59494-SU 2016 Special Use Application for PRPSpecial Use RINi1
Application Form -_uc -0-M
rEIVED $ _co
PARTMENTr-�OF STATEZ LANDS
J.f�- � �Qsc "S
AGENCY WILL ASSIGN NUMBER
Oregon Department of State Lands A lication No. R q q q " ,so
SEND COMPLETE AND SIGNED APPLICATION TO:
(West of the Cascade Crest)
(East of the Cascade Crest)
WESTERN REGION
EASTERN REGION
Department of State Lands
Department of State Lands
775 Summer Street NE, Suite 100 WWW,oregonstatelandS.Us 1645 NE Forbes Road, Suite 112
Salem, OR 97301-1279
Bend, OR 97701
503-986-5200
541-388-6112
FAX: 503-378-4844
FAX: 541-388-6480
® New ❑ Renewal
❑ Assignment ❑ Modification
❑ Amendment
1 - APPLICANT INFORMATION
Applicant's Name and Address:
Business Phone:_ 303-384-7192
Alliance for Sustainable Energy
Home Phone:
15013 Denver West Parkway, MSC RSF-053
Fax:
Lakewood, CO 80401
Email Address:levi.kilcher@nrel.gov
Co -Applicant's Name and Address:
Business Phone:_
Home Phone:
Fax:
Email Address:
Authorized Agent Name and Address:
Business Phone:_ 503-566-6883
CT Corporation System
Home Phone:
388 State St., Suite 420
Fax:
Salem, OR 97301
Email Address: -
2 - PROJECT LOCATION
Street, Road or other descriptive location
Legal Description
Lakeside: Latitude: 43.760, Longitude: -124.224
Township Range Section
Quarter
Reedsport: Latitude: 43.586, Longitude: -124.290
In or Near (City or Town)
County
Tax Map # Tax Lot #
Lakeside eedsport
Coos ou las
Waterway River Mile
Other
3 - PROJECT INFORMATION
Activity Type (Check all that apply):
❑ Agriculture
® Scientific experiments
❑ Communications facilities
❑ Sporting and other events
❑ Wind farms
❑ Outfitting and guiding services
❑ Industrial, business and commercial purposes
❑ Motion picture filming and set construction
❑ Residence and recreational cabins
❑ Other, please describe use:
❑ Native seed harvesting
Are you aware of any Endangered Species on the project site?
❑ Yes ® No
Are you aware of any Cultural Resources on the project site?
❑ Yes ® No
Is the project site near a State Scenic Waterway?
❑ Yes ® No
If yes, please explain in the project description (Section 4). How
will activity impact area and proposed mitigation?
4 - PROJECT PURPOSE & DESCRIPTION
❑ Existing
® Proposed
Project Purpose and Need: Wave device developers in the U.S. are preparing to deploy a new generation of wave energy
converter (WEC) devices at `early deployment' sites. These projects are expected to receive heightened public attention
throughout all stages of their lifecycle (design, installation, operation and decommissioning). This research project is designed to
better understand resource details in regions and sites that are likely to see early WEC deployments, but there are no plans to
deploy WEC devices as part of this project.
Numerical wave models are highly valuable tools for wave characterization. However, as usefiil and accurate as these tools are,
important questions about their accuracy in shallow water (<100 meters) along the U.S. West Coast still exist. In particular, these
models are known to under -predict the amplitude of large waves during large storm events ("extreme events"). Measurements
from this scientific research project will improve our understanding of the U.S. West Coast wave characteristics in shallow
waters and during storms, and the findings will be codified in a wave -classification scheme.
The wave measurements proposed for this project have two objectives:
-Measure resource details at wave sites that are likely to see early commercial deployment but are currently lacking
detailed public resource measurements
-Extend the dataset of detailed wave resource measurements for model validation that will assist the wave classification
scheme (WCS).
For wave energy, "detailed resource data" are defined as measurements that capture directional wave spectra during at least 90%
of 1 year at a water depth that is relevant to existing technologies suitable for that site. This site selection methodology builds on
the Marine Hydrokinetic Energy Site Identification and Ranking Methodology Part L• Wave Energy report (Kilcher 2016),
which identifies likely wave deployment locales ("hot spots") in U.S. waters. To meet the objective of making measurements at
early commercial sites, we stepped through the long -teen ranking of likely deployment locales and selecting the top-ranking
site within the locale that meets the following three criteria:
1. Is zoned for marine renewable energy projects (if the state has marine renewable energy zoning designations)
2. Is not occupied by an existing renewable energy project permit
3. Is a site where new measurements would be valuable to the wave classification scheme, in shallow water (<100 in; deep
measurements are considered >100 in), and there are no detailed shallow water resource data within 80 miles
(See attached Table 1. Ranked list of top 25 wave locales from the site identification long-term analysis.)
The state of Oregon is the top-ranked locale in the site identification long-term model. Oregon has also undergone a zoning
process that identified locations within the state's territorial sea where wave energy projects are more likely to be permitted.
Through that process, four sites were identified for commercial wave energy project development; from. north to south these are
Camp Rilea, Pacific City, Reedsport, and Lakeside. This project will not make measurements at Camp Rilea and Pacific City
sites because they are shallow water sites within 80 miles of existing shallow water data. Lakeside is covered under this pen -nit
application, Reedsport is covered under a separate pen -nit.
The Lakeside and Reedsport sites are shallow water sites that are more than 150 miles from the nearest shallow water buoy. The
Lakeside site is at 80 in water depth, and the Reedsport site is at 45 in water depth. Because these sites are so close together
(<10 miles), the added cost of making measurements at both (compared to only one) is minimal. These sites also have an
offshore, deep water (183 m) directional wave buoy that would be useful for measure -correlate -predict hind- and fore -casts at
these sites. This type of extended data record is likely to dramatically increase the value of these measurements for the Wave
Classification Scheme (WCS).
The Reedsport site was previously the location of an Ocean Power Technologies permit for wave energy project development.
However, according to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission dockets, Ocean Power Technologies surrendered its pen -nit in
2014. As a result, the Oregon Territorial Sea Plan indicates that the Reedsport site is no longer zoned for wave energy
development. Measurements at this site are especially valuable to model validation because it is a shallower site and has a wider
shelf than the Lakeside site. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect that this site could one day be re -zoned for wave energy
projects because it was previously zoned as such. In sununary, the Lakeside site is especially valuable as an early commercial
site, while the Reedsport site is valuable as a shallow water model validation point for the WCS.
Project Description:
This project will deploy a surface wave buoy (Datawell Waverider MKIII) at the Lakeside and Reedsport sites, and a Nortek
AST acoustic wave and current (AWAC) profiler at Reedsport. The buoy is approximately 3' in diameter and weighs nearly
5001bs. It floats in the ocean, half -submerged, within an anti -spin triangle and an antenna on top, to enable cellular
conununication. The AWAC is approximately 7.5" in diameter and 7" tall, and will be mounted on a T tripod (described
below).
For this deployment the buoy will be moored and anchored as shown in the attached documentation. The AWAC will be
mounted onto a Teledyne Oceanscience Sea Spider, and will sit on the ocean floor. The instrumentation will be deployed for 1
year, from October 2016 to October 2017. (See attached instrumentation specifications for more detailed information on the
instrumentation.)
The oceanographic instrumentation will be loaded on board the vessel at either Newport or Coos Bay harbor. Equipment will be
transited via vessel to the deployment locations and deployed using the ship's A -frame and winch system. The instrumentation
will be similarly recovered. All instrumentation, including all anchor equipment, will be removed at the end of the year.
Estimated Start Date: October 2016 Estimated Completion Date: October 2017
5 - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Names, address and phone number for adjacent property owners.
Not applicable.
Has the applicant received any prior authorizations from the Department of State Lands? ❑ Yes ® No
If yes, what identification number(s) were assigned:
State of Oregon #
-2-
6 - CITY/COUNTY PLANNING AFFIDAVIT
(to be completed by local planning official)
❑ This project is not regulated by the local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance.
❑ This project has been reviewed and is consistent with the local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance.
❑ This project has been reviewed and is not consistent with the local comprehensive plan and zone ordinance.
❑ Consistency of this project with the local planning ordinance cannot be determined until the following
local
approval(s) are obtained:
❑ Conditional Use Approval ❑ Development Permit
❑ Plan Amendment ❑ Zone Change
❑ Other:
An application ❑ has ❑ has not been made for local approvals checked above.
Signature of local planning official Title City / County
Date
7 - BUSINESS INFORMATION
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY: Complete the following
a) Do you have authority from the Oregon Secretary of State to do business in the State of Oregon?
® Yes ❑ No
b) Is the LLC presently in good standing with the Oregon Secretary of State?
® Yes ❑ No
c) In what state is the LLC primarily domiciled?.Delaware
d) Is the LLC name and the Oregon business address the same as stated in this application?
® Yes ❑ No
If no, state the legal Name:
Address:
15013 Denver West Pkwy MSC RSF-053 Lakewood
CO 80401
Street or Box Number City State
Zip Code
Additionally, a LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY must submit the following with the application:
a) A certified copy of the company's Articles of Organization
b) A copy of the company's operating agreement
CORPORATION: Complete the following:
a) Do you have authority from the Oregon Secretary of State to do business in the State of Oregon?
❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Is the corporation presently in good standing with the Oregon Secretary of State?
❑ Yes ❑ No
c) In what state are you incorporated?
d) Is the legal corporation name and Oregon business address the same as stated. in this application?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If no, state the legal Corporate Name:
Address:
Street or Box Number City State
Zip Code
PARTNERSHIP OR JOINT VENTURE: Complete the following
NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS %SHARE DIVISION
TRUST: Complete the following for each beneficiary of the Trust:
NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS
OR identify the Trust document by title, document number, and county where document is recorded:
TITLE DOCUMENT NUMBER COUNTY
A resolution that the individual designated to sign the lease is authorized to act on behalf of the company in this
matter.
8 - ATTACH ALL THE FOLLOWING FOR APPROVAL:
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL BE RETURNED
a) A street or highway location map with road directions to the site from the nearest main highway or road.
b) A legal description of the lease area with an accurate delineation of the area relative to the tax lot
boundaries of the upland parcel. (The department may require a survey for this purpose).
c) A separate drawing of all existing and proposed structures for the lease area. Label each separate activity
type stated in Section 3 and show the dimensions of each area by length and width, as stated in Section 3.
d) Supplemental Attachment: i.e for Communication
e) Non-refundable application fee of $750.
9 - APPLICANT SIGNATURE
I hereby request a state authorization for 1 (number) years.
)lication is hereby made for the activities described herein. I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in
application, and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, this information is true, complete, and accurate. I further
ify that I possess the authority to undertake the proposed activities. I understand that the granting of other permits by
il, county, state or federal agencies does not release me from the requirement of obtaining the authorization requested
Dre commencing the project. I understand that payment of the required state application fee does not guarantee
471C� COO/Deputy Laboratory Director
Applicant Signature Y Title
-a4 ._(-
Date
I appoint the person named below to act as my duly authorized agent.
Print /Type Name
Authorized
Updated 6/5/12
Date
-4-
Title
Attachment 1. Site map and instrumentation specifications
The proposed measurements in Oregon are along the central coast, offshore of Lakeside and
Reedsport (Figure 1). The measurements will collect data for 1 year, at which time all
measurement equipment will be removed. The measurement equipment will include two
Datawell MKIII wave buoys, as shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, and one Nortek AST acoustic
wave and current (AWAC) profiler (Figure 4) mounted on a Sea Spider or similar bottom lander
(Figure 5). The proposed locations for the measurements are detailed in Table 1 and illustrated in
Figure 1. One buoy and the AWAC will be installed at the Reedsport location, and the other
buoy will be deployed at the Lakeside location.
Table 1: Measurement Locations
Latitude Longitude Instruments
Lakeside 43.760 north 124.224 west MKIII
Reedsport 43.586 north 124.290 west MKIII + AWAC
The map below shows a section of the central Oregon coastline near Reedsport and Lakeside,
where NREL researchers propose performing wave measurements. The two yellow balloons
indicate the proposed measurement locations. The cyan balloon shows the location of an existing
deep -water buoy. The green box indicates the location of REFSSA #4 from Part 5 of the Oregon
Territorial Sea Plan.
Figure 1: Map of measurement deployment sites
Both of the Datawell MKIII buoys will be deployed as shown in Figure 2. The buoy is
approximately 3' in diameter and weighs nearly 500 lbs. It floats in the ocean, half -submerged,
within an anti -spin triangle with an antenna on top to enable cellular communication. For this
15013 Denver West Parkway NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy
Golden, CO 80401 Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
Phone 303-275-3000 Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
deployment, the buoy will be moored and anchored as shown in Figure 3. The anchor weight
may be chain (as illustrated) or several railroad wheels, depending on the ocean dynamics in
Oregon. The buoy will occupy an area called the `watch circle', with a radius approximately
equal to the depth of the anchor, so 45 m for Reedsport, and 80m for Lakeside.
Figure 2: Datawell MKIII buoy
Buoy Watcdepth
Disactional Wnvcrider 60 m < D <200 m
Non -directional Waverider 30.<D<200.
rubber cord
10 in Directional W averider
IS on non-dirsctional Wnverider
distance:
0.73 D - mbher cord length
sinkcr (s) 1 Kg
sea Tsbla 1.8.1
PP rope: length 2-13 - rubber cord length
In-line Boat 3 Kg (approx. l m above seabed)
I Inch shackle mild steal
=bar weight (approx. 300 Kg scrap chain for 0.7 at buoy)
(approx. 100 Kg scrap chain for 0.9 m buoy)
Figure 3: Mooring and anchor configuration for Datawell buoy
15013 Denver West Parkway NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy
Golden, CO 80401 Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
Phone 303-275-3000 Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
The AWAC profiler is pictured in Figure 4 below. It is approximately 7.5" in diameter and 7"
tall.
For this deployment, the AWAC will be mounted onto a Teledyne Oceanscience Sea Spider,
which is pictured in Figure 5. The photo shows the deployment -ready configuration, complete
with twin pop-up buoys for recovery of the instrumentation, and the yellow acoustic release on
the deck, which safely and gently deploys the lander after it is lowered to the sea floor. The
AWAC is mounted on the platform (barely visible on the green plate in the photo). The Sea
Spider platform is 58" wide and 21" tall. It is made of fiberglass and weighs approximately 190
lbs.
Figure 4: Nortek AWAC AST instrument
Figure 5: Sea Spider bottom lander
15013 Denver West Parkway NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy
Golden, CO 80401 Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
Phone 303-275-3000 Operates) by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
Attachment 2
Table 1: Ranked List of the Top 25 Wave Locales from the Site
Identification Long -Term Analysis.
The following should be noted
about Table 1:
• Sites without measurements
in deep or shallow water are
identified as potential
measurement sites under this
project (green boxes).
• Numbers in the first column
indicate the priority for
measurements under this project
(the top five are bold to
emphasize sites scheduled for
measurement under this project).
• "✓" indicates whether
shallow or deep measurements
exist for that site/locale.
• N/A indicates a narrow shelf,
or a very wide shelf in the
shallow or deep measurement
columns, respectively.
• The Reedsport site is included
with the Lakeside site because
they are very close together and
the added cost of measuring at
Reedsport is minimal.
• Italics and lighter shading of
the second column breaks a
locale into its top sites (for the
locales that have sites identified
for measurements under this
effort)
Locale/Site
Shallow
MeasurementsMeasurements
Deep
Oregon
1
- Lakeside
✓
1
- Reedsport
✓
- Camp Rilea
✓
✓
- Pacific City
✓
✓
Northern California
- Eureka
✓
✓
2
-FortBragg
Washington
✓
✓
Central California
✓
✓
Southern California
✓
✓
Hawaii
N/A
✓
Puerto Rico
3
- Isabela
N/A
- Fajardo
N/A
North Carolina
- Nags Head
✓
N/A
4
-Cape Hatteras
✓
Majuro Marshall Islands
N/A
✓
New York
✓
N/A
Massachusetts
✓
N/A
Tutuila (American Samoa)
N/A
✓
Guam
N/A
✓
Saipan
N/A
✓
Rhode Island
✓
N/A
Alaska
5
- Kodiak
- Yakutat
✓
N/A
6
Maine
N/A
7
U.S. Virgin Islands
8
Ebeye (Marshall Islands)
N/A
The following should be noted
about Table 1:
• Sites without measurements
in deep or shallow water are
identified as potential
measurement sites under this
project (green boxes).
• Numbers in the first column
indicate the priority for
measurements under this project
(the top five are bold to
emphasize sites scheduled for
measurement under this project).
• "✓" indicates whether
shallow or deep measurements
exist for that site/locale.
• N/A indicates a narrow shelf,
or a very wide shelf in the
shallow or deep measurement
columns, respectively.
• The Reedsport site is included
with the Lakeside site because
they are very close together and
the added cost of measuring at
Reedsport is minimal.
• Italics and lighter shading of
the second column breaks a
locale into its top sites (for the
locales that have sites identified
for measurements under this
effort)
c9{
.. v=00
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
is used 10
This report 2 Ctiecklist
place Of part
Ecological Consultants
Biological Evaluation of the "Model Validation and Site
Characterization for Early Development MHK Sites and
Establishment of Wave Classification Scheme - Wave
Instrumentation Deployment" Project
Project # 3618-02
Prepared for:
U.S. Department of Energy
Golden Field Office
15013 Denver West Parkway
Golden, CO 80401
Prepared by:
H. T. Harvey & Associates
September 2016
1 125 16th Street, Suite 209 • Arcata, CA 95521 • Ph: 707.822.4141 • F: 707.822.4848 01
Table of Contents
Section1.0 Background.....................................................................................................................................................1
Section 2.0 Description of the Proposed Project..........................................................................................................
2
2.1 Project Purpose........................................................................................................................................................
2
2.2 Project Site................................................................................................................................................................
2
2.3 Project Equipment..................................................................................................................................................3
2.4 Deployment and Retrieval.....................................................................................................................................
7
Section 3.0 Listed Species and Critical Habitat in the Project Area.........................................................................10
3.1 Status of Species and Designated Critical Habitat...........................................................................................10
3.2 Biology of Special Status Species Likely to Occur in the Project Area.........................................................12
3.3 Critical Habitat.......................................................................................................................................................16
Section 4.0 Environmental Baseline Conditions..........................................................................................................17
4.1 Benthic Habitat......................................................................................................................................................17
4.2 Vessel Traffic and Navigation.............................................................................................................................18
Section5.0 Effects of the Action...................................................................................................................................19
5.1 Collision with project -related vessels.................................................................................................................19
5.2 Collision or direct impact by project -related equipment and materials........................................................
20
5.3 Habitat and Prey Resources.................................................................................................................................21
5.4 Entanglement or entrapment..............................................................................................................................
21
5.5 Exposure to wastes and discharges....................................................................................................................
22
5.6 General disturbance..............................................................................................................................................
22
5.7 Other causes of effects of the action.................................................................................................................
23
Section6.0 Determination...............................................................................................................................................24
Section7.0 Literature Cited.............................................................................................................................................25
Tables
Table 1: Measurement Locations..................................................................................................................................... 2
Table 2: Listed Marine Species in the Project Area.....................................................................................................10
Figures
Figure1: Measurement site locations.............................................................................................................................. 3
Figure2: Datawell MICH buoy........................................................................................................................................ 4
Figure 3: Mooring and anchor configuration for Datawell buoy................................................................................ 5
Figure 4: Nortek A%VAC AST instrument...................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 5: Sea Spider bottom lander.................................................................................................................................. 7
Biological Evaluation— i H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
Section 1.0 Background
The purpose of this Biological Evaluation (BE) is to address die effect of the "Model Validation and Site
Characterization for Early Development MHK Sites and Establishment of Wave Classification
Scheme — Wave Instrumentation Deployment" project (Proposed Project) on Endangered Species Act
(ESA) listed species and/or their designated critical habitat. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is
proposing to provide funding to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for this project (Proposed
Action).
The project involves deploying two wave buoys and a bottom -mounted wave and current profiler to
characterize wave energy resources off the coast of Oregon near Reedsport (approximately 4 km from shore
in 45 m water depth at 43.76°N, 124.22°)N) and Lakeside (approximately 5 km from shore in 80 m water
depth at 43.59°N, 124.29°W) (Proposed Project).
This BE addresses the Proposed Action in compliance with Section 7(c) of the ESA of 1973, as amended.
Section 7 of the ESA assures that, through informal consultation (or conferencing for proposed species) with
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), federal
actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened, endangered or proposed species, or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
The purpose of the Proposed Project is to characterize wave energy resources at early market marine and
hydrokinetic (MHK) sites. The project will be committed to the collection of high-fidelity wave
measurements at two sites selected for their energy -rich wave environments. The collected data will be used
for model validation and for the development of a wave classification scheme to facilitate the design of
economical wave energy conversion devices.
Biological Evaluation— 1 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
Section 2.0 Description of the Proposed Project
2.1 Project Purpose
The purpose of the Proposed Project is to gather high fidelity wave and tidal measurements, and to
characterize wave energy resources at early market MHK sites. The collected data will be used for model
validation and for the development of a wave classification scheme to facilitate the design of economical
wave energy conversion devices.
2.2 Project Site
The proposed measurements are along the central coast of Oregon at two locations: offshore of 1) Lakeside
and 2) Reedsport (Figure 1, Table 1). (Environmental and physical details of the sites are provided in Section
4.0, below.)
Table 1: Measurement Locations
Latitude Longitude Instruments
Reedsport 43.76 north 124.22 west MKIII + AWAC
Lakeside 43.59 north 124.29 west MKIII
Figure 1 shows a section of the central Oregon coastline near Reedsport and Lakeside, where NREL
researchers propose performing wave measurements. The two yellow balloons indicate the proposed
measurement locations. The blue balloon further offshore shows the location of an existing National Data
Buoy Center Waverider buoy (Station 46229). The green rectangle offshore of Lakeside indicates the location
of Renewable Energy Facility Suitability Study Area (REFSSA) #4 from Part 5 of the Oregon Territorial Sea
Plan.
Biological Evaluation— 2 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
Figure 1: Measurement site locations
2.3 Project Equipment
Project equipment will be deployed, collecting data, for one year (approximately October 2016 to October
2017), at which time all gear will be removed. The measurement equipment will include two Datawell MKIII
wave buoys, as shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, and one Nortek AST acoustic wave and current (AWAC)
profiler (Figure 4) mounted on a Sea Spider or similar bottom lander (Figure 5). One buoy and the
A\YAC/bottom lander will be installed at the Reedsport location, and the other buoy will be deployed at the
Lakeside location (Figure 1). Any project effects (e.g., Action Area) are expected to be limited to the actual
location where the gear is deployed and no further than 10 meters from each device.
The buoy is approximately 3 feet in diameter and weighs nearly 500 lbs. It floats in the ocean, half -
submerged, with an anti -spin triangle with an antenna on top to enable cellular communication (Figure 2).
For this deployment, the buoy will be moored and anchored as shown in Figure 3. The anchor weight is
expected to be chain (as illustrated in Figure 3); railroad wheels, depending on the ocean dynamics in
Oregon, may be a necessary alternative.
Biological Evaluation— 3 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
Figure 2: Datawell MKIII buoy
Biological Evaluation— H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
Buoy
Directional Waverider
Non -directional Waverider
Waterdepth
60m<D<200m
30m<D<200m
rubber cord
30 in Directional Waverider
15 in non -directional Waverider
distance:
0.75 D - rubber cord length
sinker (s) 1 Kg
see Table 5.$.1
PP rope: length 2*D - rubber cord length
in-line float 3 Kg (approx. 5 in above seabed)
1 inch shackle mild steel
anchor weight (apprux. 300 Kg scrap chain for 0.7 in buuy)
(approx. 500 Kg scrap chain for 0.9 in buoy)
Figure 3: Mooring and anchor configuration for Datawell buoy
Biological Evaluation— 5 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
The AWAC profiler is pictured in Figure 4 below. It is approximately 7.5 inches in diameter and 7 inches tall.
For this deployment, the AWAC will be mounted onto a Teledyne Oceanscience Sea Spider (Figure 5).
Figure 5 shows the deployment -ready configuration, with twin pop-up buoys for recovery of the
instrumentation and the yellow acoustic release on the deck, which safely and gently deploys the lander after it
is lowered to the sea floor. The AWAC is mounted on the platform (barely visible on the green plate in the
photo). The Sea Spider platform is 58 inches wide and 21 inches tall. It is made of fiberglass and weighs
approximately 190 lbs.
Figure 4: Nortek AWAC AST instrument
Biological Evaluation— 6 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
Figure 5: Sea Spider bottom lander
2.4 Deployment and Retrieval
Following a mooring assembly dry -run and testing of the data acquisition systems, the Datawell MKIII buoys
as well as the A�VAC and bottom lander will be deployed from the R/V Miss Linda (74 feet), a commercial
fishing boat converted for use as a research vessel. The R/V Miss Linda has an aft deck working space of 70
M2, and vessel assets include crane, articulating stern A -frame, deck winch, starboard side block with
articulating davit, port side davit with capstan, and capstan with vertical or horizontal capability. Actual
deployment (all gear, both sites) is expected to take a day, including the time required to transit from the
harbor (Coos Bay) to each of the project sites and return. Note that, in addition to the logistical details of
deployment and retrieval listed below, vessel operations must also be consistent with the procedures in
Section 5.1 (below) designed to comply with NMFS PRD-reconnnended BMP, so as to avoid affecting
protected marine animals.
The process of deploying the buoys and their mooring systems is as follows:
Biological Evaluation— 7 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
• The buoy -mooring system is assembled on board the vessel (without attaching the anchor).
• The anchor weight is hung over the side vessel, or, in the case of anchor weights exceeding 500 kg,
placed on a tip -plate over the fantail or side of the vessel.
• The Waverider buoy is lifted over the side of the vessel and the buoy is lowered to the water surface
while the anchor is attached to the mooring.
• The vessel steams away slowly as the line is payed -out.
• The anchor is released by either severing the attachment line or releasing the tip -plate.
Deployment of the AWAC and bottom -lander will follow a different procedure:
• The bottom -lander will be rigged to the ship's winch and A -frame systems with a slip -line.
• The platform will be lifted and repositioned using the vessel's A -frame over the water surface.
• The winch will be used to lower the platform to the seabed.
• Once on the bottom, the slip line will be detached and recovered. A slip -line system guarantees
upright deployment of a bottom -lander.
• Using the acoustic release and deck box transponder, the orientation and exact location of the
bottom -lander will be confirmed. If it is not within 45° of vertical, e.g., if deployed on an uneven
surface, the system will be recovered and redeployed.
For recovery, the Waverider buoy will be hooked or grappled, attached to the winch, and lifted onboard. The
line is brought on board, fastened to a vessel strong point, and the buoy disconnected from the mooring and
secured. The remaining line will be spooled onboard until the bottom anchor is recovered, using the mooring
line and additional tag lines for safety. All reasonable efforts will be made to retrieve the anchor.
Recovery of the AWAC bottom -lander will be facilitated by the acoustic release system and an acoustic deck
box transponder. The vessel will be positioned within 100 m of the bottom -lander triangulated position
determined during deployment. From the vessel, the pre-programmed release code will be sent to the
bottom -lander release system and the pop-up buoy and recovery line will be discharged to the surface. The
buoy will be hooked or grappled, attached to the winch and A -frame system, and lifted onboard. The
recovery line will be spooled slowly until the bottom -lander is safely secured to the vessel back deck.
Although generally fail-safe, acoustic release systems may malfunction. This may be due to:
• Out -of -range acoustic communications
• Electronic failure, e.g., loss of battery power
• Fouling due to marine growth or sedimentation
• Pop-up system line entanglement
In the event of acoustic release failure, the vessel will be repositioned and the release code resent to improve
acoustic communication range. If the pop-up buoy is not identified after multiple (five) attempts, NREL will
be notified irrunediately and alternative measures will be assessed.
Biological Evaluation— 8 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
As noted above, the planned duration of deployment is 12 months, October 2016 — October 2017, however,
the planned date for gear retrieval must depend upon the availability of safe working conditions. In the event
that weather and/or ocean conditions preclude the safe and effective recovery of the buoys and the
AWAC/bottom lander, then retrieval would have to be delayed until conditions permit. Fall conditions off
the Oregon coast are highly variable and a delay of days or weeks in equipment retrieval would not be
unexpected.
Equipment failure due to electronic hardware malfunction or mooring failure (e.g., anchor drag or ship strike)
are unlikely. Both devices (buoy and AWAC/bottom lander) represent well-established technologies, and the
deployment team has nearly 20 years' experience in designing and deploying oceanographic buoy -mooring
systems and bottom -mount platforms in lakes, rivers, estuaries, and coastal and offshore oceanic waters. The
team's mooring deployments have long operational lives with minimal annual servicing, and have proven
robust in aggressive environments including the Sargasso Sea, North Pacific, and in the California Current,
many times withstanding direct hits by hurricanes. However, meteorological and oceanic conditions can be
harsher than expected (e.g., once in 100 -year storms) and actions by other vessel operators are unpredictable.
Buoy GPS technology is expected to enable the swift (days) retrieval and re -deployment of lost gear with no
or minimal extension of the total deployment duration.
Biological Evaluation— 9 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
Section 3.0 Listed Species and Critical Habitat in the Project
Area
3.1 Status of Species and Designated Critical Habitat
Marine species listed under Federal ESA that could occur in the Project Area are listed in Table 2. Those
species with some probability of interacting with the WaveRider Buoy and/or the ANN'AC are addressed in
further detail below, including a discussion of the type and likelihood of a project effect on listed species and
their designated critical habitat.
Table 2: Listed Marine Species in the Project Area
Biological Evaluation— 10 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
Critical
Critical
Common Name
Scientific Name
Federal
State
Habitat
Habitat in
Status
Status
Designated
Action Area
Fish
Green sturgeon Southern DPS
Acipenser
T
NL
Y
Y
medirostris
Chinook salmon'
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
Lower Columbia River ESU
T
NL
Y
N
Upper Columbia River
spring -run ESU
E
NL
Y
N
Snake River spring/summer-
run ESU
T
T
Y
N
Snake River fall -run ESU
T
T
Y
N
Upper Willamette River
spring -run ESU
T
NL
Y
N
California Coastal spring-
run ESU
T
NL
Y
N
Sacramento River winter-
run ESU
E
NL
Y
N
Central Valley spring -run
ESU
T
NL
Y
N
Coho salmon
Oncorhynchus
kisutch
Lower Columbia River ESU
T
E
Y
N
Oregon Coast ESU
T
NL
Y
N
Southern Oregon/Northern
California Coast ESU
T
NL
Y
N
Central California Coast ESU
E
NL
Y
N
Biological Evaluation— 10 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
Biological Evaluation— , , H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
Critical
Critical
Common Name
Scientific Name
Federal
State
Habitat
Habitat in
Status
Status
Designated
Action Area
Steelhead
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
Lower Columbia River
Distinct Population Segment
T
NL
Y
N
DPS
Middle Columbia River
DPS
T
NL
Y
N
Upper Columbia River DPS
T
NL
Y
N
Snake River Basin DPS
T
NL
Y
N
Upper Willamette River
DPS
T
NL
Y
N
Northern California DPS
T
NL
Y
N
Central California Coastal
T
NL
Y
N
DPS
California Central Valley
T
NL
Y
N
DPS
South -Central California
Coast DPS
T
N2
Y
N
Sockeye salmon Snake River
Oncorhynchus
ESU
nerka
E
NL
Y
N
Chum salmon Columbia River
Oncorhynchus keta
T
NL
Y
N
ESU
Eulachon Southern DPS
Thaleichthvs
T
NL
Y
N
pacificus
Reptiles
Leatherback sea turtle
Dermochelys
E
E
Y
Y
coriacea
Green sea turtle
Chelonia mydas
T
E
Y
N
Loggerhead sea turtle
Caretta caretta
T
T
Y
N
Olive (Pacific) Ridley sea turtle
Lepidochelys
Pacific DPS
olivacea
E
T
N
N
Mammals
Killer whale Southern Resident
Orcinus orca
E
NL
Y
N
DPS
Gray whale Western Pacific
Eschristius
population
robztstus
E
NL
N
N
Humpback whale Central
Megaptera
America DPS
novaeangliae
T3
NL
N
N
Blue whale
Balaenoptera
E
E
N
N
musculus
Fin whale
Balaenoptera
E
N
N
N
physalis
Biological Evaluation— , , H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
'Based on recoveries of coded wire tagged Chinook salmon (Weitkamp 2010).
-Based on recoveries of coded wire tagged coho salmon (Weitkamp and Neely 2002).
'Proposed April 21, 2015.
4"Endangered" uplist petition filed June 21, 2016.
Y = yes, N = no; E = Endangered, T = Threatened, NL = not listed
ESU = Evolutionarily Significant Unit, DPS = Distinct Population Segment
3.2 Biology of Special Status Species Likely to Occur in the Project
Area
The species discussed in detail below are those from Table 1 that are likely to encounter this project, passing
closely enough to the buoys or the AWAC that the animal(s) may be able to sense the presence of the project
through tactile, olfaction, acoustics or visual means. The remaining species from Table 1 may also encounter
the project, but the likelihood is very low and, in the event of such an encounter, no effect is anticipated. The
species with a low likelihood of occurring and interacting with the project include:
• Green, olive ridley, and loggerhead sea turtles are unlikely to occur in the Project Area as sightings
are extremely rare or not documented in Oregon coastal waters.
• Fin, sei, and sperm whales are sighted off the coast of Oregon, but these cetaceans are most
commonly found well off the continental shelf in deeper waters and their occurrence in the Project
Area would be considered highly unusual.
• Guadalupe fur seal is non -migratory and occurs in the subtropical waters of southern California and
Mexico, breeding on islands off southern California and Mexico, and are highly unlikely to occur in
the Project Area.
Green Sturgeon (Acipensermedirostris; southern DPS)
Green sturgeon are likely to transit die Project Area during their annual migration along the U.S continental
shelf. Tagging studies indicate that they migrate north to Canadian waters in the fall, and move more slowly
Biological Evaluation— 12 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
Federal
State
Critical
Critical
Common Name
Scientific Name
Habitat
Habitat in
Status
Status
Designated
Action Area
Sei whale
Balaenoptera
E
N
N
N
borealis
Sperm whale
Physeter
E
N
N
N
macrocephalus
Guadalupe fair seal
Arctocephalus
T
NL
N
N
townsendi
Birds
Marbled Murrelet
Brachyramphus
E
Ta
Y
N
marmoratus
Short -tailed Albatross
Phoebastria
E
T
N
N
albatrus
'Based on recoveries of coded wire tagged Chinook salmon (Weitkamp 2010).
-Based on recoveries of coded wire tagged coho salmon (Weitkamp and Neely 2002).
'Proposed April 21, 2015.
4"Endangered" uplist petition filed June 21, 2016.
Y = yes, N = no; E = Endangered, T = Threatened, NL = not listed
ESU = Evolutionarily Significant Unit, DPS = Distinct Population Segment
3.2 Biology of Special Status Species Likely to Occur in the Project
Area
The species discussed in detail below are those from Table 1 that are likely to encounter this project, passing
closely enough to the buoys or the AWAC that the animal(s) may be able to sense the presence of the project
through tactile, olfaction, acoustics or visual means. The remaining species from Table 1 may also encounter
the project, but the likelihood is very low and, in the event of such an encounter, no effect is anticipated. The
species with a low likelihood of occurring and interacting with the project include:
• Green, olive ridley, and loggerhead sea turtles are unlikely to occur in the Project Area as sightings
are extremely rare or not documented in Oregon coastal waters.
• Fin, sei, and sperm whales are sighted off the coast of Oregon, but these cetaceans are most
commonly found well off the continental shelf in deeper waters and their occurrence in the Project
Area would be considered highly unusual.
• Guadalupe fur seal is non -migratory and occurs in the subtropical waters of southern California and
Mexico, breeding on islands off southern California and Mexico, and are highly unlikely to occur in
the Project Area.
Green Sturgeon (Acipensermedirostris; southern DPS)
Green sturgeon are likely to transit die Project Area during their annual migration along the U.S continental
shelf. Tagging studies indicate that they migrate north to Canadian waters in the fall, and move more slowly
Biological Evaluation— 12 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
south in the spring, transiting Oregon waters in both directions (Lindley et al. 2008). Green sturgeon generally
stay close to the bottom in waters less than 100 m deep, moving up in the water column occasionally,
possibly to feed (Ericson and Hightower 2007). These anadromous fish are primarily marine; southern DPS
green sturgeon reach maturity at about 15 years of age and typically enter freshwater to spawn every 3-4 years
thereafter (NMFS 2015, and references therein). This DPS spawns in the Sacramento, lower Feather and
lower Yuba rivers in California (NOAA 2006).
Chinook salmon (Oncorhyncliur tsbaavj&ba; Lower Columbia River ESU, Upper Columbia River spring -run
ESU, Snake River spring/summer-run ESU, Snake River fall -run ESU, Upper Willamette River spring -run
ESU, California Coastal spring -run ESU, Sacramento River winter -run ESU, Central Valley spring -run ESU),
coho salmon (O. kisutch; Lower Columbia River ESU, Oregon Coast ESU, Southern Oregon/Northern
California Coast ESU, Central California Coast ESU), sockeye salmon (O. nerka; Snake River ESU), chum
salmon (O. keta; Columbia River ESU) and steelhead (O. mykiss, Lower Columbia River DPS, Middle
Columbia River DPS, Upper Columbia River DPS, Snake River Basin DPS, Upper Willamette River DPS,
Northern California DPS, Central California Coastal DPS, California Central Valley DPS, South -Central
California Coast DPS)—all of the salmonids listed in Table 1—may occur in the Project Area.
These salmonids are anadromous; sexually -mature adults leave the ocean and migrate to their natal stream to
spawn in the rivers and creeks of the western United States; after freshwater rearing juveniles migrate to the
ocean to grow and mature. Their importance to commercial, tribal and recreational fisheries in Oregon is
immense, and these species also play critical ecological roles in freshwater, estuarine and oceanic ecosystems.
Coho and Chinook salmon are primarily coastal species; steelhead tend to be well offshore (Beamish et al.
2005). Sockeye and chum salmon are less likely to be in the Project Area as they use streams and estuaries
north of the Project Area and their juvenile and adult distribution at sea tends to also be more northward.
Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus)
Eulachon (commonly called smelt, candlefish, or hooligan) are a small, anadromous fish endemic to the
eastern Pacific Ocean, ranging frorn northern California to southwest Alaska and into the southeastern Bering
Sea. Eulachon leave saltwater to spawn in their natal streams late winter through early summer. During
spawning, they release eggs over sandy river bottoms. Shortly after hatching, the larvae are carried
downstream and dispersed by estuarine and ocean currents (WDFW and ODFW, 2001). "Ninchuck, Chetco,
Pistol, Rogue, Elk, Sires, Coquille, Coos, Siuslaw, Umpqua, and Yaquina rivers; and Hunter, Euchre, Tenmile
(draining Tenmile Lake), and Tenmile (near Yachats, Oregon) creeks are Oregon drainages that are reported
to support eulachon spawning (Gustafson et al. 2010), as well as several tributaries to the Columbia River
(ODFW and WDFW 2014).
Juveniles are reported to rear in nearshore marine waters. Eulachon spend most of their life in the ocean and
grow up to 12 inches in length and return to spawn at age 3 to 5 years (WDFW and ODBV, 2001). Eulachon
are typically found near the ocean bottom in waters of 20-150 in depth and are regularly captured as bycatch
Biological Evaluation— 13 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
in the ocean shrimp trawl fishery (Hay and McCarter 2000, Hannah et al. 2011, Al-Humaidhi et al. 2012,
Wargo et al. 2014).
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)
Leatherbacks are the only sea turtles likely to enter the Project Area. Leatherbacks (Starbird et al. 1993;
NMFS 2012) and their scyphozoan jellyfish prey (Graham et al. 2010) are seasonally abundant along the
Oregon coast. These are highly migratory pelagic animals, and their appearance in stammer and fall months
off the US west coast seems to be timed to coincide with the development of large aggregations of jellyfish at
that time of year (Starbird et al. 1993, Suchman and Brodeur 2005, Graham et al. 2010, Benson et al. 2011, 50
CFR 226.207).
Killer Whale (Orctnus orca) Southern Resident DPS
The resident ecotype of killer whale preys almost exclusively on salmon with a preference for Chinook
salmon (Bigg et al. 1990; Ford et al. 2005) and is socially divided into acoustic clans that likely serve to reduce
inbreeding (Barrett -Lennard et al. 1996; Ford 1991; Ford et al. 2000). The Southern Resident DPS was
federally listed as endangered in 2005 (NMFS 2005). Critical habitat for the DPS was designated in the Puget
Sound (NMFS 2006). Southern resident killer whales occur in inland waterways of Puget Sound, Strait of Juan
de Fuca, and southern Georgia Strait in spring, summer, and fall. Little is known about their fall, winter, and
spring movements, but they have been reported in coastal waters off Oregon and Washington. In recent
years, the K and L pods have been seen as far south as central California, presumably searching for salmon
(Carretta et al. 2009; Krahn et al. 2004).
Given the available information, it is likely that pods of southern resident killer whales at infrequent intervals
will travel by and perhaps through the project area in winter or spring. They are likely to forage for Chinook
salmon along the Oregon coast because of the abundance of salmon migrating through this region, and
southern resident killer whales could encounter the project area during their feeding forays along tie coast.
Western North Pacific (WNP) Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus)
Gray whales were listed as endangered in 1970 (USFVG'S, 1970). Following their recovery, the Eastern North
Pacific (ENP) stock was delisted from endangered in 1994, but the Western North Pacific (`UNP) stock is
still listed as endangered (USFWS and NMFS 1994). Most gray whales inhabit shallow coastal waters along
North America. The ENP population is mirrored by die WNP stock, which may be no larger than 100
individuals (Bradford et al., 2008) and is genetically distinct (LeDuc et al. 2002; Swartz et al. 2006). However,
recent data suggest that animals from both eastern and western feeding areas migrate along the U.S. West
Coast (Calambokidis et al. 2015).
Gray whales undergo one of the longest annual migrations of any mammal. These whales depart their arctic
feeding areas in November or December, when the Chukchi and Bering Seas ice over, and swim more than
6,000 miles in about 2 months to breeding and calving areas in Mexico (Jones and Swartz 2008; Rice et al.
1984). Following the calving season, the whales begin their northbound migration, which is more prolonged
Biological Evaluation— 14 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
and consists of two phases Qones and Swartz 2008). Newly pregnant females are the first to leave the calving
lagoons, from late January into March, followed by adults and juveniles. The second phase consists of females
that remain until April and May to allow their calves to mature enough for the migration; these females and
calves remain closer to the shoreline during their northward migration Qones and Swartz 2008; Jones and
Swartz 1984). Therefore, WNP gray whales could encounter the project area, especially during their
northbound migration along the coast.
Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)
Two distinct population segments (DPSs) of the humpback whale that occur in U.S. waters, Western North
Pacific and Central America, have been proposed for federal listing as `threatened' (50 CFR 223 and 224). In
the north Pacific, humpbacks move seasonally from low latitude breeding areas occupied in the winter to
summer feeding areas in northern latitudes. The Central America DPS, generally, breed off Mexico and
Central America, and feed in comparatively low latitudes off California and Oregon (Calambokidis et al.
2008). Off the U.S. west coast, humpbacks are commonly found on the continental shelf break, but,
particularly when prey abundance is high nearshore, these whales move inshore (Burrows et al. 2012),
including Monterey Bay (Calambokidis et al. 2008, 2009).
Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus)
The species was federally listed as endangered in 1970 (USFWS 1970). The blue whale is globally distributed
and is separated into populations by ocean basin in the North Atlantic, North Pacific, and Southern
Hemisphere. Numbers were greatly reduced by commercial whaling in the early 1900s, and the species
received global protection in 1966 (Sears and Perrin 2008). Even with the cessation of whaling, there were so
few blue whales left in the North Pacific that ship and aerial surveys as late as 2003 failed to detect any in the
Gulf of Alaska whaling area (Zerbini et al. 2006). However, a few hundred blue whales have been foraging off
California during summer, and photo -identification surveys to characterize the extant population began in
1986 (Calambokidis et al. 1990). Soon after, blue whale calls were recognized in the North Pacific in
recordings from deep fixed hydrophones (Stafford et al. 2001), which indicated that they were beginning to
recover in the northern region, an observation later confirmed by (Rankin et al. 2006). The seasonal migration
of the northeast Pacific stock has been confirmed by long-term acoustic monitoring (Burtenshaw et al. 2004)
and by movements of photo identified individuals between southern California and the Gulf of Alaska
(Calambokidis 2009).
Blue whales travel northward as siunmer progresses in response to northward progressing spring transition,
and subsequent increases in primary productivity (Burtenshaw et al. 2004; Calambokidis 2009). Blue whales
are most frequently sighted along the continental shelf break but also occur farther inshore, in transit or
feeding on surface swarms of krill.
Marbled murrelet
The FWS listed marbled murrelet as threatened in 1992 (57 FR 45328). Marbled murrelet occurs in Alaska,
British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California, and nest in old-growth forests from Bristol Bay,
Biological Evaluation— 15 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
Alaska, south to northern Monterey Bay. Marbled murrelet winters in coastal waters from Alaska to southern
California. They disperse after breeding, up to hundreds of kilometers away from their nesting locations
(Beauchamp et al. 1999). At sea, marbled murrelets forage on small schooling fishes and large pelagic
crustaceans (euphausiids, mysids, amphipods), and occur primarily in very nearshore waters (<1.5 km from
shore; Sealy 1974, Strachan et al. 1995). They are wing -propelled pursuit -divers that swim rapidly to pursue
and capture mobile prey such as schooling fishes, and can veer, turn, and glide underwater Qohnsgard 1987);
thus, their vision and agility is likely adequate for navigating around submerged structures. They are known to
dive up to 36 m, although the majority of dives have been reported as less than 10 m Qodice and Collopy
1999). Marbled murrelets most often feed as singles or in pairs, although they occur in loose aggregations
(tens to hundreds of birds) where prey is concentrated (Sealy 1975, Carter and Sealy 1990, Strachan et al.
1995). Although only a small percentage of the population occurs in Washington, Oregon, and California (2
percent), this area represents 18 percent of the species' linear coastal range and likely supported far greater
murrelet numbers historically (McShane et al. 2004). Population declines have been attributed to forest
fragmentation and loss of nesting habitat from the harvest of old-growth coniferous forests, and from
mortality associated with gillnet fisheries and oil pollution.
Short -tailed albatross
With the exception of Hawaii, the short -tailed albatross nests exclusively on small volcanic islands in Japan.
The breeding season lasts about eight months and occurs in October .June (Harrison 1979, Hasegawa and
DeGange 1982). During the non -breeding season (summer), they range along the Pacific Rim from southern
Japan to northern California, primarily along the continental shelf margins. Based on satellite tracking of 11
individuals and from opportunistic sightings, the range of juveniles generally includes shallower, nearer -to -
shore waters than adults (e.g., <200 m depth), and they are more likely than adults to occur off the west coast
of U.S. and Canada (Suryan et al. 2007). This species is still quite rare off the U.S. West Coast, with 16 records
in Oregon waters (most of them <10 years old) accepted by the Oregon Bird Records Committees.
3.3 Critical Habitat
The Project Area includes designated critical habitat for two species, the southern DPS of green sturgeon and
leatherback sea turtle. For green sturgeon, critical habitat extends from mean lower low water out to the 60
fathom (approximately 110 m) depth bathymetry line (NOAA 2009), and includes both the Lakeside and the
Reedsport, Oregon sites. Primary constituent elements of critical habitat in the Project Area include providing
a migratory corridor, adequate water quality, and abundant food resources (NOAA 2009).
For leatherback sea turtle, designated critical habitat in Oregon extends from Cape Blanco north beyond the
mouth of the Columbia River and the Oregon-`Nashington state line east of the 3000 meter depth contour
(FR77-4170). Critical habitat includes the upper 80 m of the water column (NOAA 2012, FR77-4170). The
primary constituent element essential for conservation of leatherback turtles is the occurrence of prey species,
I See http://ww-vv.orbirds.org/obrc.html
Biological Evaluation— 16 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
primarily scyphomedusae of the order Semaeostomeae (Chryraora, Aurelia, Pbacellopbora, and Cyanea), of
sufficient condition, distribution, diversity, abundance and density necessary to support individual as well as
population growth, reproduction, and development of leatherbacks.
Section 4.0 Environmental Baseline Conditions
The "environmental baseline" includes the past and present impacts of all federal, state, or private actions and
other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed federal projects in the action
area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or private
actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process (50 CFR 402.02).
The Project's two buoys and single bottom -mounted wave and current (AWAC) profiler when installed will
have a combined footprint (i.e., on the sea floor) of less than 10 square meters in federal waters off the
Oregon coast. The ocean surrounding the action area supports diverse assemblages of marine species and
offers important economic and recreational opportunities for the surrounding communities. The Oregon
coast near Lakeside and Reedsport is a high wave -energy, dynamic ocean environment. General marine
habitat features around the action area include soft bottom subtidal, some hard bottom, open water pelagic,
and surf zone habitats. The terrestrial area surrounding the action area consists of coastal beaches and dunes,
and low mountains of the Coast Ranges, covered in Douglas fir and Sitka spruce, along with residential
housing.
Oregon's beaches and coastal areas typically have mild temperatures, with mean summer temperatures in the
low 60s (degrees Fahrenheit; °F) and mean winter temperatures in the low 40s (°F). Average annual
precipitation is 75 to 90 inches. Strong winds typically strike in advance of winter storms and can exceed
hurricane force. Winter weather, which is typically wet, is generally influenced by counterclockwise -rotating
low-pressure systems that cross the North Pacific, resulting in frontal cyclonic storms characterized by heavy
rains and high south to southwesterly winds. Summers are relatively dry and fair, with mild north -
northwesterly winds, driven by a persistent, seasonal, offshore high, and frequent strong afternoon breezes
and coastal fog.
4.1 Benthic Habitat
Oregon's continental shelf is relatively narrow and extends about 10 to 46 miles off the coast. The Project
sites are located close to shore; Lakeside is about 3.4 km and Reedsport about 5.0 km (Table 1) from shore.
The benthos at both locations is composed of loose, unconsolidated sediments, mostly sand with a small
percentage of silt and clay. The sediments present at this site are typical of much of the Oregon coast, with
small variations in the concentration of fine -sized particles in the seafloor sediments due to local currents
(Terrill et al. 2010, Hemery and Henkel 2016).
Biological Evaluation— 17 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
Trawl samples in the Reedsport area from 2009 determined that English sole, Pacific sanddab, butter sole,
tomcod and Dungeness crab were the 5 most abundant species (in descending order; Terrill et al. 2010). The
benthic infauna off Reedsport and Lakeside are expected to be comparable to PMEC-SETS and PMEC-
NETS sites (30 to 70 m) off Newport, Oregon, which were surveyed in 2013-15 (Hemery and Henkel 2016).
Here, thirty-nine macrofaunal taxa were collected during box core sampling, and species assemblages varied
in response to depth and median grain size (Hemery and Henkel 2016). Mysid and crangonid shrimp were
most abundant and likely form the basis of the food web in this nearshore zone.
4.2 Vessel Traffic and Navigation
Waters in the vicinity of the Project are used by a variety of recreational, charter, and commercial boats.
Vessel traffic is especially frequent near the mouth of Coos Bay, 25.7 km to the South of the Reedsport site,
but both Winchester Bay (10 km North and 10 km South of Reedsport and Lakeside, respectively) and
Florence (29.2 km North of Lakeside also support small harbors. Both sites are located in areas with heavy
commercial fishing, especially trap fishing for Dungeness crab. Therefore, local mariners are accustomed to
navigating in the presence of comparable obstacles. Sport and commercial fishermen from Reedsport and
Florence put out thousands of crab pots each year during the Dungeness crab season (sport: November 30 —
October 16; commercial: December 1 (typically) — August 14), but no data are available that would provide an
estimate of the number and density of crab gear deployed in and around the project sites.
Vessel use during deployment and retrieval will be minimal, requiring a single day of operations for each
event (total=2 days). No vessel use is required or planned for operations, including data retrieval or
maintenance, except in the unlikely event of a mooring failure. The buoys are equipped with GPS tracking
technology designed to alert the monitoring team in the event that the buoy moves from the site; this
effectively allows for a near -instantaneous notification of equipment failure and greatly facilitates gear
recovery. The latter also reduces the effort and vessel activity necessary for recovery. For these reasons, vessel
operations associated with the Project are not expected to exceed baseline conditions for vessel activity in the
area. Commercial and recreational vessel activity is high along this part of the Oregon coast, and two
additional vessel days over the course of a year do not add significantly to these conditions.
Biological Evaluation— 18 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
Section 5.0 Effects of the Action
5.1 Collision with project -related vessels
The deployment and retrieval of project -related equipment require the operation of vessels. In transit to and
from the vessel's homeport (Coos Bay) and as the vessel maneuvers during deployment and retrieval, sea
turtles and marine mammals are, potentially, at risk as they surface to breathe or as they rest or bask at the
surface. At or near the surface, these animals are at risk of being struck by vessels or their propellers. Injuries
and their severity will depend on the speed and size of the vessel, the part of the vessel that strikes the animal,
and the body part impacted. Injuries from boat strikes may include bruising, broken bones or carapaces, and
lacerations. The R/V Miss Linda is a comparatively large vessel and collision, in the case of sea turtles and
seals, could result in serious injury or death. Being much larger, whales are less likely to be killed by a
collision, but they could be seriously injured by propellers. Consequently, in the course of all vessel operations
(i.e., equipment deployment and retrieval), the following practices, based on NMFS PRD -recommended
BMP, will be maintained to avoid vessel -whale collision (Laist et al. 2001) or collision with other marine
animals, and reduce the likelihood of affecting the behavior of protected marine species:
• Constant vigilance shall be kept for the presence of and marine mammals and, particularly, Federally -
listed marine species;
• Vessel speed will be adjusted to allow for animal density and for visibility (affected, for example, by
low light or fog) to allow adequate reaction time to avoid marine animals;
• When piloting vessels, vessel operators shall alter course to remain at least 100 yards from humpback
whales and gray whales, and at least 50 yards from other marine mammals and sea turtles;
• Reduce vessel speed to 10 knots or less when piloting vessels in the proximity of marine mammals;
• Reduce vessel speed to 5 knots or less when piloting vessels in areas of known or suspected turtle
activity;
• Marine mammals and sea turtles should not be encircled or trapped between multiple vessels or
between vessels and the shore;
• If approached by a marine mammal or turtle, put the engine in neutral and allow the animal to pass;
• All work (i.e., equipment deployment or retrieval) will be postponed when whales are within 100
yards, or other protected species are within 50 yards. Activity will commence only after the animal(s)
depart the area;
• Should whales or other marine protected species enter the area while in -water work is already in
progress, the activity may continue only when that activity has no reasonable expectation to adversely
affect the animal(s); and
Biological Evaluation— 19 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
• No attempt to feed, touch, ride, or otherwise intentionally interact with any marine protected species
will be made.
Based on the low number of vessel trips expected to be conducted as part of the project (n=2), and on the
expectation that vessel operators would carefully watch for and avoid protected marine species, and alter
course and speed according to the NMFS PRD -recommended BMP, we consider the risk of collisions
between project -related vessels and protected species to be discountable.
5.2 Collision or direct impact by project -related equipment and
materials
The proposed project involves the use of heavy equipment and the placement of project materials on the
seafloor. These activities have the potential to directly strike ESA -listed marine animals should those animals
be present when the equipment or project materials strike the bottom. Injuries and their severity will depend
on the animal's proximity to the bottom when struck, the angle of the strike, and the body part impacted, but
may include cuts, bruises, broken bones, cracked or crushed carapaces, and amputations, any of which could
result in the animal's death. Animals could also be pinned to the bottom and drowned. Fast -swimming whales
and other marine mammals could also collide with the gear, including the buoys and the buoy lines. These
collisions could result in cuts or bruises, but more severe, immediate results seem unlikely. (Entanglements
are addressed in section 5.4.)
Once in place the buoys and the buoy mooring lines will move minimally over ground, mostly with wave
action, and it is conceivable that a slow-moving marine animal (e.g., sea turtle basking at the surface) could be
struck by the buoy or the buoy line, resulting in bruising or small cuts.
Above the sea surface, the low profile of the surface gear (Waverider MKIII buoys) and the limited quantity
of the gear deployed are such that neither of the listed sea birds, Marbled Murrelets and Short -tailed
Albatross, is likely to collide with the above -water portion of the buoys or their antennae. We note that the
antenna rises 35 cm above the buoy, raised above the water surface to a total height of less than 1 meter.
Collisions, however effected, between whales or other marine animals and the project gear is highly unlikely
due to the small number of buoys (2). Furthermore, the vessel operations practices (Section 5.1) require that
work be postponed or halted when protected species are within 50 yards, and that deployment and retrieval
processes be completed in a controlled manner (Section 2.4). Given that marine animals will likely avoid
project areas on their own due to on-going activities, that vessel operation procedures limit deployment and
retrieval activities unless or until the area is free of ESA -listed marine animals, and that all materials and
equipment will lowered in a controlled manner, we have determined that the risk of those species listed in
Table 2 (Section 3.1) being impacted by project related equipment and materials is discountable.
Biological Evaluation— 20 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
5.3 Habitat and Prey Resources
Due to the small project footprint, limited duration of a one year deployment, and removal upon completion,
the project is expected to have minimal short-term physical effects on benthic and midwater habitats. No
long term effects are anticipated. Any effects to the benthic community or any fishes attracted to the
midwater structures are expected to be short-term and inconsequential due to the small scale of the project
and short timeframe for deployment. The Project Area falls within the designated critical habitat of two listed
species, the southern DPS of green sturgeon and the leatherback sea turtle.
5.4 Entanglement or entrapment
The use of a minimal number of buoys (2) and a single device at the sea floor, the temporary duration of each
deployment (52 weeks total) and the simplicity of the gear's basic exterior design, combined, support the
conclusion that this project will have no adverse effect on the aforementioned fish species and is not likely to
adversely affect the sea turtles, marine mammals or sea birds listed in Table 1, above. Specifically, we
anticipate no adverse effects for the following reasons:
1. The quantity of gear and the duration of the project are expected to be correlated with the
probability and magnitude of any potential effect on listed species or their environment. Sea turtles
of all species, including leatherbacks, have been entangled in buoy lines for fishing gear (Adimey et
al. 2014), but this appears to be a rare occurrence: Note, for example, the absence of trap -related sea
turtle bycatch reported by Moore et al. (2009) in a recent review of U.S. fisheries. We emphasize that
the phenomenon is not unknown (e.g., Lutcavage et al. 2001), however, considering the number of
buoys in constant use in U.S. waters, the apparent rarity of this particular bycatch is compelling. We
also note that the buoys and lines used in the Proposed Project are expected to maintain greater
tension than those used to mark the commercial fishing gear referenced by Adimey et al. (2014).
2. Humpback, gray and blue whales have also become entangled in buoy lines, particularly those fixed
to crab traps ("pots") (NOAA Fisheries unpublished data provided to the California Dungeness
Crab Task Force2; see also Johnson et al. 2005, Cassoff et al. 2011). Crab pots, however, are
deployed in high densities and the resulting concentration of lines and buoys likely represents a
substantially more significant threat than the two buoys and their anchor lines to be used in this
project. As noted with regard to leatherback turtle entanglement, two buoys are highly unlikely to
entangle any of these whale species. We found no published reports of Killer whales entangled in
buoy lines (though reports do include this species among those affected by other gear), perhaps
owing to their greater agility and familiarity with macroalgae and navigational and fishing gear
The California Dungeness Crab Task Force (DCTF) is a body established to review and evaluate Dungeness crab
fishery management measures for California, and making recommendations to the Joint Committee on Fisheries and
Aquaculture, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Fish and Game Commission.
Biological Evaluation— 21 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
deployed in coastal areas. Killer whales, therefore, are also highly unlikely to become entangled in
the gear deployed for the project proposed here.
3. The characteristics of the gear employed, too, minimize any potential effects; these buoys and the
anchoring system employed are functionally comparable to the most basic of existing buoys, lines
and anchors used currently on the Oregon coast and in coastal areas throughout the world for
navigation, scientific research and fisheries. Furthermore, the deployment strategy includes measures
to minimize the scope of the anchor lines and to maintain tension in those lines to avoid the
formation of a bight or loop; these measures are specifically intended to reduce the likelihood of
entanglement.
In summary, two additional buoys deployed off the Oregon coast are exceedingly unlikely (a) to entangle
any sea turtles, cetaceans or other marine mammal or (b) to contribute substantially to any cumulative
adverse effect that buoys and their anchoring systems may have on listed marine organisms on the
Oregon coast. Buoys and the lines and anchors used to keep them in place are exceedingly common in
the coastal waters of the United States, including those of Oregon, where buoys placed for navigational,
research or fisheries purposes are deployed over broad areas and in considerable numbers. The
temporary deployment (one year) of the project gear will limit incremental, local effects to the benthos,
and the small size of the gear, the limited number of buoys, and the minimal footprint of the proposed
action further limit potential project -associated changes to the benthic and mid -water environment.
5.5 Exposure to wastes and discharges
The project gear does contain batteries (Datacell RC20B (200 Wh black), 15 per buoy; one additional battery
pack for the AWAK), which, if exposed to sea water, could leak toxic materials. No other source of potential
waste or discharge, including antifouling compounds, is present. The likelihood of toxic discharge is very low
due to the robust design of die buoys and the AWAC battery back—both have been designed expressly for
deployment in the most demanding marine environments. Notification of failure of this sort would come in
the form of an interruption to the real-time data stream, so the project team would be alerted to the existence
of a problem (if not the exact source) within minutes or hours.
5.6 General disturbance
Marine species encountering the project, post -deployment, could exhibit a response to the gear. This
response may vary from a deliberate approach and investigation to a panicked flight in which the animal
abruptly and rapidly leaves the area. Conceivably, an animal could injure itself in flight, but such an event
would be highly unlikely. The small number of devices (2 buoys, 1 bottom lander) and their limited footprint
(<20 square meters), as well as the temporary (12 -month) period of deployment support the expectation that
this project will not contribute to any kind of a general disturbance to marine life in the Project area. Vessel
activity associated with deployment and retrieval will be limited (2 days) and is also expected to make no
substantial contribution to baseline vessel activities in the area. Note that vessel operations are limited
Biological Evaluation— 22 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
according to the procedures listed in Section 5.1, further reducing the potential for an injury -producing
avoidance response. Based on the best available information, we have determined that exposure to general
disturbance would be infrequent and result in insignificant effects on the ESA -listed marine species that
encounter project activities.
5.7 Other causes of effects of the action
The devices employed do not generate any or significant levels of sound, electricity or electromagnetic energy,
or heat above ambient environmental conditions. Natural environmental phenomena (e.g., surface waves),
other buoys in the vicinity, such as those from commercial crab pots, as well as local vessel traffic not
associated with the project are assumed to provide for a baseline level of acoustic energy substantially above
anything produced by the two project buoys and their moorings. Magnetic or electrical fields may also be
induced by the technology in the buoys and/or the A-1vVAC at the sea floor. If strong enough, artificial
magnetic fields could affect navigation in some species, while electrical fields could affect prey detection and
predatory avoidance behavior in others. The small size and low number of the objects deployed for this
project, coupled with the electrical insulation employed by the technology to maintain proper function are
expected to result in vanishingly small levels of these potentially disruptive conditions. Based on the low
levels of expected heat loss from the buoys and the AWAC, combined with the high volumes of water
expected to flow past them, the transmission of heat is expected to have negligible effects on water
temperature, and as such to have insignificant effects on marine mammals and sea turtles in the area.
Therefore, these causes are not expected to affect listed or protected species or their habitats.
Biological Evaluation— 23 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
Section 6.0 Determination
In conclusion, we have determined that DOE's Proposed Action of providing funding to the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory for the Proposed Project (the "Model Validation and Site
Characterization for Early Development MHK Sites and Establishment of Wave Classification
Scheme – Wave Instrumentation Deployment" project) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect ESA -listed
leatherback sea turtles, killer whales, gray whales, humpback whales, blue whales, marbled murrelets or short -
tailed albatross, with no destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat for green sturgeon
or leatherback sea turtle. It is expected that there will be no effect to any of the listed fish species.
Biological Evaluation— 24 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
Section 7.0 Literature Cited
Adimey NM, Hudak CA, Powell JR, Bassos -Hull K Foley A, Farmer NA, White L, 1Vlinch h (2014) Fishery
gear interactions from stranded bottlenose dolphins, Florida manatees and sea turtles in Florida, U.S.A. Mar
Pollut Bull 81:103-115
Al-Humaidhi AW, Bellman MA, Jannot J, Majewski J. 2012. Observed and estimated total bycatch of green
sturgeon and Pacific eulachon in the 2002-2010 US West Coast fisheries. West Coast Groundfish Observer
Program. National Marine Fisheries Service, NWFSC, 2725 Mondake Blvd E., Seattle, WA 98112.
Barrett -Lennard L, Ford JKB, Heise KA. 1996. The mixed blessing of echolocation: Differences in sonar use
by fish -eating and mammal -eating killer whales. Animal Behaviour. 51(3):553-565.
Benson SR, Forney KA, Harvey JT, Carretta J V, Dutton PH. 2007. Abundance, distribution, and habitat of
leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) off California, 1990-2003. Fish Bull 105:337-347
Bigg MA, Olesiuk PF, Ellis GM, Ford JICB, Balcomb III, KC. 1990. Social organization and genealogy of
resident killer whales (Oninus orca) in the coastal waters of British Columbia and Washington State. Reports of
the International Whaling Commission. 12(Special Issue):383-405.
Bradford AL, Weller DW, Wade PR, Burdin AM, Brownell RL. 2008. Population abundance and growth rate
of western gray whales Eschricbtius robustus. Endangered Species Research: 16:1-14.
Burtenshaw JC, Oleson EM, Hildebrand JA, McDonald MA, Andrew RK, Howe BM, Mercer JA. 2004.
Acoustic and satellite remote sensing of blue whale seasonality and habitat in the Northeast Pacific. Deep Sea
Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 51(10-11):967-986.
Calambokidis J, Falcone E, Douglas A, Schlender L, Huggins J. 2009. Photographic identification of
humpback and blue whales off the U.S. West Coast: results and updated abundance estimates from 2008 field
season. Final Report for Contract AB133F08SE2786 from Southwest Fisheries Science Center. 18 pp.
Calambokidis J, Falcone EA, Quinn TJ, Burdin AM, Clapham PJ, Ford JKB, Gabriele CM, LeDuc R, Mattila
D, Rojas-Bracho L, Straley JM, Taylor BL, Urban J, Weller D, Witteveen BH, Yamaguchi M, Bendlin A,
Camacho D, Flynn K, Havron A, Huggins J, and Maloney N. 2008. SPLASH: Structure of Populations,
Levels of Abundance and Status of Humpback Whales in the North Pacific. Final report for Contract
AB133F-03-RP-00078. 58 p. Available from Cascadia Research (www.cascadiaresearch.org) and NMFS,
Southwest Fisheries Science Center (http://swfsc.noaa.gov)
Biological Evaluation— 25 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
Calambokidis J. 2009. Sightings of eleven species of marine mammals during thirty surveys from 1991-2007.
Olympia, WA: Cascadia Research.
Calambokidis, J., G. H. Steiger, C. Curtice, J. Harrison, M. C. Ferguson, E. Becker, M. DeAngelis, and S. M.
Van Parijs. 2015. 4. Biologically important areas for selected cetaceans within U.S. Waters - West Coast
Region. Aquatic Mammals 41(1):39-53.
Carretta JV, Forney KA, Lowry MS, Barlow J, Baker J, Johnston D, Hanson B, Muto MM, Lynch D, Carswell
L. 2009. U.S. Pacific marine mammal stock assessments: 2008. U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA-TM-
NMFS-SWFSC-434.
Carter HR, SG Sealy. 1990. Daily foraging behavior of marbled murrelets. Studies Avian Biol 14:93-102.
Cassoff RM, Moore KM, McLellan WA, Barco SG, Rotstein DS, Moore MJ. 2011. Lethal entanglement in
baleen whales. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 96:175-185.
Erickson, DL, JE Hightower. 2007. Oceanic distribution and behavior of green sturgeon. Am Fish Soc Symp
56:197-211
Ford JKB. 1991. Vocal traditions among resident killer whales (Oninus arca) in coastal waters of British
Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 69(6):1454-1483.
Ford JKB, Ellis GM, Balcomb III KC. 2000. Killer Whales: The Natural History and Genealogy of Orcins
arca in British Columbia and Washington. 2nd. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.
Ford JKB, GM Ellis, PF Olesiuk. 2005. Linking Prey and Population Dynamics: Did Food Limitation cause
Recent Declines of `Resident' Killer Whales (Orcins orca) in British Columbia? Nanaimo (BC): Canadian
Science Advisory Secretariat. Report No.: Research Document 2005/042.
Graham TR, Harvey JT, Benson SR, Renfree JS, Demer DA. 2010. The acoustic identification and
enumeration of scyphozoan jellyfish, prey for leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys eoriacea), off central
California. ICES J Mar Sci 67:1739-1748
Gustafson RG, Ford MJ, Teel D, Drake JS. 2010. Status review of eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) in
Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Com mer., NOTA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-105, 360 p.
Hannah R W, Jones SA, Lomelli MJM, Wakefield `VW. 2011. Trawl net modifications to reduce the bycatch
of eulachon (Thaleichthys patzfiats) in the ocean shrimp (Pandalus jordant) fishery. Fisheries Research 110:277-
282.
Biological Evaluation— 26 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
Harrison C. 1979. The largest seabird in the North Pacific breeds on one small island south of Japan. Oceans
12:24-26.
Hasegawa H, DeGange AR. 1982. The short -tailed albatross, Diomedea albatmr. Its status, distribution and
natural history-. American Birds 6(5):806-814.
Hay DE, McCarter PB. 2003. Eulachon embryonic egg and larval outdrift sampling manual for ocean and
river surveys. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2451. 35p.
Hemery LG, Henkel SK. 2016. Patterns of benthic mega -invertebrate habitat associations in the Pacific
Northwest continental shelf waters: a reassessment. Biodiversity and Conservation 25(9):1761-1772.
Jodice PGD, MW Collopy. 1999. Diving and foraging patterns of Marbled Murrelets (Brachyramphau
mannoratus): testing predictions from optimal -breathing models. Can J Zool 77:1409-1418.
Johnsgard PA. 1987. Diving Birds of North America. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
Johnson A., Salvador G., Kenney J., Robbins J., Kraus S., Landry S, Clapham P. 2005. Fishing Gear Involved
in Entanglements of Right and Humpback Whales. Marine Mammal Science 21:635--645.
Jones ML, Swartz SL. 1984. Demography and phenology of gray whales and evaluation of whale -watching
activities in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California Sur, Mexico. In: Jones ML, Swartz SL, Leatherwood S,
editors. The gray whale, Eschrichtiur rohustus. New York, NY: Academic Press; p. 309-374.
Jones ML, Swartz SL. 2008. Gray whale Eschrichtiats robustus. In: Perrin WF, Wursig B, Thewissen JGM,
editors. The encyclopedia of marine mammals. 2nd. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; p. 503-511.
Krahn MM, Ford MJ, Perrin WF, Wade PR, Angliss RP, Hanson MB, Taylor BL, Ylitalo GNI, Dahlheim ME,
Stein JE, et al. 2004. 2004 Status review of southern resident killer whales (Oninus orca) under the Endangered
Species Act. Seattle, WA: Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, U. S.
Department of Commerce. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NvVFSC-62.
Laist, D.W., A.R. Knowlton, J.G. Mead, A.S. Collet and M. Podesta. 2001. Collisions between ships and
whales. Marine Mammal Science, 17(1):35-75.
LeDuc RG, Weller DW, Hyde J, Burdin AM, Rosel PE, Brownell Jr. RL, Wursig B, Dizon AE. 2002. Genetic
differences between western and eastern gray whales (E.rchrichtiu8 rohuetus). Journal of Cetacean Research and
Management. 4(1):1-5.
Biological Evaluation— 27 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
Lindley, ST, ML, Moser, DL Erickson, M Belchik, DW Welch, E Rechisky, JT Kelly, J Heublein, AP Klimley.
2008. Marine migration of North American green sturgeon. Trans Am Fish Soc 137:182-194.
Lutcavage M, Rhodin AGJ, Sadove SS, Conroy CR. 2001. Direct Carapacial Attachment of Satellite Tags
Using Orthopedic Bioabsorbable Mini -Anchor Screws on Leatherback Turtles in Culebra, Puerto Rico. Mar
Turt Newsl 95:9-12
McShane C, Hamer T, Carter H, Swartzman G, Friesen V, Ainley D, Tressler R, Nelson K, Burger A, Spear
L, Mohagen T, Martin R, Henkel L, Prindle K, Strong C, Keany J. 2004 Evaluation report for the 5 -year
status review of the Marbled Murrelet in Washington, Oregon, and California. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
370 pp.
Moore JE, Wallace BP, Lewison RL, Zydelis R, Cox TM, Crowder LB. 2009. A review of marine mammal,
sea turtle and seabird bycatch in USA fisheries and the role of policy in shaping management. Mar Policy
33:435-451
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2005. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Endangered
status for southern resident killer whales. Federal Register (70):69903 69912.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2006. Endangered and threatened species: Designation of critical
habitat for Southern Resident killer whale. Federal Register (71):69054 69070.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2012. Final Rule to Revise the Critical Habitat Designation for
Leatherback Sea Turtles. Final Biological Report. 34 p.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2015. Southern Distinct Population Segment of the North
American Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) 5 -Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. National Marine
Fisheries Service, Long Beach, California, 41 pp.
NOAA. 2006. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Threatened status for southern distinct
population segment of North American green sturgeon. Federal Register 71(67): 17757-17766.
NOAA. 2009. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Final rulemaking to designate critical habitat
for the threatened southern distinct population segment of North American green sturgeon. Federal Register
74(195):52300-52351.
NOAA. 2012. Endangered and threatened species: Final rule to revise the critical habitat designation for the
endangered leatherback sea turtle. Federal Register 77(17):4170-1201.
Biological Evaluation— 28 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife), WDF'VV (Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife). 2014. Studies of eulachon smelt in Oregon and Washington. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Washington DC, 168 pp.
Rankin S, Barlow J, Stafford KM. 2006. Blue whale (Balaenoptera museulus) sightings and recordings south of
the Aleutian Islands. Marine Mammal Science 22(3):708-713.
Rice DW, Wolman AA, Braham HW. 1984. The gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus. Marine Fisheries Review.
46(4):7-14.
Sealy SG. 1974. Breeding phenology and clutch size in the marbled murrelet. Auk 91:10-23.
Sealy SG. 1975. Feeding ecology of the ancient and marbled murrelets near Langara Island, British Columbia.
Can J Zool 53:418-433.
Sears R, Perrin WF. 2008. Blue whale Balaenoptera musadus. In: Perrin WF, Wursig B, Thewissen JGM, editors.
The Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. 2nd Ed. San Diego (CA): Academic Press. p. 120-124.
Starbird CH, Baldridge CH, Harvey JT. 1993. Seasonal occurrence of leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys
coriacea) in the Monterey Bay region, with notes on other sea turtles, 1986– 1991. California Fish Game 79:
54-62
Strachan G, M McAllister, CJ Ralph. 1995. Marbled murrelet at -sea and foraging behavior. Pages 247-254 in
Ralph, CJ, GL Hunt, Jr., MG Raphael, JF Piatt, editors, Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet.
U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-152.
Suchman CL, Brodeur RD. 2005. Abundance and distribution of large medusae in surface waters of the
northern California Current. Deep Sea Res Part II Top Stud Oceanogr 52:51-72
Suryan RM, Dietrich KS, Melvin EF, Balogh GR, Sato F, Ozaki K. 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 Cons 137:450-460.
Swartz SL, Taylor BL, Rugh DJ. 2006. Gray whale Eschrichtius robustus population and stock identity. Manu—nal
Review. 36(1):66-84.
Terrill S, Kramer S, Nelson PA, Zajanc D. 2010. Baseline data and power analyses for the OWET Dungeness
crab and fish baseline study. Report to the Oregon Wave Energy Trust, 40 p.
Biological Evaluation— 29 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1970. Conservation of endangered species and other fish or wildlife:
List of endangered foreign fish and wildlife. Federal Register (35):18319-18322.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1994. Final rule to
remove the Eastern North Pacific population of gray whale from the list of endangered wildlife. Federal
Register (59):31094-31095.
Wargo LL, Ryding KE, Speidel BW, Hinton KE. 2014. Report C. Marine life stage of eulachon and the
impacts of shrimp trawl operations. Final Report to National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration,
Washington, DC. p. 92-168.
Weitkamp LA. 2010. Marine Distributions of Chinook Salmon from the West Coast of North America
Determined by Coded Wire Tag Recoveries. 139(1):147-170.
Weitkamp LA, Neely K. 2002. Colic, salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) ocean migration patterns: insight
from marine coded wire tag recoveries. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59:1100-
1115.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife).
2001. Washington and Oregon eulachon management plan. WDFW and ODFW. 33p.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/creel/smelt/wa-ore—eulachonmgmt.pdf.
Zerbini AN, Waite JM, Laake JL, Wade PR. 2006. Abundance, trends and distribution of baleen whales off
Western Alaska and the central Aleutian Islands. Deep Sea Research Part 1: Oceanographic Research Papers
53(11):1772-1790.
Biological Evaluation— 30 H. T. Harvey & Associates
Oregon Wave Characterization September 2016