harbor porpoises as well. 

However, there is still a high level of 

uncertainty concerning whether such a 

system would deter whales at a wave energy 

buoy array. In designing such a system, it is 

important to consider sound emission levels 

that are loud enough to deter the animal, but 

not loud enough to damage hearing. Such 

devices should not exclude whales from 

identified foraging areas. The devices also 

need to adapt to varying levels of 

background noise associated with different 

sea states to avoid excessive noise (and 

affected areas) when low sea states do not 

require loud sources. 

The group also considered if there is an 

“ocean corridor” outside of known 

migratory routes that could be identified and 

considered by the industry for placement of 

wave energy buoy arrays, to minimize 

impacts to pinnipeds and cetaceans. For 

pinnipeds, the group recommended 

specifically that these projects not be sited 

near rookeries (i.e., Cape Arago), and that 

seasonal buffer zones be placed around the 

rookeries so as not to disturb them. 

The EMF breakout group noted that 

• Conversion of electricity to 60 Hertz 

synchronous AC and armoring and 

trenching of the cabling from the 

rectifying pods to the shore are very 

likely effective mitigation measures for 

the undersea cables. 

• Ground fault interruption...is likely 

effective mitigation for short circuiting 

of all components of the system, but 

should be backed up with real-time data 

telemetered to a control station. 

• Adequate armoring should protect 

vertical transmission cables from 

generating devices to subsea pods from 

biting sharks and rays... 

The Benthic Habitat group suggested that 

mitigation include burying wave buoy anchors 

entirely under the surface of the seafloor, 

placing structures farther offshore to reduce the 

effects on nearshore currents and onshore 

communities, and keeping the units as small as 

possible. 

Conclusions 

There is an urgency to the need for 

environmental studies of wave energy 

conversion. Throughout the workshop, the 

importance of evaluating ecological effects at 

any wave energy demonstration study sites or 

pilot scale facilities was stressed. These 

evaluations will help reduce uncertainty of 

effects for all stressors and all receptor groups, 

leading to improvements in the best practices for 

design of devices and arrays and to performance 

standards and monitoring requirements that can 

be applied to commercial-scale development. 
139

Glossary, Abbreviations, and Acronyms 

ABR auditory brainstem response 

AC alternating current 

Adaptive management an approach to natural resource management that involves evaluating 

the results of management actions and modifying subsequent actions 

Advective referring to the effect of large-scale ocean currents (as opposed to very 

small-scale processes) 

Ambient signals or stressors of nonhuman origin; background 

Amphipods a group of small benthic or planktonic crustaceans 

Amplitude the height of a wave from trough to crest 

Anthropogenic signals or stressors of human origin 

Antifouling paint a toxic paint that is used to inhibit growth of the fouling community on 

manmade surfaces 

Array a gridwork; in this context, comprised by columns and rows of wave 

energy generation devices 

ASP amnesiac shellfish poisoning 

Asynchronous not occurring at predefined intervals; as alternating current, not as 60-

Hertz 

B Field the magnetic portion of an electromagnetic field 

BACI before-after-control-impact (study design) 

Baseline preproject conditions; the studies that establish preproject conditions 

Benthos living on or in the substrate at the bottom of the water column 

Bioaccumulate the tendency for some chemicals, especially toxicants, to increase in 

the food web 

Biofouling the buildup of fouling community organisms on manmade structures 

Bioindicator a species that is sensitive to specific pollutants or stressors and used to 

indicate their presence 

Bivalves molluscs having two opposing shells 

Bristleworms a group within the polychaete worms 
140

Brittle stars a group of invertebrates closely related to seastars, but having long, 

thin, whip-like arms 

Bus bar the electrical infrastructure at which all the energy of a wave energy 

development will be amassed 

Capacity the maximum amount of electricity that can be generated by a given 

device under optimal conditions 

Catenary line the line connecting the subsurface float to the generating buoy 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality (federal) 

Cetaceans the group of marine mammals that includes both the baleen and 

toothed whales 

Closure depth the depth at which littoral transport processes cease to act, effectively 

the seaward boundary of a littoral cell 

COMPASS Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea 

Copepods a group of small planktonic crustaceans that is a key important 

component of marine pelagic food webs 

COWRIE Collaborative Offshore Wind Research Into the Environment 

Ctenophores a planktonic group of animals that are similar to jellyfish 

Cumaceans a group of small benthic crustaceans resembling tiny shrimps 

dB decibels; a measure of sound pressure 

Demersal large organisms, like fishes or crabs, that live near or on the sea floor 

Dissipative tending to reduce the amount of energy 

DLCD Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 

DOGAMI Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries 

Downwelling a process whereby surface waters are forced downwards 

E Field the electrical portion of an electromagnetic field 

EFH Essential Fish Habitat 

Elasmobranchs soft-boned fishes that include the sharks, bats and rays; many are able 

to sense weak electrical fields 

EMAP U.S. EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 

EMEC European Marine Energy Centre 
141

EMF electromagnetic field 

Epifauna bottom-dwelling animals that live at the surface of the bottom 

substrate 

EPRI Electrical Power Research Institute 

ESA Endangered Species Act (federal) 

Euphausiids a group of crustacean invertebrates that migrates up into the plankton 

at night; important forage for fish, birds, and cetaceans 

Exposure the contact or co-occurrence of a stressor with a receptor 

FAD fish attraction device 

Faraday cage a metal shield that blocks electromagnetic radiation 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Fetch the distance over which both wind and waves move unimpeded 

FINE Fishermen Interested in Natural Energy 

Flux a flow of matter or energy 

Forage fishes smaller fishes that are important sources of food for larger fish, birds 

and mammals 

Fouling community a group of plants and animals that settles on hard substrates 

Front an ocean region of high rates of change in temperature and salinity 

Galvanic electrical field an electrical field produced by the chemical process of electrolysis 

Gastropods snails 

GFI Ground fault interruptor 

Ghost fishing the loss of fish or other species to derelict fishing nets or traps 

GLOBEC GLOBal ocean ECosystems dynamics 

Hertz cycles per second 

HMSC Hatfield Marine Science Center 

Holoplankton planktonic organisms that spend their entire life history as plankton 

Hs significant wave height 

Hydrography measures of temperature, salinity, and density in seawater; they define 

ocean water masses 
142

Hydrozoans attached animals that are related to jellyfish; a component of the 

fouling community 

IE field the electrical field induced by motion of a conductor through a 

magnetic field 

Infauna bottom-dwelling animals that live within the bottom sediments 

Invasive species undesirable species that tend to dominate habitats at the expense of 

more desirable species; almost all are non-indigenous 

Isobath a line on a chart that indicates a contour of equal bottom depth 

kHz kiloHertz 

Krill a group of epibenthic and planktonic crustaceans that is important 

forage for fish, birds, and cetaceans; generally refers to the euphausiids 

and the mysids 

kW kiloWatts 

LASAR Lab Analytical Storage and Retrieval System 

Lateral line a pressure-sensitive structure in fishes 

Leaching rate the rate at which a chemical is dissolved into seawater 

Littoral cell the area within which nearshore sediments tend to circulate 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treat Act 

MCBH Marine Corps Base Hawaii 

Mechanosensory sensitive to mechanical stimulation 

Meroplankton planktonic animals that spend only an early part of their life history as 

plankton; most benthic invertebrates and many fishes have planktonic 

larvae 

Mesocosm an experimental enclosure or container used for experiments requiring 

very large volumes of water 

Mitigation an action taken to prevent or avoid an ecological effect 

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act 

MMS U.S. Minerals Management Service 

Morphological referring to physical structure or appearance 

MPA marine protected area 

MSA Magnusen-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act (federal) 
143

MW megawatt 

MWh megawatt hour 

Mysids a group of crustacean invertebrates that forms swarms near the sea 

floor and is important forage for fish, birds, and cetaceans 

Nearshore the ocean area closest to the shoreline, generally within 1–2 km, within 

which key oceanographic processes take place 

Necropsy forensic analysis of a carcass to find cause(s) of death or injury 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (federal) 

Neuston plankton living in the upper 10 cm or so of the water column 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council 

NWFSC Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

O&M Operations and maintenance 

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

OIMB Oregon Institute of Marine Biology 

Olfactory referring to the sense of smell 

Oligochaete worms segmented worms not having parapodia and with few bristles; closely 

related to earthworms 

Oligotrophic referring to ocean regions having low overall productivity 

OPT Ocean Power Technologies 

OSU Oregon State University 

OWET Oregon Wave Energy Trust 

Pelagic an organism living in the water column; the water column habitat 

Pelamis a wave energy generation device; so named after the genus of the sea 

snake 

Period the length of time taken for the full wave to pass a given point 

Physiography physical geography; in this context, of the shoreline 

Phytoplankton planktonic plants; the basis of most marine food webs 
144

Pinnipeds a group of marine mammals comprising the seals and sea lions 

Piscine related to fish 

PISCO Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans 

Plankton plants or animals that drift in water without sufficient swimming 

capability to counter currents 

PMFC Pacific Marine Fisheries Council 

Polychaete worms segmented worms having parapodia (protrusions) with bristles; they 

are a major component of the marine infauna 

Power the amount of energy in a wave; measured in kW/m as wave power 

density 

Progress ratio a measure of learning in industry; in this context, the annual 

percentage rate at which the cost of the power generated decreases 

Propagules biological units capable of propagating new individuals or colonies; 

may be vegetative or reproductive 

PSP Paralytic shellfish poisoning 

PSU Portland State University 

Receptor a characteristic of the environment, generally an ecological entity, in 

which change from stressors can result 

Recruitment the process by which young are added to a population 

Residual effect the remaining ecological effect of a stressor or stressors after any 

possible mitigation has been taken into account 

Ribbon worms a widely distributed group of nonsegmented (i.e., smooth) worms also 

called the proboscis worms 

Risk assessment an evaluation of the potential adverse effects of an action; in this 

paper, the evaluation of ecological risk gained from rigorous 

assessment of the exposure and effects of stressors on receptors 

Risk assessment endpoint another term for ecological effects 

Risk benefit analysis an analysis of the comparative risks and benefits of a proposal or 

situation 

Rookery a place where pinnipeds haul out to reproduce and rear their young 

ROV Remotely operated vehicle 

RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard 
145

Sacrificial anode an expendable piece of metal, generally zinc, that protects iron and 

steel from electrolysis in seawater 

Salps planktonic animals with gelatinous bodies; they resemble jellyfish but 

are more closely related to vertebrates 

Scaphopods tusk or tooth shells; a molluscan component of the benthos 

Scoping process a process that defines the bona fide environmental issues relating to a 

human action; drawn from the National Environmental Policy Act 

Shoaling becoming shallower 

Signature the specific characteristics of a signal; in this context, includes 

chemical, acoustic, and electromagnetic signals 

Significant wave height the average height, trough to crest, of the one-third highest waves valid 

for a time period 

Soniferous producing sound 

Spatial temporal in space and time 

Stressor an agent of change in the environment 

Sublittoral past the seaward boundary of a littoral cell; deeper than closure depth 

Subsea pod a vault on the seafloor that contains equipment to refine electrical 

signals from ocean generators before cabling to shore 

Synchronous occurring at regular intervals 

Taxis a specific behavioral response by an animal to a specific stimulus 

Te energy period 

Tendon line the line connecting the subsurface float to the anchor 

Territorial sea the portion of the ocean owned by the state; in Oregon it is measured 

as three nautical miles seaward from the shoreline or any rocks or 

islands 

Transmission grid firming the concept of providing reliable sources of power as a backup for less 

reliable sources such as wind 

Transponder an acoustic or radio frequency device that responds to a query; used to 

establish location 

TWh terawatt hours 

UCSB University of California at Santa Barbara 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 
146

Wave refraction the tendency of ocean waves to curve around obstructions 

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

WEC wave energy conversion 

Zooplankton planktonic animals 
147

Appendix 1: 

Workshop Agenda

Ecological Effects of Wave Energy Development in the Pacific Northwest 

A Scientific Workshop 

October 11–12, 2007 

Hatfield Marine Science Center 

Newport, Oregon 

Agenda 

Day One 

Morning Session: Hennings Auditorium, HMSC Visitor Center (open) 

9:00 a.m. Welcome and Overview of Workshop Objectives

George Boehlert, Hatfield Marine Science Center, OSU 

9:10 a.m. Wave Energy Interest in the Oregon Coast: Policy and Economic Considerations 

Justin Klure, Oregon Wave Energy Trust 

9:30 a.m. The Ocean and Ecological Setting: The Oregon Shelf/California Current System

Jack Barth, Oregon State University (Physical Setting) 

Bill Peterson, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center (Ecological Setting) 

10:00 a.m. The Technology: Wave Energy Development on the West Coast

Mirko Previsic, Technology Lead, EPRI Ocean Energy Programs 

10:30 a.m. Environmental Risk Analysis and Wave Energy: Examples of how to assess 

potential impacts of wave energy on the environment

Fred Piltz, Minerals Management Service 

11:15 a.m. Box Lunch – for invited participants (HMSC Housing, Dining Hall) 

Afternoon Session: Guin Library Seminar Room (invited participants only) 

1:00 p.m. Instructions and Question Review for Breakout Groups #1

John Meyer, Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea (COMPASS) 

Receptor Groups 

1. Physical environment (i.e., waves, currents, sediment) 

2. Pelagic habitat 

3. Benthic habitat 

4. Fish effects 

5. Sea Birds 

6. Mammals 
148

3:00 p.m. Break 

3:30 p.m. Breakout Groups #1: Receptors (continued) 

5:00 p.m. Adjourn 

6:00 pm – 8:00 pm 

 Social Hour, Dinner and Keynote Address, Oregon Coast Aquarium 

Keynote Speaker: Professor Richard Hildreth, Director, University of Oregon Ocean and 

Coastal Law Center. “Ocean Zoning: Implications for Wave Energy Development” 

Day Two 

8:00 a.m. Recap from Day One

Cathy Tortorici, National Marine Fisheries Service 

8:30 a.m. Instructions and Questions for Breakout Groups #2

Robin Hartmann, Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition 

Stressor Groups 

1. Energy absorbing structures 

2. Chemical effects (e.g., anti-fouling coatings, other toxic effects) 

3. New hard structures/Lighting 

4. Acoustics 

5. Electromagnetic effects 

6. System view/cumulative effects 

10:30 a.m. Break 

11:00 a.m. Report Out from Stressor Breakout Groupings

John Meyer, Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea (COMPASS) 

11:30 p.m. Integration/Synthesis Session

Cathy Tortorici, National Marine Fisheries Service 

12:15 p.m. Wrap-up and Next Steps

George Boehlert, Hatfield Marine Science Center, OSU 

12:30 p.m. Adjourn
149

Appendix 2: 

Ecological Effects of Wave Energy Development 

in the Pacific Northwest: 

Prospectus for a Science Workshop

October 11–12, 2007 

Hatfield Marine Science Center 

Newport, Oregon 

Contact: Greg McMurray (gregory.mcmurray@state.or.us) 

What: The Ecological Effects of Wave Energy Development Workshop will be a one and one-half 

day meeting with goals of 1) developing an initial assessment of the potential impacting agents and 

ecological effects of wave energy development in the coastal ocean and 2) developing a general 

framework that can be used to apply to specific wave energy projects. The workshop will share current 

understanding and initiate a broad discussion of the potential ecological effects of ocean energy. The 

morning will be a plenary session with presentations that provide a common understanding of wave 

energy technology and scientific issues involved. The afternoon and following morning will offer a 

forum of structured breakout groups and interaction among the groups. These discipline-based groups 

will generate written summaries that will be put in a proceedings volume to disseminate the workshop 

results. 

This workshop will not attempt to discuss and vet policy issues pertaining to wave parks; rather, it 

will focus on building capacity to more adequately address the potential ecosystem impacts of wave 

energy development along the Oregon coast. In addition, the broader U.S. marine science community 

may not be aware of the ocean energy momentum building in Oregon and will benefit from understanding 

the proposed projects and a framework for the ecological context in which they will operate. 

Why: Wave energy is renewable power. The Governor’s Office is encouraging the development of 

this technology. Several different projects are likely to develop along the Pacific Northwest coast. There 

are currently 12 proposed wave energy projects along the Pacific coast, of which seven reside off the 

coast of Oregon. One project gaining momentum is being developed by a company called Ocean Power 

Technologies (OPT). OPT is planning to build a 50-megawatt wave park off the town of Gardiner, on the 

central Oregon coast over the next 5–10 years and has filed a preliminary permit application with the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The application describes an experimental 150 kW 

buoy to be launched in spring 2008 and an additional 13 buoys in the fall of 2008. The Reedsport wave 

park at peak capacity could power 60,000 households. As this and other proposed projects move forward, 

a variety of unknowns could stand in the way of the timely assessment and development of this 

technology. Stakeholder dialogue is underway, but significant issues around the environmental impacts 

to coastal ecosystems have yet to be identified. There is a pressing need to begin examining how ocean 

wave energy development might impact the marine environment, biological communities, and individual 

species. This workshop will take the first step by developing a framework for evaluating these 

environmental impacts. It will also highlight the science from undersea cable projects and other existing 

ocean technologies that have a larger body of literature on the ecological impacts and may be applicable 

for wave energy. 

Oregon’s governor is committed to helping the wave energy companies move to this state and 

develop wave energy off the Oregon Coast. Mechanisms to “fast track” wave energy are being developed 
150

through the “Oregon Solutions” process. All known stakeholders and all levels of government are 

involved with this effort. The Department of State Lands is requesting permission from the State Land 

Board to start a rule-making process for wave energy in the Territorial Sea. The Governor’s citizen 

advisory council on ocean issues, the Ocean Policy Advisory Council (OPAC), has created a working 

group to address ocean wave energy issues. Meanwhile, Lincoln and Douglas Counties have also filed 

preliminary permit applications with FERC and may be a direct part of the future equation of wave 

energy facility permitting. 

It is time for Oregon’s scientific community to begin to respond to some of the most commonly asked 

questions about the impact of wave generation on the local ocean. The Reedsport Wave Park will be the 

first utility-scale facility in the United States and is likely to be a model for future projects. 

Who: Wave energy is new: Europe is leading the world in its development. In the United States there 

are just three projects, and they are all experimental sites with a single device deployed: Makah Bay, 

Washington; Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii; and off the coast of New Jersey. Expertise in understanding ocean 

impacts is still in the formative stages and developing the scientific capacity to better understand wave 

energy’s potential ecological impacts is the primary objective of this meeting. 

Invitees to this meeting will include scientists with a present expertise in ecological impacts, scientists 

who do not have a present expertise but would be helpful in expanding Oregon’s science capacity in wave 

energy, and scientists whose expertise is transferable to understanding wave energy ocean impacts. This 

meeting will not focus on policy, details of wave energy engineering, or the socioeconomic impacts of 

wave energy. Separate meetings to address these topics might be a recommended next step. 

The scientists invited to the workshop will guide and provide the basic input to the proceedings of the 

meeting. The focus of the workshop will include topic areas such as 

• Physical Effects 

Currents and waves 

Littoral transport 

• Effects on Fish 

Electromagnetic field effects (sensory systems, orientation) 

Changes in migration 

• Habitat Effects 

Fouling community effects and interactions 

Aggregation effects in pelagic environment (FADs) 

Planktonic community 

• Effects of Benthic Disturbance 

Benthic-pelagic coupling 

• Marine Mammals and Seabirds 

Electromagnetic field effects (sensory systems, orientation) 

Changes in migration; use of acoustic harassment devices (AHD) 

Entanglement 

When: The Reedsport Wave Park has entered a multi-year permitting process with FERC that will 

involve stakeholders and a series of resource studies. Oregon’s 2007 legislative session will deliberate on 

potential incentive packages for wave energy, leading the Coastal Caucus looking into the positive and 
151

negative impacts of wave energy on coastal communities. In order to provide useful and timely 

information to both coastal communities as well as the questions likely to be generated by OPAC and the 

Coastal Caucus, the science meeting is planned to occur on October 11–12, 2007. 

Where: The workshop will be located at Oregon State University’s Hatfield Marine Science Center 

in Newport, Oregon. 

Workshop Steering Committee: 

George Boehlert, Director, Hatfield Marine Science Center, Oregon State University 

Robin Hartmann, Ocean Program Director, Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition 

Maurice Hill, U.S. Mineral Management Service, OCS Alternative Energy Coordinator 

Justin Klure, Executive Director, Oregon Wave Energy Trust 

Greg McMurray, Marine Affairs Coordinator, Oregon DLCD 

John Meyer, COMPASS, Oregon State University 

Cathy Tortorici, Chief, Oregon Coast/Lower Columbia River Branch, NOAA-NMFS 

153

Appendix 3: 

Workshop Participants

Jonathan Allan, Ph.D. 

Marine Geologist 

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral 

Industries 

Newport, OR 97365 

(541) 574-6642 

jonathan.allan@dogami.state.or.us 

David H. Baldwin, Ph.D. 

Ecotoxicology and Environmental Fish Health 

Program 

Environmental Conservation Division 

NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC 

2725 Montlake Blvd. E. 

Seattle, WA 98112 

(206) 860-3306 

David.Baldwin@noaa.gov 

Nelio Barros 

Portland State University 

Department of Biology 

P.O. Box 751 

Portland, OR 97207-0751 

(503)725-4078 

barros@pdx.edu 

Steven M. Bartell, Ph.D. 

Principal Scientist and Manager 

E2 Consulting Engineers, Inc. 

339 Whitecrest Drive 

Maryville, TN 37801 

(865) 980-0560 

smbartell@aol.com 

Jack Barth, Ph.D. 

Professor 

College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences 

Oregon State University 

Corvallis, OR 97331 

(541) 737-1607 

barth@coas.oregonstate.edu 

George Boehlert, Ph.D. 

Professor and Director 

Oregon State University 

Hatfield Marine Science Center 

2030 SE Marine Science Dr. 

Newport, OR 97365 

(541) 867-0212 

george.boehlert@oregonstate.edu 

Richard D. Brodeur, Ph.D. 

NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC 

Hatfield Marine Science Center 

2030 SE Marine Science Dr. 

Newport, OR 93965 

(541) 867-0336 

Rick.Brodeur@noaa.gov 

Robin F. Brown 

Marine Mammals Research Program 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

7118 NE Vandenberg Ave. 

Corvallis, OR 97330 

(541) 757-4186 

robin.f.brown@state.or.us 

Ray Buckley, Ph.D. 

Senior Research Scientist 

Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 

600 Capitol Way North 

Olympia, WA 98501-1091 

(360) 902-2828 

bucklrmb@dfw.wa.gov 

Ann Scarborough Bull, Ph.D. 

Marine Biologist 

Chief, Environmental Analysis Section 

U.S. Minerals Management Service Pacific 

Region 

770 Paseo Camarillo 

Camarillo, CA 93010 

(805) 389-7820 

ann.bull@mms.gov 
154

Holly Campbell 

Marine Resource Management 

College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences 

Oregon State University 

Corvallis, OR 97331 

waterlilyholly@gmail.com 

John Chapman, Ph.D. 

Hatfield Marine Science Center 

2030 SE Marine Science Drive 

Newport OR 97365 

(541) 867-0235 

john.chapman@oregonstate.edu 

Matt Cutlip 

Fish Biologist 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Office of Energy Projects 

Portland Regional Office 

101 S.W. Main Street, #905 

Portland, OR 97204 

(503) 552-2762 

matt.cutlip@ferc.gov 

Debbie Duffield, Ph.D. 

Portland State University 

Department of Biology 

P.O. Box 751 

Portland, OR 97207-0751 

(503)725-4078 

duffieldd@pdx.edu 

Robert Emmett, Ph.D. 

NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC 

Hatfield Marine Science Center 

2030 SE Marine Science Dr. 

Newport, OR 97365-5296 

(541) 867-0109 

Robert.Emmett@noaa.gov 

Jack Engle, Ph.D. 

Associate Research Biologist 

Marine Science Institute 

University of California 

Santa Barbara, CA 93106-6150 

 (805) 893-8547 

j_engle@lifesci.ucsb.edu 

John Ferguson, Ph.D. 

NOAA Fisheries, NWFSC 

2725 Montlake Boulevard East 

Seattle, WA 98112 

(206) 860-3287 

john.w.ferguson@noaa.gov 

Mike Fitzpatrick 

Fishermen Interested in Natural Energy (FINE) 

P.O. Box 983 

Lincoln City, OR 97367 

(541) 994-3440 

njf@class.oregonvos.net 

David Fox 

Marine Program Assistant Manager 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

2040 S.E. Marine Science Dr. 

Newport, OR 97365 

(541) 867-0300 ext. 228 

David.S.Fox@state.or.us 

Robin Hartmann 

Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition 

1721 SE Main St 

Roseburg, OR 97470 

(541) 672-3694 office 

robinhartmann@msn.com 

Jim Hastreiter 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

101 SW Main Street, Suite 905 

Portland, OR 97204 

(503) 552-2760 

james.hastreiter@ferc.gov 

Selina S. Heppell, Ph.D. 

Associate Professor 

Dept. Fisheries and Wildlife 

Oregon State University 

Corvallis, OR 97331 

(541) 737-9039 

selina.heppell@oregonstate.edu 

Kaety Hildenbrand 

Marine Fisheries Extension Faculty 

OSU Extension Service Lincoln County 

29 SE 2nd St. 

Newport, OR 97365-4496 

(541) 574-6537 ext. 27 

kaety.hildenbrand@oregonstate.edu 
155

Richard Hildreth, Professor 

Director 

University of Oregon Ocean & Coastal Law 

Center 

Knight Law Center 

1515 Agate St. 

Eugene, OR 97403 

(541) 346-3866 

rghildre@law.uoregon.edu 

Maurice L. Hill 

Office of Alternative Energy Programs 

U.S. Minerals Management Service 

770 Paseo Camarillo, Suite 228 

Camarillo, CA 93010 

(805) 389-7815 

maurice.hill@mms.gov 

Jan Hodder, Ph.D. 

Associate Professor 

Oregon Institute of Marine Biology 

P.O. Box 5389 

Charleston, OR 97420 

(541) 888-2581 ext.215 

jhodder@uoregon.edu 

Susan Holmes 

Marine Resource Management 

College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences 

Oregon State University 

Corvallis, OR 97331 

holmes.sa@gmail.com 

Stephen Kajiura, Ph.D. 

Department of Biological Sciences 

Florida Atlantic University 

Boca Raton, FL 33431 

(561) 297-2677 

kajiura@fau.edu 

Laurel Kellner 

Marine Resource Management 

College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences 

Oregon State University 

Corvallis, OR 97331 

laurelk8@yahoo.com 

Keith Kirkendall 

NOAA-NMFS1201 NE Lloyd Blvd. 

Portland, OR 97232 

(503) 230-5431 

keith.kirkendall@noaa.gov 

Justin Klure 

Oregon Wave Energy Trust 

PO Box 8626 

Portland, OR 97207-8626 

(503) 475-2999 

jklure@peventuresllc.com 

Paul Komar, Ph.D. 

Professor (Emeritus) 

College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences 

Oregon State University 

Corvallis, OR 97331 

(541)737-5210 

pkomar@coas.oregonstate.edu 

Hugh Link 

Oregon Dungeness Crab Commission 

964 Central Avenue 

Coos Bay, OR 97420 

(541) 267-5810 

hugh@oregondungeness.org 

Roy W. Lowe 

Oregon Coast National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2127 SE Marine Science Drive 

Newport, OR 97365-5258 

(541) 867-4550 

Roy_Lowe@fws.gov 

Bruce Mate, Ph.D. 

Professor and Director, Marine Mammal 

Institute 

Hatfield Marine Science Center 

2030 SE Marine Science Drive 

Newport OR 97365 

(541) 867-0202 

bruce.mate@oregonstate.edu 
156

Greg McMurray, Ph.D. 

Marine Affairs Coordinator 

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and 

Development 

Ocean and Coastal Services Division 

635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 

Salem, OR 97301-2540 

(503) 373-0050 ext.248 

Gregory.Mcmurray@state.or.us 

David Mellinger, Ph.D. 

Cooperative Institute for Marine Resources 

Studies 

HMSC/Oregon State University 

Newport, OR 97365 

(541) 867-0372 

David.K.Mellinger@noaa.gov 

Bruce Menge, Ph.D. 

Professor, Department of Zoology 

Cordley 3029 

Oregon State University 

Corvallis, OR 97331-2914 

(541) 737-5358 

MengeB@oregonstate.edu 

John Meyer 

COMPASS Program Associate 

Department of Zoology 

Oregon State University 

Corvallis, OR 97331 

(541) 737-9840 

meyejohn@science.oregonstate.edu 

Bill Peterson, Ph.D. 

NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC 

Hatfield Marine Science Center 

Newport, OR 97365 

(541) 867-0201 

Bill.Peterson@noaa.gov 

Curt Peterson, Ph.D. 

Professor, Portland State University 

Geology Department 

P.O. Box 751 

Portland, OR 97207-0751 

(503) 725-3375 

peterscd@pdx.edu 

Fred Piltz, Ph.D. 

U.S. Minerals Management Service 

770 Paseo Camarillo, Suite 228 

Camarillo, CA 93010 

(805)389-7850 

fred.piltz@mms.gov 

Mirko Previsic 

re vision consulting LLC 

5115 11th Ave 

Sacramento, CA 95820 

(916) 977-3970 

mirko@re-vision.net 

Erin Richmond 

PISCO Program 

Oregon State University 

Corvallis, OR 97331 

richmone@science.oregonstate.edu 

Gil Rilov, Ph.D. 

Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of 

Coastal Oceans (PISCO) 

Department of Zoology 

Oregon State University 

Corvallis, OR 97331-2914 

(541) 737-3699 

rilovg@science.oregonstate.edu 

Alan Shanks, Ph.D. 

Professor 

Oregon Institute of Marine Biology 

University Of Oregon 

618 Boat Basin Dr., PO Box 5389 

Charleston, OR 97420 

(541) 888-2581 ext.277 

ashanks@darkwing.uoregon.edu 

Rob Suryan, Ph.D. 

Oregon State University 

Hatfield Marine Science Center 

2030 SE Marine Science Dr. 

Newport, OR 97365 

(541) 867-0223 

rob.suryan@oregonstate.edu 

Maria Stefanovich 

Environmental Sciences 

Oregon State University 

Corvallis, OR 97331 

stefanma@onid.orst.edu 
157

Brycen Swart 

Marine Resource Management 

College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences 

Oregon State University 

Corvallis, OR 97331 

bswart@coas.oregonstate.edu 

Robert Thresher, Ph.D. 

National Wind Technology Center 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Golden, CO 80401-3393 

(303) 384-6999 

robert_thresher@nrel.gov 

Cathy Tortorici 

NOAA-NMFS 

1201 NE Lloyd Blvd. 

Portland, OR 97232 

(503) 231-6268 

cathy.tortorici@noaa.gov 

Waldo Wakefield, Ph.D. 

NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC 

Hatfield Marine Science Center 

2030 SE Marine Science Dr. 

Newport, OR 97365-5296 

(541) 867-0542 

Waldo.Wakefield@noaa.gov 

Kate Wing 

Senior Ocean Policy Analyst 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

111 Sutter St., 20th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

(415) 875-6100 

kwing@nrdc.org 

Jen Zamon, Ph.D. 

NOAA-NMFS, NWFSC 

P.O.Box 155 

Hammond, OR 97121-0155 

(503)861-1818 ext.19 

Jen.Zamon@noaa.gov 

159

Appendix 4: 

Keynote Address— 

Ocean Zoning: 

Implications for Wave Energy Development (WED) 

Richard G. Hildreth

Professor of Law 

Director, Ocean and Coastal Law Center*

rghildre@law.uoregon.edu 

KEYNOTE ADDRESS 

Presented 

October 11, 2007 

at the 

Oregon Coast Aquarium, Newport, Oregon 

as part of 

Ecological Effects of Wave Energy Development in the Pacific Northwest: A Scientific 

Workshop 

Wave energy development (WED) is being proposed off the coast of Oregon in areas where activities 

such as fishing occur. Ocean zoning is a recognized technique for managing multiple ocean uses. It is a 

means for specifying human uses for particular ocean areas to reduce conflicts between ocean users and to 

support marine conservation. It is also known as area-based management, place-based management, and 

marine spatial planning. 

The United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is the world’s largest and extends 200 miles off 

the coast of Oregon and other U.S. states and territories. Pursuant to federal law, resource management 

within the first three miles is primarily by the states. The need for zoning in particularly busy areas of the 

U.S. EEZ such as off the New England and southern California coasts was recognized in the recent 

reports of the Pew and United States commissions on ocean policy. President Bush’s Action Plan and 

Executive Order and the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative following up on those reports also support the 

use of ocean zoning. 

Two leading examples of ocean zoning are Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and the 

Northwest Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument proclaimed by President Bush last year. Each is 

slightly larger than the state of California in area. The monument is slightly larger than the park, is the 

world’s largest marine or terrestrial conservation area, and includes about 3% of the U.S. EEZ. 

Commercial fishing is prohibited in most of the monument and in 34% of the park. 

 

*

 Professor Hildreth gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Ocean and Coastal Law Center staff members Andrea 

Coffman and Christy Callaghan. 
160

Other U.S. federal ocean zoning schemes include 13 National Marine Sanctuaries whose total area 

includes about 1% of U.S. state and federal EEZ waters. Four of those sanctuaries are located off 

California and 1 off Washington. In 2005 Oregon Governor Kulongoski proposed that the entire 

continental shelf off Oregon be designated a sanctuary—it would be 4 times as large as the next largest 

sanctuary, the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary off the central California coast. Within most 

sanctuaries, bottom trawling is banned and some other fishing activities are also regulated. Most 

significantly for my topic, wave and other renewable energy facilities are prohibited in federal sanctuary 

waters and stringently regulated in state sanctuary waters. 

The Florida Keys and California Channel Islands sanctuaries contain networks of “no take” marine 

reserves. In state waters off the central California coast, the state recently established a network of 12 

marine reserves. Almost all federal and state definitions of marine reserves exclude “extractive” 

activities. Under California’s Marine Life Protection Act, activities which would “change the dynamics 

of the ecosystem” also are prohibited. WED probably will not be viewed as an “extractive” activity like 

offshore oil and gas development or commercial fishing, but it does have impacts on local ecosystem 

dynamics of varying levels of significance which are being assessed as part of this state-of-the-art 

international workshop. 

Currently off Oregon there are no marine reserves in state or federal waters and ocean zoning is 

limited to essential fish habitat areas designated by the federal regional Pacific Fishery Management 

Council and protected from damaging activities under the federal Fisheries Conservation and 

Management Act. Should more zoning be implemented before WED proceeds? My answer for the short 

term is no, WED may proceed without additional zoning. I base that conclusion in part on regulations 

recently adopted by the Oregon Department of State Lands which among other things require that WED 

in state waters not “substantially impair lawful uses or developments already occurring within the area” 

such as fishing. Furthermore, Oregon Ocean Resources Management Goal 19 which has the force of law 

requires that a precautionary approach be used with regard to the scientific uncertainties involved in 

determining whether there are significant use conflicts or adverse ecosystem impacts. Under the federal 

Coastal Zone Management Act, both requirements are potentially applicable to federal approval of WED 

in federal waters off Oregon as well. 

Under the framework of Goal 19, when trans-Pacific fiber optic cables laid off Oregon displaced 

some fishing activity, appropriate compensation for that displacement was negotiated and paid to the 

affected fishermen as a means of resolving the use conflict. A similar process could be used for fishing 

activity displaced by the installation and operation of WED facilities offshore and their associated 

transmission cables to shore. 

Over the longer term, expanded ocean zoning off Oregon could offer WED developers security of 

tenure at preferred seabed, water column, and surface locations through a lessened likelihood that 

expiring state and federal permits and leases up for renewal would not be renewed and the location 

allocated to some other use. That additional security of tenure would be supported by the use of zoning to 

harmonize WED to the maximum extend possible with existing and future uses in the area. In this regard, 

it is increasingly clear that WED facilities offshore will have to be protected by some form of “no entry” 

zone. 

And if WED does expand up and down the west coast, the 2006 West Coast Governors’ Agreement 

on Ocean Health specifically supports a coordinated three-state approach to ocean renewable energy 

development. And on the research side, the three states are developing a Regional Marine Research Plan 

for the California Current Ecosystem adjacent to all three states. Much of the research funded and carried 

out pursuant to that plan could be relevant to assessing the potential for and ecological impacts of WED 

on the west coast and the need for expanded ocean zoning. 
161

Are there any downside risks for WED through expanded ocean zoning? Yes, at least in theory. One 

only has to recall the initial hostile response to the proposed Cape Wind wind farm in federal waters off 

Massachusetts and the west coast federal and state “zoning out” of any more offshore oil and gas 

development to the see the possibility of WED being zoned out. And of course further research following 

up on this workshop might reveal WED impacts which would require mitigation or compensation to 

affected users, or in a worst-case scenario, lead to WED’s exclusion from certain areas. 

But personally, as one concerned like many of you about the environmental implications of our 

continued heavy reliance on fossil fuels, I am hopeful that room can be made for WED off Oregon and 

elsewhere. 

163

Appendix 5: 

Environmental Consequences of Wave Energy Extraction along the 

Shores of the U.S. Pacific Northwest: The Physical Environment

Paul D. Komara, Jonathan C. Allanb, Jack Bartha, Tuba Özkan-Hallera, Curt Petersonc, Mirko Previsicd, 

and Keith Kirkendalle

a

College of Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University 

b

Oregon Department of Geology & Mineral Industries 

c

Department of Geology, Portland State University 

d

re vision consulting LLC, Sacramento, CA 

e

NOAA, Portland, OR 

Introduction 

The wave climate of the Pacific Northwest, 

the shores of Oregon and Washington, is 

recognized for its severity, the waves being the 

product of energy derived from winds blowing 

across the expanse of the North Pacific. Winter 

storms reaching this coast commonly generate 

deep-water significant wave heights1

 greater 

than 10 meters, with the most extreme storms in 

recent decades having achieved significant wave 

heights of 15 meters. It is noteworthy that there 

has been a marked and progressive increase in 

the wave heights measured by NOAA buoys 

since they became operational in the mid-1970s, 

an increase that likely is a response to global 

warming and can be expected to continue in 

future decades (Allan and Komar 2006). Within 

that net decadal increase in wave energies have 

been marked variations from year to year in 

storm intensities and their generated waves, 

which in some cases can be attributed to climate 

events such as a major El Niño, whereas the 

causes of other extreme years remain uncertain. 

The high waves along this coast have 

attracted interest as a potential source of 

renewable energy. Plans are advancing at a 

 

1

 The significant wave height is the average of the highest 

one-third of the measured wave heights, this average having 

neglected the lowest “insignificant” waves. Measurements 

show that the highest waves are on the order of 1.5 to 2.0 

times as large as the significant wave height. 

rapid pace toward the installation of energyextraction units (“wave farms”) to collect the 

arriving wave energy and convert it into 

electrical power that is transmitted to shore by 

cables. If these initial plans are successful, it is 

anticipated that they will be followed by a rapid 

expansion of such systems along the shores of 

the Pacific Northwest. 

Concerns about the impacts of such 

developments to the physical environment 

include the consequences of the reduction in 

wave-energy levels along this shore, potentially 

affecting the processes and stabilities of the 

beaches and recreational activities such as 

surfing. Also of concern are the effects of the 

structures on ocean currents, which in turn could 

alter the magnitudes and patterns of sediment 

transport and accumulation. 

Our objective is to summarize our review of 

the potential consequences of reduced waveenergy levels and modified ocean currents that 

could result from commercial energy extraction. 

Our considerations range from the likely 

changes in sedimentation processes offshore, in 

proximity to the extraction units, to significant 

impacts to our beaches and rocky shores with 

ecological consequences (discussed in other 

sections of this report). 

Energy-extraction technologies 

Complicating a review of the issues 

pertaining to the impacts on the physical 
164

environment is the range of designs of waveenergy extraction units. These variously involve 

buoys floating on the water’s surface, tethered to 

the seafloor to hold them in position; and 

massive concrete structures that rest reef-like on 

the bottom, extracting energy from the waves 

that pass over them. A variation on the latter 

that is meant to operate in relatively shallow 

water is an extraction unit that consists of rigid 

flaps extending upward from the seafloor. The 

unit oscillates under the reversing orbital 

motions of the waves, thereby extracting some 

of their energy. 

As well as differing in their fundamental 

mechanisms to derive energy from the waves, 

each unit design is unique in the portion of wave 

energy that can be extracted, this being the unit’s 

basic efficiency (as defined for any machine); 

these efficiencies range from approximately 5% 

to 20%. Moreover, these units will reflect a 

portion of the arriving wave energy so it returns 

seaward rather than reaching the shore; analyses 

completed for various designs indicate that this 

could be on the order of 10% to 30%, but ridged 

structures projecting through the water’s surface 

could have a reflection approaching 100%. The 

degree of wave reduction in the lee of the 

extraction unit depends on both the amount of 

energy removed to generate electricity and that 

being reflected. Similarly, the different unit 

designs will have unique effects on ocean 

currents and water-column stratification, 

depending on their size and shape. 

The dynamic characteristics of each energyextracting unit therefore depend on its design, 

but also on the site of installation including the 

ranges of wave heights and periods that occur. 

It is our understanding that these dynamic 

properties of the units are generally documented 

by their developers, based on numerical-model 

analyses of wave interactions with the designed 

structure, and possibly from scaled-down 

laboratory wave-basin tests of their responses. 

While these fundamental characteristics are 

known by the commercial developers, it 

generally is the case that this information is 

proprietary, not being available to other 

interested parties. It is important that this 

documentation be made available to the State of 

Oregon and interested engineers and scientists; 

without that availability, assessments of the 

potential impacts of wave-energy extraction on 

the physical environment cannot be 

independently made by others. 

Our consideration was directed primarily 

toward buoy systems and their potential impacts 

on the physical environment, as they are most 

feasible for application in the Pacific Northwest, 

and a buoy system is under development for 

installation at Reedsport2

 on the southern 

Oregon coast, expected to be “first in the water.” 

Most of the following discussions therefore 

focus on those systems that feature the use of 

multiple buoys placed in an array. 

The collective impact of multiple units 

Having extracted and reflected energy from 

the waves arriving from offshore, a single unit 

will create a “shadow zone” of lowered wave 

heights in its lee. This reduction is greatest 

immediately shoreward of the unit, with the 

waves thereafter progressively recovering some 

energy as they continue to travel toward the 

shore, by a process that is termed wave 

diffraction3

. However, the energy gained by the 

waves in the shadow zone is derived from the 

adjacent portions of the wave crests, so their 

heights outside that directly sheltered area are 

reduced by this diffraction process. The effect 

of having locally extracted energy from the 

waves therefore spreads, having started out as 

the effective width of the extracting unit but 

progressively widening as the waves move 

toward the shore. By the time the waves reach 

 

2

 The Reedsport Wave Energy Park is being developed by 

Ocean Power Technology on the southern Oregon coast, 

about 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) offshore in about 50-meters 

water depth. The plan is to initially deploy 10 energyextraction buoys (PowerBuoy) in the summer or fall of 

2009, later to be expanded to 200 units. 

3

 Diffraction is the movement of energy along the crest of a 

wave due to variations in the height and energy level of the 

wave (Komar 1998). It is often accompanied by wave 

refraction where the speed of the advancing wave crest 

depends on the water depth (fastest where the depth is 

greatest), resulting in a bending of the crests and changes in 

their directions of approach to the shore. 
165

the beach, the potentially impacted area could 

have widened considerably, affecting a long 

stretch of shore, although the degree of waveheight and energy reduction in the line extending 

from the unit to the shore would not be as great 

as that which had occurred in the immediate lee 

of the unit. 

The magnitudes of the reduced wave heights 

become significantly greater and the diffraction 

patterns more complex when multiple extraction 

units are present (forming a “wave farm”), as 

they will always be in commercial systems 

designed to maximize the derived electrical 

energy. Each individual unit will tend to 

produce a wave-diffraction pattern as described 

above, but their respective modified waves 

interact and combine as they move toward the 

shore. This is illustrated in Figure 1, derived 

from the numerical diffraction/refraction models 

developed by Venugopal and Smith (2007) to 

analyze the wave reduction created by a 

hypothetical series of five extracting units. 

While the extraction system is hypothetical and 

its dynamics assumed, the site modeled is the 

European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) on the 

western shore of the Orkney Islands, Scotland, 

established to become a prototype-testing site 

for unit designs. The water depths (65 to 2.5 

meters) in the analyzed area represent the actual 

bathymetry of the EMEC, as does the wave 

climate; the models in Figure 1 are for a deepwater significant wave height of 4 meters and a 

10-second wave period. 

The examples in Figure 1 for the series of 

models by Venugopal and Smith (2007) are for 

an array of five extraction units in a line 

approximately parallel to the coast (which is 

rocky and irregular), positioned 3.5 to 4 

kilometers offshore in 50-meter water depth. 

The individual units are bottom mounted and 

ridged, this “design” having been determined by 

the numerical models employed, which cannot 

account for wave-induced motions of the units 

and therefore cannot be satisfactorily applied to 

analyses of floating buoys. Each extraction unit 

in the model is 10 meters wide by 160 meters 

long, with 160-meter spaces (gaps) where the 

arriving wave energy can pass through the array. 

The series of models involved a range of 

assumed “porosities”, representing the loss in 

energy due to wave reflection and the energy 

extracted by the individual units. 

The first model in the series, Figure 1(a), 

represents the natural condition in the absence of 

a wave farm. In addition to serving as a 

comparison where an array is included, this 

analysis demonstrates that there are natural 

variations in the significant wave heights in the 

shoreward direction. The wave heights are 

affected by the normal shoaling transformations 

of waves, but in this example there is a marked 

reduction in wave heights caused by bottom 

friction. Thus, according to the model results, at 

this site there is a natural trend of decreasing 

wave heights in the onshore direction, which 

locally will be enhanced by the presence of an 

array of extraction units. The most extreme 

example is seen in Figure 1(b) where the 

porosity is close to zero, in effect representing a 

series of solid structures with short gaps 

between. It is seen that according to the model, 

the significant wave heights in the shadow zone 

are smaller than 1 meter, a substantial reduction 

from their original 4-meter heights in the 

offshore. 

The third model run, Figure 1(c), is a more 

realistic assessment of the effects of a series of 

extracting units, with a porosity = 0.7 having 

been assumed for the individual units. As 

expected there are reduced wave heights in the 

shadow zones of the individual units, but again 

energy diffracts into those zones from the waves 

that pass through the gaps. That initial recovery 

is followed by a general reduction in wave 

heights in the shoreward direction as the 

expanding sheltered zones behind the series of 5 

units merge, also affected by bottom friction as 

depicted in Figure 1(a). Overall the reduction in 

wave heights is noticeably greater than seen for 

the natural condition in Figure 1(a), but having a 

complex pattern of variations due to the 

inclusion of multiple extraction units. It should 

be recognized that this pattern changes as the 

heights, periods, and directions of waves 

arriving from deep water vary from day to day. 
166

Figure 1. Model analyses by Venugopal and Smith (2007) of the reduced wave heights shoreward of a 

hypothetical wave farm off the Orkney Islands. (a) natural condition in absence of wave farm (b) wave 

array with porosity close to zero (c) wave array with porosity=0.7. 

While these model results were for 

hypothetical fixed extraction units placed on the 

seafloor and for conditions specific to the EMEC 

in Scotland, the results provide guidance as to 

the expected patterns of wave-height and energy 

reductions in the shadow zone of a wave farm 

constructed on the U.S. Pacific Northwest coast. 

However, wave farms will almost always consist 
167

of multiple lines of units, with the second line 

extracting energy that had passed through the 

first. Typically the second line of buoys would 

be set shoreward of the first with positions to 

occupy the gaps in the first line of buoys, 

extracting energy from the waves that had 

passed through the gaps. There might be a third 

line, again offset to occupy the gaps in the 

second line. Such an array is designed to 

maximize the wave energy extraction, but it is 

apparent that there would be a greater reduction 

in wave heights in its shadow zone compared 

with that seen in Figure 1 from the models of 

Venugopal and Smith (2007) for a single line of 

units. It can therefore be expected that with the 

development of a full-scale wave farm 

consisting of a large number of extracting units 

in a two-dimensional array, there could be 

significant reductions in wave heights and 

energies along the coast, potentially extending 

for kilometers in the shoreward direction and 

affecting the beaches. Furthermore, the 

development of numerical models for such an 

array will be considerably more complex than 

that for a single line, increasing the uncertainties 

in the model’s capacity to predict the 

environmental impacts. 

In addition to affecting wave energies and 

patterns of diffraction and refraction, the 

presence of a wave farm will become an 

obstacle to the flow of wind-driven currents in 

the shallow-water continental shelf, and could 

alter the structure of the water column 

(variations in temperatures and salinity with 

depth). While there will be some effect by 

individual extraction units, the collective 

impacts of a large number of units in an array 

will be important. It is expected that when fully 

developed, a wave farm would consist of 

hundreds of units extending along an 

appreciable length of coast, so there could be a 

measurable effect on the currents and a 

modification of the water column. In addition, 

the water currents in the nearshore—on the 

ocean beaches—are driven by the waves, so any 

reduction in wave heights or altered angles of 

arrival at the shore could change the magnitudes 

and directions of those currents, in turn affecting 

the longshore transport of sand on the beaches. 

Potential environmental impacts 

From the magnitudes of the potential 

reductions in wave energies and the effects on 

ocean currents, there is a distinct possibility of 

there being significant changes in the physical 

environment resulting from the construction of a 

wave farm. Analyses like those in Figure 1 

provide guidance as to what those impacts might 

be, and where they would be greatest. However, 

at this stage in the development of wave farms, 

this unfortunately remains somewhat 

speculative. There has been only limited 

reported use of numerical models extended to 

assessments of the processes that would be 

responsible, such as the transport of sediment on 

the continental shelf and beaches. And of 

particular importance, no field experiments have 

documented the impacts of individual unit 

designs on a prototype scale, and no experience 

has been derived from the construction of a 

complete wave farm consisting of multiple units. 

The objective here is to consider what those 

impacts might be, framed in the context of the 

Pacific Northwest. 

Environmental changes in the offshore can 

certainly be expected, particularly in the 

immediate lee of the wave farm where the waveheight reductions are greatest. From the 

complicated patterns of the affected waves, 

evident in Figure 1(c) for even a single line of 

buoys, it can be expected that there would be a 

parallel complexity in the responses of the 

seafloor sediments. That would be further 

complicated by the presence of superimposed 

shelf currents (also affected by the wave farm) 

with the transport of sediment and resulting 

patterns of erosion versus sediment deposition 

being the product of the combined waves and 

currents. There are numerical models that have 

been developed to quantitatively evaluate 

sediment transport rates under combined waves 

and currents, so there is the potential that model 

analyses can be expanded to assess the changes 

in sediment-transport patterns in the shadow 

zone of a proposed wave farm. With the wave 

energies on average being reduced, there would 

be a tendency for sediments to accumulate in the 

lee of the array, producing some shoaling and 

possibly a change in grain sizes of the bottom 
168

sediments (likely a shift to finer sediment, and 

possibly a change from a rocky seafloor to 

sand). Those changes would have a feedback 

effect on the processes, for example altering the 

patterns of wave refraction if shoaling had 

significantly changed the water depths. Such a 

modification of the wave refraction would be 

carried to the shore, the altered angles of waves 

breaking on the beaches affecting the longshore 

currents and sand transport. 

It is unfortunate that there have been only 

limited investigations of sediment-transport 

processes on the continental shelves of the 

Pacific Northwest, and research elucidating the 

causes of long-term sediment erosion areas 

versus accumulation areas. The one region of 

concentrated research has been that in proximity 

to the mouth of the Columbia River (the 

Columbia River Littoral Cell), but the 

extrapolation of its results to the Oregon 

continental shelf is uncertain, there being no 

counterpart to the Columbia River and therefore 

only limited sources of sediment. Although 

numerical models may eventually include 

assessments of sediment transport affected by 

the construction of a wave farm, their 

predictions for the Oregon coast would be 

uncertain. For example, while it can be 

expected that there would be sediment 

accumulation in the shadow zone of a wave 

farm, it is doubtful whether one could predict 

with confidence whether that sediment was 

transported there by shelf currents modified by 

the array, or was carried offshore from the ocean 

beach. 

 The range of beach processes can be 

expected to be directly affected by the 

installation of a wave farm, as most of those 

processes in shallow water are driven by the 

heights and energies of the waves (Komar 

1998). With a reduction in wave heights on the 

beaches, surf-zone widths could be significantly 

reduced from their natural widths. The 

magnitudes of the longshore currents and sandtransport rates could also experience reductions 

because they depend on the heights of the 

breaking waves. As indicated above, changes in 

wave refraction and shoaling would affect the 

angles at which the waves break on the beaches, 

also altering the nearshore currents and sandtransport rates, and in some instances even their 

directions along the shore. This potentially 

could produce significant shifts in the shorelines, 

with erosion focused along some stretches of 

beach and accumulation of eroded transported 

sand widening other stretches of beach. 

Only recently have researchers begun to 

analyze the consequences of the energy 

reductions by a wave farm, having extended the 

analyses to the shore to assess the wave-height 

reductions. Miller et al. (2007) have undertaken 

such investigations, though still limited in scope: 

analyses of the potential impacts of the future 

development of the Wave Hub system off the 

coast of southwest England. The proposed site 

would be at a depth of 50 to 60 meters, but well 

offshore, some 20 kilometers seaward of St. Ives 

Bay, Cornwall. The objective of their study was 

to estimate how much the shoreline wave 

climate would be changed; specifically, the 

analyses were for the 10-meter water depth 

contour, but did not actually address the effects 

on the beaches (even though “the sensitivity of 

shoreline change” is part of the title of their 

paper). In many respects their investigation was 

comparable to that of Venugopal and Smith 

(2007) discussed above, having focused on the 

magnitudes and patterns of the combined wave 

diffraction and refraction of the reduced waves 

in the shadow zone as the waves move toward 

the coast. The analyses by Miller et al. (2007) 

were again for a hypothetical wave farm, 

because it has not been determined which 

extraction-unit technology will be used. The 

primary advance of their study was that their 

analyses included the full range of wave heights, 

periods, and directions for the coast of Cornwall, 

with results provided for the wave-height 

reductions at the 10-meter depth for nearly a 

100-kilometer length of that coast. Their overall 

conclusion was that the wave-height reductions 

would be small, and “There is little cause for 

concern that effects introduced by the Wave Hub 

will be felt by shoreline users of the sea.” 

(Miller et al. 2007, p. 900). However, this 

conclusion cannot be extended to all wave 

farms, it largely being the result of the 20-

kilometer offshore distance of the proposed 

Wave Hub site. Their investigation does serve 
169

as an example of the types of analyses that are 

needed to assess the potential impacts of a wave 

farm on a coast, but it is also necessary to 

consider the changes in the range of beach 

processes and the potentially induced shoreline 

erosion. 

It can be expected that there will be 

consequences from the construction and 

operation of wave farms to people who live 

along the coast and those who visit for 

recreation. There likely will be positive 

reactions by some individuals to the prospects of 

the reduction in wave energies at the shore, 

particularly those who own shore-front 

properties and believe that this will reduce their 

threat of erosion by winter storms. That broadly 

will be the case, but as noted above, in detail the 

changes in wave energies and beach widths will 

be more complex than that simple view. 

Furthermore, there can be expected to be 

impacts that are more definitely negative. In 

particular, the reduction in wave heights will not 

be welcomed by most surfers. The existence of 

high-energy surf is also important to the mixing 

and dilution of pollutants that reach the 

nearshore, with the seaward-directed rip currents 

flushing them offshore. With coastal pollution 

increasingly becoming a problem along the 

Oregon and Washington shores, it could be 

exacerbated by the reduction in wave-energy 

levels. Significant negative impacts could also 

occur along the rocky shores, to the tidepool life 

that is adapted to the presence of high waves and 

depends on their oscillations and wave-driven 

currents for the delivery of food and dispersal of 

their larvae (discussed in other sections of this 

report). 

It is our conclusion that the potential 

impacts of wave-energy extraction to the 

physical environment could be extensive. It is 

important that research be directed toward these 

possible consequences, drawing on the studies 

being undertaken on other coasts, as well as 

along the shores of Oregon and Washington. 

Monitoring the environmental responses 

Extreme waves and currents will be 

experienced by wave farms developed along the 

coast of the Pacific Northwest, with the 

environmental responses likely exceeding those 

produced by installations on other coasts. This 

will place special demands on their designs, and 

as discussed here, require the implementation of 

a program to document the resulting 

environmental responses. Such a program 

would be more than simple “monitoring”— 

instead it should be viewed as being an 

“experiment,” conducted so that future designs 

can benefit from the experiences at the 

developed wave-farm sites and reduce impacts 

to the physical environments and ecosystems. 

The wave farm designs for the Pacific 

Northwest, as elsewhere, will be based in large 

part on numerical models. It was seen in the 

above review that the models applied thus far 

have focused on analyses of the wave diffraction 

and refraction, beginning with the reduced wave 

heights after a significant portion of their energy 

has been extracted, and following the waves as 

they move toward the shore. For the most part 

those wave models should yield reasonable 

results when applied to the Pacific Northwest. 

However, as discussed by Venugopal and Smith 

(2007), problems remain if the analyses need to 

include the dynamics of the energy-extraction 

units, as would be the case when the units 

consist of buoys whose motions have a feedback 

effect on the waves. This may be important on 

the Pacific Northwest coast in that energyextracting buoys are likely the most viable 

technology. 

Applications of wave diffraction/refraction 

numerical models require accurate data on water 

depths, the bathymetry of the seafloor. This is 

seldom available from surveys along the Pacific 

Northwest coast with the desired accuracy and 

of recent vintage, particularly for the 

intermediate water depths from 50 meters to the 

shore and including profiles of the beaches at the 

site of interest. Hence, the program of data 

collection in any proposed development site 

needs to be initiated during the design stage to 

supply the required depth surveys and 

preconstruction data that is also needed for 

comparisons with the environmental changes 

that occur following construction. 
170

Particularly problematic in the design 

process will be the use of numerical models 

applied to analyze the transport of sediment by 

the modified waves and currents, to predict areas 

of seafloor erosion or sediment accumulation. 

As discussed above, in general the application of 

such models is a challenge with the results 

uncertain, being even more so in applications to 

the Pacific Northwest due to the extreme energy 

levels of the processes, well above those 

included in the testing and calibration of the 

models. This includes the models applied to the 

processes and morphologic responses of the 

Pacific Northwest beaches. Our experience is 

that their results may be particularly unreliable, 

since the physics of the processes on these highenergy, low-sloping (dissipative) beaches differ 

significantly from laboratory wave tanks and 

low-energy beaches (e.g., U.S. East Coast and 

European) where those models have been tested. 

As things stand there will be significant 

levels of uncertainty in the design of wave farms 

to be constructed in the Pacific Northwest. It is 

therefore important that the ensuing responses of 

the environments be carefully documented, at 

least for the first few developments that will 

serve as tests of the designs and impacts. In 

view of this importance we considered what 

would be needed to document the changes in the 

processes and environmental responses, the 

scope of a monitoring program. This 

consideration was directed specifically toward 

the wave farm being proposed for development 

at Reedsport, because it is expected to be the 

first, though our recommended “experiment” 

could have been directed toward any proposed 

wave farm in the Pacific Northwest. 

The components of the experiment are 

depicted schematically in Figure 2. The depth 

contours represent 10-meter increments, with the 

rectangular box being the aerial extent of the 

proposed energy-extraction array. The critical 

component of the recommended measurement 

program is directed toward a documentation of 

the waves and currents in the sheltered lee of the 

wave farm, guided at this stage by the model 

results in Figure 1 and to be refined once similar 

analyses have been completed specifically for 

this development site. From the complex 

patterns of the reduced waves seen in Figure 1, it 

is apparent that the wave-measurement sites in 

Figure 2 need to span what is expected to be the 

approximate width of the expanding wavediffraction zone shoreward of the wave farm. 

An additional two sites up- and down-coast from 

the diffraction zone are included to measure the 

natural changes in waves and currents beyond 

the impacts of the proposed wave farm. Each 

data-collection system would be equipped to 

measure wave heights, periods, and directions at 

hourly intervals, the times corresponding to 

measurements being collected in deep water 

offshore by the National Data Buoy Center of 

NOAA. 

In addition to measuring the waves at each 

of these sites, the mean currents also need to be 

measured to determine the extent to which they 

are modified by the drag of the array of multiple 

buoys. Two of the data-collection systems in 

Figure 2 are designated for measuring water 

temperatures and salinities, relevant to 

interpretations of the origins of the measured 

mean currents and potential changes in the 

upper-ocean structure. The data derived from 

this core set of measurements would be 

fundamental to documenting the effects of the 

wave farm on ocean processes, and would serve 

as the basis for analyses of the resulting 

environmental (and biological) alterations 

experienced at this site. 

Accompanying this documentation of the 

changes in waves and currents would be surveys 

of the altered seafloor bathymetry and bottom 

sediments. Surveys of the water depths can 

realistically be undertaken only with personal 

watercraft (jet-skis), because the depths range 

from 50 meters offshore to the shallow-water 

surf of the beaches. The use of jet-skis in such 

surveys has been shown to yield good 

bathymetric data, including that in studies along 

the Oregon and Washington coasts (Ruggiero et 

al. 2005). Surveys of the dry portions of the 

beaches are also needed, and thanks to the recent 

development of Global Positioning System 

(GPS) survey technologies this can be 

accomplished at relatively little expense. The 

beach surveys can extend to wading depths, 

overlapping with the jet-ski surveys, but 
171

Figure 2: Sketch of the recommended monitoring program directed toward the proposed wave farm at 

Reedsport, Oregon. 

undertaken at least on a monthly basis to 

account for the seasonal cycles in beach profiles 

experienced along the Pacific Northwest coast 

(Komar 1997). As noted above, surveys 

offshore and on the beaches need to be initiated 

prior to the construction of the wave farm, in 

order to document the natural conditions before 

development. 

Figure 2 includes a sampling program for 

the periodic collection of seafloor sediments, to 

document their changes in response to the 

construction of the wave farm. Data would be 

related to the altered seafloor bathymetry and 

provide evidence for whether the sediment 

source was offshore or from the landward 

beaches. Such a sampling program is also 

expected to be important to investigations of 

potential changes in the bottom fauna, so any 

sampling program needs input from marine 

biologists; that shown in Figure 2 is only a 

tentative suggestion. If in the design stage the 

analyses indicate that significant degrees of 

seafloor erosion or sediment accumulation can 

be anticipated from the construction of the wave 

farm, it is recommended that several cores be 

collected across the study area, to be analyzed to 

determine the site’s long-term history of 

sedimentation (hundreds of years to a thousand 

years). 

There are additional components in Figure 2 

that if included in the monitoring would 

considerably improve documentation of the 

effects of the wave farm on the physical 

environment. First, radar measurements of 

water currents, based on analyses of the effect of 

currents on wave advance, have demonstrated 

that this technology can provide detailed 

documentation of the water currents across the 

entire area, beyond the few sites where direct 

measurements from in situ data-collection 

systems are obtained (McGregor et al. 1998, 

Bell et al. 2004, Kosro 2005). Also depicted is 

the inclusion of a video tower, the analyses of 

video records having become common for 

measuring beach processes (e.g., longshorecurrent velocities and runup levels of waves at 

the shore). This technique can also provide 

documentation of the changing bathymetry of 

the beaches, especially needed during storms 

when wave energies are too extreme for jet-ski 

surveys (Holland et al. 1997, Holman and 

Stanley 2007). 
172

We believe it is imperative that monitoring 

and experiments as outlined here be undertaken 

at the first few sites developed along the Pacific 

Northwest coast. The estimated costs of such an 

undertaking would be relatively minor in 

comparison with the costs of design and 

construction. At the same time the demands and 

complexity of such an undertaking should not be 

underestimated; a team of experienced 

investigators will be required. 

Summary and discussion 

At this stage in the development of wave 

farms along the shores of the Pacific Northwest 

we are close to “flying blind.” There has been 

little experience in the design, construction, and 

operation of such systems along the world’s 

coastlines, so we have little to guide us on the 

Pacific Northwest coast. To date detailed 

consideration and analyses of the potential 

environmental impacts of wave energy 

extraction have been minimal during the design 

stage, but what few analyses have been 

completed imply that they could be significant. 

Most lacking is documentation of the impacts of 

constructed prototypes on the physical (and 

biological) environments, although it is 

understood that monitoring of European sites is 

underway. Therefore, the development of wave 

farms along the Pacific Northwest coast should 

proceed with caution. During the design 

process, analyses should include projections of 

the potential environmental consequences, and 

prior to and following construction the 

installation should be monitored through the 

implementation of a data-collection program 

along the lines of that depicted in Figure 2. 

Specific findings of this review of the 

potential changes in the physical environment 

include the following: 

• Numerical models of the wave reduction 

by wave farms indicate that wave 

heights in the sheltered lee of the 

structure could be significantly lowered, 

and the patterns of diffraction and 

refraction of the waves as they move 

toward the shore would be complex, 

extending for at least 10 kilometers with 

consequences to the beaches (both 

negative and positive). 

• There is a need for field investigations 

of the environmental changes that result 

from the construction of wave farms. 

This is critical for wave farms 

constructed on the coast of the Pacific 

Northwest, due to its extreme waves and 

currents and the fairly unique processes 

and responses of its beaches. 

• Based on evidence from numerical 

models that have analyzed wave 

reductions shoreward of typical wave 

farms (Venugopal and Smith 2007, 

Miller et al. 2007), it is probable that 

lowered waves will be experienced on 

the beaches of the Pacific Northwest, 

affecting a range of natural processes 

and the recreational activities of beach 

visitors. 

The high wave energy along the shores of 

the Pacific Northwest has considerable potential 

as a renewable resource. On the other hand, 

there are potential environmental consequences, 

especially when those developments achieve 

their fully planned-for extents, with each wave 

farm potentially consisting of hundreds of 

energy-extracting units extending for kilometers 

along the shore. It is important that we have a 

better understanding of these potential 

consequences before the implementation of 

whole-scale deployment along the Pacific 

Northwest coast. To accomplish this, a dialog 

needs be established between the developers of 

the proposed wave farms, specifically their 

engineers and scientists responsible for the 

technical analyses, and experts in those areas 

available at the state universities and 

government agencies. There is considerable 

experience available from those local experts, 

including applications of the most advanced 

numerical models available for analyses of the 

effects of a wave farm on the waves and 

currents, the collection and analysis of field data 

for the waves and currents, and investigations of 

the sediment and morphology responses on the 

continental shelf and beaches. As reviewed 

here, the development of a wave farm is a 

complex technological undertaking with 
173

uncertain environmental consequences. It is 

important that we work together to address these 

issues. 

Literature Cited 

Allan, J. C., and P. D. Komar. 2006. Climate 

controls on US West Coast erosion processes. J. 

Coastal Res. 22:511–529. 

Bell, P. S., J. J. Williams, S. Clark, B. D. Morris, and 

A. Vila-Concejo. 2004. Nested radar systems 

for remote observations. J. Coastal Res. Special 

Issue 39. 

Holland, K. T., R. A. Holman, T. C. Lippmann, 

J. Stanley, and N. Plant. 1997. Practical use of 

video imagery in nearshore oceanographic field 

studies. J. Ocean Eng. 22:81–92. 

Holman, R. A., and J. Stanley. 2007. A history and 

technical capabilities of Argus. Coast. Eng. 

54:477–491. 

Komar, P. D. 1997. The Pacific Northwest Coast: 

Living with the shores of Oregon and 

Washington. Duke University Press, Durham, 

North Carolina. 

Komar, P. D. 1998. Beach processes and 

sedimentation. 2nd edition. Prentice Hall, New 

Jersey. 

Kosro, P. M. 2005. On the spatial structure of 

coastal circulation off Newport, Oregon, during 

spring and summer 2001 in a region of varying 

shelf width. J. Geophys. Res. 110:C10S06, 

Online at http://dx.doie.ort [DOI number 

10.1029/2004JC002769, accessed 1 March 

2008]. 

McGregor, J. A., E. M. Poulter, and M. J. Smith. 

1998. S band Doppler radar measurements of 

bathymetry, wave energy fluxes, and dissipation 

across an offshore bar. J. Coastal Res. 

103:28779–18789. 

Miller, D. L., H. C. M. Smith, and D. E. Reeve. 

2007. Modelling analysis of the sensitivity of 

shoreline change to a wave farm. Ocean Eng. 

34:884–901. 

Ruggiero, P., G. M. Kaminsky, G. Gelfenbaum, and 

B. Voight. 2005. Seasonal to interannual 

morphodynamics along a high-energy dissipative 

littoral cell. J. Coastal Res. 21:553–578. 

Venugopal, V., and G. H. Smith. 2007. Wave 

investigation for an array of wave power devices. 

In Proc. 7th European Wave and Tidal Energy 

Conference, Porto, Portugal, 11–13 September 

2007.