Saturday, September 29, 2007
REEDSPORT WAVE ENERGY - UPDATE
Of the seven wave energy development proposals on the Oregon coast, the Reedsport project is farthest along. Ocean Power Technologies (OPT) is hoping to secure necessary permits to install 14 buoys about 2.5 miles off the coast of Gardiner within the next year or so. Ultimately, OPT hopes to expand to an array of 200 buoys. Surfrider has a formal seat in the state sponsored settlement process that is helping guide how the federal permitting process moves forward. Our priorities include addressing: environmental impacts, conflicts with ocean recreation, public safety, and aesthetics. Recently, Surfrider submitted written arguments for stronger research and monitoring for electromagnetic fields (EMF) that would be produced by project. OPT has already agreed to conduct some field monitoring based on this memo, and discussions are ongoing to determine what field research might be conducted. To read the memo, see first comment to this post. Thanks to Kristen and Stiv for all their support on this!
Comments:
<< Home
To: Ocean Power Technologies
From: Oregon Chapter Surfrider
Date August 31, 2007
Re: Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and Reedsport Wave Energy Project
The Oregon Chapter of Surfrider Foundation appreciates the interest of Ocean Power Technologies and the Aquatic Species Subgroup in addressing concerns related to electromagnetic fields (EMF) associated with the proposed Reedsport Wave Energy project. Listed below are Surfrider findings and recommendations on the EMF issue based on a review of the Preliminary Application Document (PAD), as well as an independent literature review and personal communications with scientists.
Surfrider Findings
• The Kaneohe Bay and Cape Wind assessments should not preclude careful research and monitoring during development, short-term, and long-term operations in Oregon’s coastal ocean. The weight of evidence for ecological safety is limited with respect to elasmobranches and other marine species (both local and migratory). Wave energy is just emerging as a technology; using the existing limited data sets to speculate on the likelihood of potential impacts sets a bad precedent for large-scale development of renewable ocean energy. The Hawaii project is small-scale compared to the extent of the OPT Reedsport proposal and the Cape Wind assessments may apply to undersea cables, but not the buoys.
• OPT asserts that the armoring and grounding of the undersea cable will not emit frequencies to cause attraction or confusion for sharks. This argues for strict monitoring of the proper functioning of the cable to ensure armoring and grounding do not fail.
• The COWRIE (Collaborative Offshore Wind Research into the Environment) recent reports include more extensive literature reviews and compilations about the effects of EMF. COWRIE has asserted that a greater understanding of the environmental impact of EMF emissions is urgently required for its planned wind program, owing to the lack of current knowledge and the scale of proposed installations. COWRIE has identified a broad set of studies to investigate potential effects of EMF.
Recommendations
• Frequencies and field levels of EMF should be monitored and further quantified as part of permitting conditions for placement of PowerBuoys in the project area.
• Agencies and the permit applicant should scope research to monitor for attraction and other changes in faunal behavior. Such studies should be included as a condition for permitting. Fauna should not be limited to just sharks. Impacts on other similar elasmobranch species (which are abundant in Oregon’s ocean waters, such as skates and rays) should be considered. Species of concern should be determined (e.g., elasmobranchs, salmon species, crustaceans, zooplankton, benthic fauna), and a scientifically-sound monitoring plan should be developed to assess impacts.
• Permitting should require regular monitoring of the condition of Faraday enclosures, including on-going monitoring of electrical and magnetic fields; this monitoring should include triggers for corrective actions.
• Permit applicant should be asked to explain the conditions under which the Faraday enclosure could fail, and permit conditions should establish contingencies for unexpected results or outcomes with respect to EMF and undersea cables.
• Permit applicant and agencies should carefully review and consider the COWRIE studies on EMF to help develop monitoring and research requirements for this OPT project.
• Draft monitoring and research plans should be made available for public review, as part of the permitting process.
• The permit, if granted, should require easy public access to monitoring results (such as a project website).
Post a Comment
From: Oregon Chapter Surfrider
Date August 31, 2007
Re: Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and Reedsport Wave Energy Project
The Oregon Chapter of Surfrider Foundation appreciates the interest of Ocean Power Technologies and the Aquatic Species Subgroup in addressing concerns related to electromagnetic fields (EMF) associated with the proposed Reedsport Wave Energy project. Listed below are Surfrider findings and recommendations on the EMF issue based on a review of the Preliminary Application Document (PAD), as well as an independent literature review and personal communications with scientists.
Surfrider Findings
• The Kaneohe Bay and Cape Wind assessments should not preclude careful research and monitoring during development, short-term, and long-term operations in Oregon’s coastal ocean. The weight of evidence for ecological safety is limited with respect to elasmobranches and other marine species (both local and migratory). Wave energy is just emerging as a technology; using the existing limited data sets to speculate on the likelihood of potential impacts sets a bad precedent for large-scale development of renewable ocean energy. The Hawaii project is small-scale compared to the extent of the OPT Reedsport proposal and the Cape Wind assessments may apply to undersea cables, but not the buoys.
• OPT asserts that the armoring and grounding of the undersea cable will not emit frequencies to cause attraction or confusion for sharks. This argues for strict monitoring of the proper functioning of the cable to ensure armoring and grounding do not fail.
• The COWRIE (Collaborative Offshore Wind Research into the Environment) recent reports include more extensive literature reviews and compilations about the effects of EMF. COWRIE has asserted that a greater understanding of the environmental impact of EMF emissions is urgently required for its planned wind program, owing to the lack of current knowledge and the scale of proposed installations. COWRIE has identified a broad set of studies to investigate potential effects of EMF.
Recommendations
• Frequencies and field levels of EMF should be monitored and further quantified as part of permitting conditions for placement of PowerBuoys in the project area.
• Agencies and the permit applicant should scope research to monitor for attraction and other changes in faunal behavior. Such studies should be included as a condition for permitting. Fauna should not be limited to just sharks. Impacts on other similar elasmobranch species (which are abundant in Oregon’s ocean waters, such as skates and rays) should be considered. Species of concern should be determined (e.g., elasmobranchs, salmon species, crustaceans, zooplankton, benthic fauna), and a scientifically-sound monitoring plan should be developed to assess impacts.
• Permitting should require regular monitoring of the condition of Faraday enclosures, including on-going monitoring of electrical and magnetic fields; this monitoring should include triggers for corrective actions.
• Permit applicant should be asked to explain the conditions under which the Faraday enclosure could fail, and permit conditions should establish contingencies for unexpected results or outcomes with respect to EMF and undersea cables.
• Permit applicant and agencies should carefully review and consider the COWRIE studies on EMF to help develop monitoring and research requirements for this OPT project.
• Draft monitoring and research plans should be made available for public review, as part of the permitting process.
• The permit, if granted, should require easy public access to monitoring results (such as a project website).
<< Home
