ATTACHMENT NAME

presented_as_potential_interaction

decribed_from_observations_at_the_project_site

monitoring_plan_(mp)

adaptive_management_plan_(amp)

protection_mitigation_and_enhancement

notes_mp

notes_amp

notes_general

bmps_applied

presented_as_potential_interaction

decribed_from_observations_at_the_project_site

monitoring_plan_(mp)

adaptive_management_plan_(amp)

protection_mitigation_and_enhancement

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG7

Due to its size, non-polluting operations, and temporary nature of the emissions associated with its
construction and installation, the Proposed Action would not significantly impact local or regional climatic
conditions or air quality. There would be short-term, temporary increases in air emissions during the
construction/installation period associated construction vehicles/equipment on land and work
boats/equipment in the water.
During the operational period, there would be infrequent use of small boats to transport inspection and
maintenance personnel to the WEC devices and mooring system. Decommissioning and removal of the
WEC devices and associated infrastructure would utilize similar vessels and equipment as in their
installation. No air quality permits are anticipated to be required for operation of these vehicles and
equipment.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG8

The Proposed Action would not have significant short- or long-term impacts to MCB Hawaii shoreline resources. During the construction period, the transmission cable would be landed in the vicinity of the existing transmission cable. A backhoe, winch or other pulling equipment would be used to pull the subsea cables onshore and assist with their placement on land. Heavy equipment would be staged in locations that minimize disturbance to the shoreline (e.g., on existing unpaved roadway near end of runway). No removal of shore revetment material or sand is anticipated. The new split-pipe protected
cables would follow a similar path to the new utility vault as an existing transmission cable. The new vault would be a modular unit assembled on-site and installed by small crane onto the concrete bed.
In the operational period, no significant impacts to shoreline geomorphology are expected from the
Proposed Action. The existing shallow-water WET berth transmission cable transitions from the ocean
over large boulders, traverses a narrow strip of sand to the base of a rock outcrop, and is then routed to
the existing utility vault. Its minimal profile does not appear to have altered the underlying shoreline
landforms or processes since its installation in 2003. Future conditions, with addition of two similar
transmission cables in the same nearshore vicinity, are likely to be similar to the existing conditions, with
little impact to the underlying shoreline geomorphology. Maintenance and decommissioning activities are
not expected to impact shoreline geomorphology, as these activities would not involve any shoreline
alteration.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG8

The Proposed Action would not have significant short- or long-term impacts to MCB Hawaii shoreline
resources. During the construction period, the transmission cable would be landed in the vicinity of the
existing transmission cable. A backhoe, winch or other pulling equipment would be used to pull the
subsea cables onshore and assist with their placement on land. Heavy equipment would be staged in
locations that minimize disturbance to the shoreline (e.g., on existing unpaved roadway near end of
runway). No removal of shore revetment material or sand is anticipated. The new split-pipe protected
cables would follow a similar path to the new utility vault as an existing transmission cable. The new vault
would be a modular unit assembled on-site and installed by small crane onto the concrete bed.
In the operational period, no significant impacts to shoreline geomorphology are expected from the
Proposed Action. The existing shallow-water WET berth transmission cable transitions from the ocean
over large boulders, traverses a narrow strip of sand to the base of a rock outcrop, and is then routed to
the existing utility vault. Its minimal profile does not appear to have altered the underlying shoreline
landforms or processes since its installation in 2003. Future conditions, with addition of two similar
transmission cables in the same nearshore vicinity, are likely to be similar to the existing conditions, with
little impact to the underlying shoreline geomorphology. Maintenance and decommissioning activities are
not expected to impact shoreline geomorphology, as these activities would not involve any shoreline
alteration.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG9

The Proposed Action is not anticipated to significantly impact wave scattering or reflection and energy
absorption. The deep-water WEC devices could alter the wave field in its immediate vicinity due to energy
absorption and radiation.2

However, due to the randomness of wave action, the distance between the
deep-water WEC devices (>3,000 ft [>914 m]), and their distance from shore (>6,000 ft [>1,800 m]), their
impact on the wave environment in the area, waves breaking on shore, or littoral processes inside the
surf zone would be minimal.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG9

Based on the earlier wave modeling, and taking into account the parameters of the proposed deep-water berths and potential WEC devices, the
Proposed Action would have negligible impacts on the wave field or sediment transport.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG9

The Proposed Action would not significantly impact water quality in the marine waters surrounding Mokapu Peninsula. The WEC devices would not contain fluids that could pose harm to the marine environment during the operational period. If the WEC devices deployed at the WETS use a power take-off system that requires hydraulic fluid, the fluid would typically be non-petroleum and environmentally-safe. Maintenance and decommissioning activities would not introduce potential pollutants into the marine environment.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG10

The Proposed Action would not significantly impact water quality in the marine waters surrounding Mokapu Peninsula. The WEC devices would not contain fluids that could pose harm to the marine environment during the operational period. If the WEC devices deployed at the WETS use a power take-off system that requires hydraulic fluid, the fluid would typically be non-petroleum and environmentally-safe. Maintenance and decommissioning activities would not introduce potential pollutants into the marine environment.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG11

The Proposed Action would not significantly impact water quality in the marine waters surrounding Mokapu Peninsula. The WEC devices would not contain fluids that could pose harm to the marine environment during the operational period. If the WEC devices deployed at the WETS use a power take-off system that requires hydraulic fluid, the fluid would typically be non-petroleum and environmentally-safe. Maintenance and decommissioning activities would not introduce potential pollutants into the marine environment.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG12

The Proposed Action is not expected to affect the risks or potential of natural hazard occurrences such as flooding or tsunami, nor increase the severity of these hazards on life or property during construction, operations, maintenance and decommissioning activities.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG13

During installation and decommissioning of the new WETS berth infrastructure and scientific measuring devices (i.e., anchoring system, subsea transmission lines and equipment, Waverider© buoys, EMF probes, hydrophones, and ADCP), workboats and divers would conduct operations over a period of several hours to several days. In general, the workboats would be stationary or operate within a small area (e.g., during anchor mooring installation) or move methodically along a prescribed path (i.e., during the cable laying operation). These in-water operations would pose low risk to marine mammals, as vessel speeds would be low and controlled (i.e., 0.5 knots), and they could easily be avoided by any marine mammals in the area.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG14

During installation and decommissioning of the new WETS berth infrastructure and scientific measuring devices (i.e., anchoring system, subsea transmission lines and equipment, Waverider© buoys, EMF probes, hydrophones, and ADCP), workboats and divers would conduct operations over a period of several hours to several days. In general, the workboats would be stationary or operate within a small area (e.g., during anchor mooring installation) or move methodically along a prescribed path (i.e., during the cable laying operation). These in-water operations would pose low risk to marine mammals, as vessel speeds would be low and controlled (i.e., 0.5 knots), and they could easily be avoided by any marine mammals in the area.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG15

The rock drill is expected to produce sound that has no physical effects on marine mammal hearing, but can be greater than 120 dB re: 1 μPa. Therefore, the noise could cause behavioral responses in more sensitive marine mammal species. Marine mammal species found around Hawaii that are more likely to respond behaviorally to received SPLs above 120 dB re: 1 μPa are beaked whales, which are found in pelagic waters. The species that could occur in the project area are species that are relatively insensitive to noise (i.e. humpback whales, bottlenose dolphins, and spinner dolphins). The rock drill will be used in the presence of people and operating equipment and vessels. The physical cues of people and equipment are likely to discourage marine mammals from approaching the drill closely. The rock drills would be used for short, punctuated periods of time--several minutes at a time--instead for a sustained period of time. Furthermore, protective zones would be implemented during drilling operations to ensure that no harassment occurs to marine mammals (see BMPs listed in Section 2.2.4 and below). Rock drilling operations would not commence if a marine mammal is sighted within 1,640 ft (500 m) of the drilling site. If a marine mammal enters the zone after drilling has started, operations would cease if the animal approaches within 820 ft (250 m) of the drilling site (i.e., outside the estimated 120 dB re 1μPa isopleth of 141 m described in previous paragraph).

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG16

Specific tools used in decommissioning activities have not been determined, but are unlikely to be significantly different from those used in installation, and would thus generate noise levels similar to that of installation.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG17

The WEC devices are expected to levels of noise that are lower than the peak levels when average or below-average wave conditions are occurring. During high wave activity, a WEC device might have a SPL of up to 151 dB re: 1 μPa at 1 m, but the sound will occur amidst ambient wave noise, which will mask the sound to some degree. For a WEC device that has a SPL of 151 dB re 1μPa at 1 m, the 120 dB re 1μPa isopleth would lie at 115 ft (35 m) from the source, using spherical spreading loss. Under conditions of high ambient noise, the WEC device may be difficult to detect acoustically at distances greater than the 120 dB isopleth. Any behavioral disturbance, such as avoidance of the area, would occur at less than 115 ft (35 m) from the device. Due to the nature of the sound, its similarity to light vessel traffic, and its association with wave noise, exposed animals are expected to habituate to the sound which would make any behavioral modification or avoidance temporary. Maintenance activities would be infrequent and involve use of small boats for short periods; they would be typical of those that transit the project area and would produce underwater noise levels common to the area.

In addition, the acoustic monitoring hydrophones, included as part of the Proposed Action, are intended to measure sounds emitted by the deep-water WEC devices at various times throughout the operational period to quantify the project’s impacts on the underwater noise environment. The data collected by the hydrophones would inform future WEC device deployments.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG18

During operation, there is a potential for the WEC devices to experience an electrical fault or short due to damage to the transmission cables. In the event of an electrical fault, there is a short period of time during which the electrical current generated by the WEC system would leak to seawater. A computer-controlled fault detection and interruption system would divert the electric current from the cable and store it in load resistors in the event of a fault. Therefore, the Proposed Action is unlikely to significantly impact marine mammals due to electrical leakage during operation and maintenance activities. Decommissioning activities would not produce electrical leakage risks as there would be no electrical current running through the cables. ... Electroreception (i.e., the sensing of electric fields by organisms) is not found generally among mammals, including those that are most likely to be present in the project area. There is conflicting evidence for magnetoreception (i.e., the sensing of magnetic fields by organisms) or use of the Earth’s magnetic field in marine mammals (Klinowska 1985, 1988; Hui 1994; Brabyn and Frew 1994). But any evidence of marine mammals using geomagnetic information suggests that the information would be used at the landscape level instead of the bathymetric micro-feature level. Therefore, it is unlikely that electric or magnetic fields generated by the proposed subsea transmission cables during the operations and maintenance activities would significantly impact marine mammals.

In addition, the EMF monitoring sensors, included as part of the Proposed Action, are intended to measure the electromagnetic field generated by the WEC devices at various times throughout the operational period to quantify the project’s impacts. The data collected by the EMF sensors would inform future WEC device deployments.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG19

Heat losses from the undersea transmission cables would have negligible impacts on seawater temperature in the vicinity of the cable, due to immediate dissipation by the natural flow of seawater. The large volume of seawater around the cable would keep temperature differences less than the natural differences due to solar heating, upwelling, and current-induced mixing. Heat released from the undersea electrical equipment (e.g., umbilical splice boxes) into the surrounding water is anticipated to be similar in nature to heat released from the undersea cable. Therefore, there would be insignificant impacts to marine mammals from heat dissipation from electrical infrastructure associated with the proposed WEC devices during operations and maintenance. Decommissioning would not result in heat loss because the transmission cables would not be energized.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG20

During the operational period, the mooring lines, subsurface buoys, scientific monitoring equipment, and WEC devices would not pose a collision hazard to marine mammals, as these elements would be large enough to be easily detected in the environment and marine mammals are agile within their medium (i.e., under water). Maintenance activities (e.g., annual inspections and periodic maintenance) would also utilize small boats and pose similar low collision risk to marine mammals. There is low potential that the WEC devices would serve as a haul-out platform for Hawaiian monk seals or turtles because the structures are meant to respond to wave motion and do not present a stable surface on which to crawl. Most WEC devices are tall and would be difficult for these species to scale the sides. There has been no evidence of turtle or seal haul-outs onto the WEC devices tested at the shallow-water WET site during its operations.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG21

The elements of the WETS berth that will be present in the water column, such as the mooring chain and the mooring rope, are large, conspicuous, and will be under tension. Not only should these items be avoidable by a marine mammal swimming in the environment, they are also robust enough to resist breaking and entangling an animal if they come in contact with an animal. Both the chain and the rope have a breaking strength of close to 1,000,000 lbs (453,592 kg). The power cable will not be under tension, but is a stiff, large diameter (3.5-in [8.9-cm]) cable. It is not able to form loops, wrap around an object, or cinch tight on a relatively small diameter animal such as a marine mammal. Maintenance and decommissioning activities would pose little entanglement or entrapment risk to marine mammals because the infrastructure would either remain in place or be removed.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG22

There is no clear behavioral disturbance criterion for turtles, and they are much less sensitive to noise than marine mammals (Ridgway et al 1969 and Bartol et al 1999). The WEC device may have more low-frequency peaks in its spectrum than rock drills (energy peaks at 20, 100, 300, 700, and 1500 Hz from Thomson et al. 2012). Therefore, turtles may only react behaviorally to WEC devices, but at distances less than 115 ft (35 m) from the device.

The qualitative and quantitative data gathered by the Navy between 2003 and 2011 for the existing shallow-water WET berth indicate that no endangered hawksbill sea turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) have been sighted at or in the general vicinity of the project site. Also, no threatened green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) were sighted underwater and only one specimen was seen within 1,640 ft (500 m) of the shallow-water WET berth. The low abundance of turtles may be due to the lack of foraging and resting habitat, coupled with the less desirable high energy environment. Due to the low abundance of sea turtles in the general area, it is expected that the Proposed Action will not significantly impact sea turtles. Potential minimal impacts may include noise from securing the cable, avoiding or being attracted to the equipment, and entanglement in the subsea transmission cable during its installation.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG23

Maintenance and decommissioning activities would not generate noise levels greater than those contributed by the construction and operation of the WETS or WEC devices.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG24

Maintenance and decommissioning activities would not generate noise levels greater than those contributed by the construction and operation of the WETS or WEC devices.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG25

The Proposed Action is unlikely to significantly impact sea turtles during construction, operation, maintenance or decommissioning activities due to electrical leakage. Sea turtles are not known to be adept at electroreception, but they are known to be able to detect and use geomagnetic information to navigate, although it may play a limited role in their movement (Lohmann et al. 2008, Sale and Luschi 2009, Benhamou et al. 2011).Since the cable occupies a narrow area of the seafloor, the impact of avoidance behavior would be minimal. The cable route would not occupy any unique feeding, breeding, birthing, or egg-laying areas. The analysis provided in Sound and Sea Technology 2002 in Navy 2003 found no evidence in the literature of either short- or long-term effects of electric or magnetic fields from cables similar to the WEC cable on marine organisms, other than the possible behaviors described. Although there have been numerous inconclusive studies of the effects of electromagnetic fields on animals in air, no similar studies have been found of the effects of EMR on marine animals in seawater. Maintenance activities would result in the same insignificant impacts as operations because there would be no change in EMF levels. There would be no EMF impacts during decommissioning because the cables would not be energized.

The qualitative and quantitative data gathered by the Navy between 2003 and 2011 for the existing shallow-water WET berth indicate that no endangered hawksbill sea turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) have been sighted at or in the general vicinity of the project site. Also, no threatened green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) were sighted underwater and only one specimen was seen within 1,640 ft (500 m) of the shallow-water WET berth. The low abundance of turtles may be due to the lack of foraging and resting habitat, coupled with the less desirable high energy environment. Due to the low abundance of sea turtles in the general area, it is expected that the Proposed Action will not significantly impact sea turtles. Potential minimal impacts may include noise from securing the cable, avoiding or being attracted to the equipment, and entanglement in the subsea transmission cable during its installation.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG26

The Proposed Action is unlikely to significantly impact sea turtles during construction, operation, maintenance or decommissioning activities due to heat dissipation to sea water. Heat losses from the undersea transmission cables would have negligible impacts on seawater temperature in the vicinity of the cable, due to immediate dissipation by the natural flow of seawater. The large volume of seawater around the cable would keep temperature differences less than the natural differences due to solar heating, upwelling, and current-induced mixing. Heat released from the undersea electrical equipment (e.g., umbilical splice boxes) into the surrounding water is anticipated to be similar in nature to heat released from the undersea cable.

The qualitative and quantitative data gathered by the Navy between 2003 and 2011 for the existing shallow-water WET berth indicate that no endangered hawksbill sea turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) have been sighted at or in the general vicinity of the project site. Also, no threatened green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) were sighted underwater and only one specimen was seen within 1,640 ft (500 m) of the shallow-water WET berth. The low abundance of turtles may be due to the lack of foraging and resting habitat, coupled with the less desirable high energy environment. Due to the low abundance of sea turtles in the general area, it is expected that the Proposed Action will not significantly impact sea turtles. Potential minimal impacts may include noise from securing the cable, avoiding or being attracted to the equipment, and entanglement in the subsea transmission cable during its installation.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG27

There has been no evidence that sea turtles entangled or entrapped in any of the existing shallow-water WET berth equipment or infrastructure. The deep-water WETS power transmission cable would be attached to the seafloor to a depth of approximately 100 ft (30 m); therefore there is almost no likelihood of entanglement at these depths. The sea bottom along the proposed deep-water cable route lacks forage and resting habitat, therefore the likelihood of turtles being on the substrate near the transmission cables is unlikely. Diver and/or ROV survey-assisted cable laying would reduce risk of entanglement, because careful placement of the cable can ensure that it is flat on the seafloor and no loops in the cable are present to encircle sea turtles. Maintenance activities would not affect entanglement/entrapment risk because there would be no alteration in the components or infrastructure. Decommissioning would pose low entanglement/entrapment risk because sea turtles can avoid the activities associated with removal of the infrastructure and components.

The qualitative and quantitative data gathered by the Navy between 2003 and 2011 for the existing shallow-water WET berth indicate that no endangered hawksbill sea turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) have been sighted at or in the general vicinity of the project site. Also, no threatened green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) were sighted underwater and only one specimen was seen within 1,640 ft (500 m) of the shallow-water WET berth. The low abundance of turtles may be due to the lack of foraging and resting habitat, coupled with the less desirable high energy environment. Due to the low abundance of sea turtles in the general area, it is expected that the Proposed Action will not significantly impact sea turtles. Potential minimal impacts may include noise from securing the cable, avoiding or being attracted to the equipment, and entanglement in the subsea transmission cable during its installation.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG28

There has been no evidence that sea turtles entangled or entrapped in any of the existing shallow-water WET berth equipment or infrastructure. The deep-water WETS power transmission cable would be attached to the seafloor to a depth of approximately 100 ft (30 m); therefore there is almost no likelihood of entanglement at these depths. The sea bottom along the proposed deep-water cable route lacks forage and resting habitat, therefore the likelihood of turtles being on the substrate near the transmission cables is unlikely. Diver and/or ROV survey-assisted cable laying would reduce risk of entanglement, because careful placement of the cable can ensure that it is flat on the seafloor and no loops in the cable are present to encircle sea turtles. Maintenance activities would not affect entanglement/entrapment risk because there would be no alteration in the components or infrastructure. Decommissioning would pose low entanglement/entrapment risk because sea turtles can avoid the activities associated with removal of the infrastructure and components.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG28

Similar to marine mammals, sea turtles could easily avoid collisions with equipment or vessels during in-water installation and decommissioning operations due to the low vessel speeds (i.e., approximately 0.5 knots) expected and generally discrete work areas involved. During the operational period, sea turtles can easily avoid collisions with mooring lines, subsurface buoys, scientific monitoring equipment, and WEC devices associated with the deep-water WETS. Maintenance activities would not affect or cause an increased collision hazard for sea turtles with the deep-water WETS equipment.

The qualitative and quantitative data gathered by the Navy between 2003 and 2011 for the existing shallow-water WET berth indicate that no endangered hawksbill sea turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) have been sighted at or in the general vicinity of the project site. Also, no threatened green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) were sighted underwater and only one specimen was seen within 1,640 ft (500 m) of the shallow-water WET berth. The low abundance of turtles may be due to the lack of foraging and resting habitat, coupled with the less desirable high energy environment. Due to the low abundance of sea turtles in the general area, it is expected that the Proposed Action will not significantly impact sea turtles. Potential minimal impacts may include noise from securing the cable, avoiding or being attracted to the equipment, and entanglement in the subsea transmission cable during its installation.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG29

Similar to marine mammals, sea turtles could easily avoid collisions with equipment or vessels during in-water installation and decommissioning operations due to the low vessel speeds (i.e., approximately 0.5 knots) expected and generally discrete work areas involved. During the operational period, sea turtles can easily avoid collisions with mooring lines, subsurface buoys, scientific monitoring equipment, and WEC devices associated with the deep-water WETS. Maintenance activities would not affect or cause an increased collision hazard for sea turtles with the deep-water WETS equipment.

The qualitative and quantitative data gathered by the Navy between 2003 and 2011 for the existing shallow-water WET berth indicate that no endangered hawksbill sea turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) have been sighted at or in the general vicinity of the project site. Also, no threatened green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) were sighted underwater and only one specimen was seen within 1,640 ft (500 m) of the shallow-water WET berth. The low abundance of turtles may be due to the lack of foraging and resting habitat, coupled with the less desirable high energy environment. Due to the low abundance of sea turtles in the general area, it is expected that the Proposed Action will not significantly impact sea turtles. Potential minimal impacts may include noise from securing the cable, avoiding or being attracted to the equipment, and entanglement in the subsea transmission cable during its installation.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG23

Laying the power cables on the sea floor, divers working to position and secure the cables, and anchors used by support vessels all have the potential to directly strike coral colonies should they be present when the equipment or divers contact the bottom. The severity of injury to the coral will depend largely on the size and hardness of the impacting object and the intensity of the impact. Injury could range from a small area of soft tissue damage that quickly heals to total obliteration of the colony. The project plan and BMPs require that divers be aware of the identity and status of the ESA proposed corals and to specifically watch for and avoid them completely during work to position and install the power cables, including anchoring support vessels. Based on the sparse distribution of these corals, the limited amount of work to be done where they occur, and the expectation that divers will comply with the BMPs, the Navy determined that the risk of direct impact on colonies of either species is discountable.During cable laying operations, diver and/or ROV assistance would be employed to avoid placement on ESA proposed listed corals. Installation of the WEC devices, mooring infrastructure, and scientific data gathering equipment would also avoid ESA proposed listed corals.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG24

Securing the power cable would involve the use of handheld drills to install rock bolts over a few days at most. Drilling would briefly mobilize small bursts of fine sediments into the water column. Although this material could settle onto coral colonies, the plumes are expected to be very light and quickly diluted. They would extend no more than a few yards from the work and dissipate within minutes. Therefore, no significant sedimentation would result due to exposure to elevated turbidity.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG25

Laying the power cables on the sea floor, divers working to position and secure the cables, and anchors used by support vessels all have the potential to directly strike coral colonies should they be present when the equipment or divers contact the bottom. The severity of injury to the coral will depend largely on the size and hardness of the impacting object and the intensity of the impact. Injury could range from a small area of soft tissue damage that quickly heals to total obliteration of the colony. The project plan and BMPs require that divers be aware of the identity and status of the ESA proposed corals and to specifically watch for and avoid them completely during work to position and install the power cables, including anchoring support vessels. Based on the sparse distribution of these corals, the limited amount of work to be done where they occur, and the expectation that divers will comply with the BMPs, the Navy determined that the risk of direct impact on colonies of either species is discountable. During the operational period, there would be no collision hazard impacts to ESA proposed coral species from the operation or maintenance of the WEC devices, scientific data gathering equipment, and their associated infrastructure.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG26

Securing the power cable would involve the use of handheld drills to install rock bolts over a few days at most. Drilling would briefly mobilize small bursts of fine sediments into the water column. Although this material could settle onto coral colonies, the plumes are expected to be very light and quickly diluted. They would extend no more than a few yards from the work and dissipate within minutes. Therefore, no significant sedimentation would result due to exposure to elevated turbidity.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG27

Laying the power cables on the sea floor, divers working to position and secure the cables, and anchors used by support vessels all have the potential to directly strike coral colonies should they be present when the equipment or divers contact the bottom. The severity of injury to the coral will depend largely on the size and hardness of the impacting object and the intensity of the impact. Injury could range from a small area of soft tissue damage that quickly heals to total obliteration of the colony. The project plan and BMPs require that divers be aware of the identity and status of the ESA proposed corals and to specifically watch for and avoid them completely during work to position and install the power cables, including anchoring support vessels. Based on the sparse distribution of these corals, the limited amount of work to be done where they occur, and the expectation that divers will comply with the BMPs, the Navy determined that the risk of direct impact on colonies of either species is discountable. Decommissioning activities would be coordinated with NOAA Fisheries to ensure the protection of ESA proposed listed coral.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG28

Securing the power cable would involve the use of handheld drills to install rock bolts over a few days at most. Drilling would briefly mobilize small bursts of fine sediments into the water column. Although this material could settle onto coral colonies, the plumes are expected to be very light and quickly diluted. They would extend no more than a few yards from the work and dissipate within minutes. Therefore, no significant sedimentation would result due to exposure to elevated turbidity.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG29

Corals can withstand sound thresholds beyond those expected in the Proposed Action; therefore, the Proposed Action would have no effect to proposed ESA corals due to sound. Use of the hydraulic drill will be brief and will not be conducted in close proximity to proposed ESA corals, because they will be avoided by the team laying cable at water depths where the proposed corals could occur.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG30

Corals can withstand sound thresholds beyond those expected in the Proposed Action; therefore, the Proposed Action would have no effect to proposed ESA corals due to sound. Operation of the WEC device will not occur near coral reef ecosystem where proposed ESA corals could occur.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG31

Corals can withstand sound thresholds beyond those expected in the Proposed Action; therefore, the Proposed Action would have no effect to proposed ESA corals due to sound. Use of the hydraulic drill will be brief and will not be conducted in close proximity to proposed ESA corals, because they will be avoided by the team laying cable at water depths where the proposed corals could occur. Maintenance and decommissioning activities would contribute similar underwater sound levels as the installation and operational processes, also resulting in insignificant impacts.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG32

Entanglement may be used to define the impact of cable being placed on top of a coral colony, resulting in smothering, or for a cable bumping and dislodging a coral head. Diver and/or ROV survey-assisted cable laying would eliminate risk of “entanglement,” because careful placement of the cable can ensure avoidance of colonies of proposed ESA listed corals, where applicable. Securing the cable to the substrate will ensure that they do not move across the substrate and damage nearby coral colonies. The Proposed Action would have no effect on proposed ESA coral species during construction, operation, maintenance or decommissioning activities.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG33

The subsea transmission cables associated with the Proposed Action (including construction, operation, maintenance or decommissioning activities) could impact the following marine habitats: sand-boulder zone, sand channel zone, reef flat zone, escarpment zone, deep reef platform zone, undercut ledges, deep-water site. The cables would be secured to the seafloor in water depths less than 100 ft (30 m), to avoid movement due to the high energy wave and surf zone. Beyond 100 ft (30 m), the lower wave energy at the seafloor and weight of the cables would keep them relatively stationary. Based on marine surveys conducted between the installation of the shallow-water WET berth transmission cable in 2003 and 2011, there was no evidence that any portion of the existing transmission cable had moved since being installed in 2003 and no evidence that any corals had been damaged due to movement of the cable (see discussion in Section 3.7.3). Therefore, the same is expected for the Proposed Action’s subsea cables in corresponding water depths and habitat zones.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG34

The subsea transmission cables associated with the Proposed Action (including construction, operation, maintenance or decommissioning activities) could impact the following marine habitats: sand-boulder zone, sand channel zone, reef flat zone, escarpment zone, deep reef platform zone, undercut ledges, deep-water site. The cables would be secured to the seafloor in water depths less than 100 ft (30 m), to avoid movement due to the high energy wave and surf zone. Beyond 100 ft (30 m), the lower wave energy at the seafloor and weight of the cables would keep them relatively stationary. Based on marine surveys conducted between the installation of the shallow-water WET berth transmission cable in 2003 and 2011, there was no evidence that any portion of the existing transmission cable had moved since being installed in 2003 and no evidence that any corals had been damaged due to movement of the cable (see discussion in Section 3.7.3). Therefore, the same is expected for the Proposed Action’s subsea cables in corresponding water depths and habitat zones.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG35

The subsea transmission cables associated with the Proposed Action (including construction, operation, maintenance or decommissioning activities) could impact the following marine habitats: sand-boulder zone, sand channel zone, reef flat zone, escarpment zone, deep reef platform zone, undercut ledges, deep-water site. The cables would be secured to the seafloor in water depths less than 100 ft (30 m), to avoid movement due to the high energy wave and surf zone. Beyond 100 ft (30 m), the lower wave energy at the seafloor and weight of the cables would keep them relatively stationary. Based on marine surveys conducted between the installation of the shallow-water WET berth transmission cable in 2003 and 2011, there was no evidence that any portion of the existing transmission cable had moved since being installed in 2003 and no evidence that any corals had been damaged due to movement of the cable (see discussion in Section 3.7.3). Therefore, the same is expected for the Proposed Action’s subsea cables in corresponding water depths and habitat zones.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG36

The placement of the subsea transmission cables would displace a minimal number of invertebrates and would provide a raised and more complex habitat in comparison to the flat sand or pavement substrate found along the shallow water areas. The cable would cross an area of reef with sparse coral cover. The footprint of the cable will be approximately 12 in (30 cm) wide. Using diver assistance for portions of the cable route in waters up to 100 ft (30 m) deep and a cable route determined using ROV video surveys interpreted by marine biological experts for deeper waters, adjustments while laying the cables would allow for the footprint to be shifted away from any important invertebrate resources, such as coral colonies, to further avoid and minimize impacts. There may be adverse impact from diver presence while laying and securing the cable. Sand may be kicked up, or a coral colony accidentally damaged by a diver assisting the installation. Although the Proposed Action may have an unavoidable adverse effect to some coral colonies during construction, the overall impact will be minimal. The Proposed Action is expected to have minimal to no impact to other marine invertebrate communities, as the sandy substrate in the deep- water WETS berth area does not support a rich sessile invertebrate community. The community structure underlying the subsea transmission cables comprises a small linear area that would affect the underlying community structure.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG37

During the operational period, there would be annual maintenance inspections of the subsea infrastructure, including the transmission cables. These activities would have no impact on marine invertebrates.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG38

Although coral is present, the majority of the project area has very low coral cover that is sparsely scattered. These corals would grow on the subsea transmission cables, which is likely to be left in place when the project is decommissioned, allowing the corals to persist on the cables. These corals are not expected on the chains and subsea cables in the water column at the deep- water berthing site, where the elements of the WETS are expected to be removed when decommissioned.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG39

Marine vegetation is scarce in the area of the deep-water WETS berths and sparse along the path where the subsea transmission cables would be laid from the deep-water berths to shore. Potential impacts include the smothering or removal of vegetation when the subsea transmission cables are installed and secured. There are no marine vegetation species of concern in the project area. Seagrass only occurs in very small patches in the Reef Flat Zone and would be minimally affected by installation of the power cable. The macroalgae and turf algae that were impacted by the installation of the shallow-water WET berth transmission cable and WEC device grew back immediately, and after 18 months the affected algae had fully recolonized. Therefore, it is expected that a similar situation would occur, with the Proposed Action resulting in temporary and minimal impacts to marine vegetation.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG40

Short-term construction-related impacts would occur as recreational vessels may be directed outside in-water work areas associated with installation of the deep-water WETS mooring and underwater transmission cable systems and installation of the WEC devices. Work boats and barges used for the in-water installations of the deep-water WETS mooring and transmission cable systems and WEC buoy arrays would monitor boating traffic during construction, such that boats would be diverted around the construction area.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG41

During the operational period, there would be minimal impacts to ocean recreational activities. Boaters and fishermen would be prohibited from tying up to, boarding or trespassing on the WEC devices and their associated equipment. No long-term, permanent impacts on coastal recreation activities are expected. Existing access to and use of the beaches and designated recreation areas would not be affected during the operational phase. No coastal recreation areas would be affected by the surface-laid cable, as the transmission cables exiting the ocean and crossing the beach to the new utility vault would be aligned to follow the existing shallow-water WET conduit route located within the restricted shoreline zone (i.e., shoreline areas extending 300 ft [91.4 m] on either side of the main runway). This restricted zone is controlled by flight operations and is off limits to all recreational users. Information on regulations is made available to all residents, employees, and the general public; enforcement is provided by lifeguards, security personnel from Waterfront Operations, and base security personnel. The terrestrial cable route is not within a designated recreational area; therefore, periodic inspections would not impact terrestrial recreation.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG42

The Proposed Action would not impose additional access restrictions to recreational boaters transiting the area; however, boaters would have to navigate around the equipment.The WEC devices and surface buoys would be equipped with warning signs and navigation lights complying with USCG requirements. Locations of surface buoys and WEC devices would be added to navigation charts. All subsurface elements, such as subsurface retrieval buoys, would be located at sufficient depths (i.e., 30 ft [9 m]) so they would not be an obstruction to passing vessels. There would be infrequent, periodic maintenance inspections of the WEC devices and infrastructure. Vessels, equipment and personnel would operate for a few hours a year in the vicinity of the WETS and its infrastructure.These activities are not expected to interfere with recreational activities in the area as the work would occur near marked buoys and be easily avoided by transiting boats.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG43

In-water decommissioning activities would be temporary and involve similar assets and procedures as the installation process, with similar in- water protocols; therefore, these activities would not significantly impact recreational use of the area.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG44

Human divers or swimmers exposed to high levels of underwater sound can suffer from dizziness, hearing damage or other injuries, depending on the frequency and intensity of the sound (Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research 2008). Guidance for human diver exposure to underwater sound indicates that, in the 100 to 500 Hz frequency range, recreational divers (i.e., bareheaded) and swimmers should not be exposed to SPLs greater than 145 dB re 1μPa (Parvin et al 2002). In the 501 to 2500 Hz frequency range, the same guidance recommends that recreational divers and swimmers should not be exposed to SPLs greater than 155 dB re 1μPa. the construction period hand drilling associated with anchoring the subsea cables would be brief and temporary (i.e., approximately one week) and because the drill-related sound (i.e., assumed in the analysis to be 163 dB re 1μPa at the source) would be attenuated to the lower guidance level approximately 50 ft (16 m) from the drilling, the construction related underwater noise is not expected to increase risk to humans in nearshore waters. Furthermore, according to MCB Hawaii Base Order P1710.1, all persons and watercraft are prohibited from recreational water sports and fishing within 500 yards of the shoreline in the approach areas at both ends of Runway 4-22. This includes much of the segments of subsea cable that would be anchored by rock bolts using hand drills; therefore, very few humans are expected to be in radius of the cable anchoring that would be exposed to sound levels above guidance levels.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG45

During the operational period, the SPL from the WEC device is expected to be 151 dB re 1μPa at 1 m at the highest. These sound levels are within the guidance for recreational diver and swimmer exposure (i.e., 145 dB re 1μPa) at 10 ft (3 m) from the source; therefore, the operations of the WEC devices are not expected to adversely affect recreational divers or swimmers in the vicinity. Maintenance activities would not involve generation of underwater noise levels beyond what is typical in the environment—i.e., small boats and divers in the water. Decommissioning activities may involve removal of the subsea cables and use of hand tools underwater. They are likely to be similar to those used in the installation and thus result in similar insignificant sound impacts to public safety.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG46

The power generation unit for each proposed WEC device would produce electromagnetic emissions that may propagate into the surrounding marine waters. Recent studies predicting the EMF fields emitted from WEC devices and submarine power cables in the marine environment concluded that the electric and magnetic fields decrease rapidly in close proximity to the source (Oregon Wave Energy Trust September 2010a and 2010b). The decay of the electric and magnetic fields generated by WEC devices would depend on the nature of the source and the physical parameters of the surrounding seawater and sediments. Because there is expected to be limited human activity in the immediate vicinities of the WEC devices and subsea transmission cables, EMF resulting from the Proposed Action is not expected to create EMF hazards to public safety. Warning signs would be posted on the WEC devices to alert unauthorized persons from boarding or approaching the buoys, most of the subsea cable would either be at depths not accessible to recreational SCUBA or free divers or within the offshore areas prohibited from recreational activities

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG47

The large volume of seawater around the cable would keep temperature differences less than the natural differences due to solar heating, upwelling, and current-induced mixing. Because there would be minimal heat loss from the subsea cables and, with the exception of inspection and maintenance divers, no human activity in the immediate vicinity of the cables, no heat-related public safety impacts are expected from the Proposed Action

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG48

Because WEC devices do not generally have entanglement or entrapment points and move slowly with the frequency of passing waves, they pose minimal risk to inspection and maintenance personnel (or unauthorized individuals who approach or board the devices). WEC devices that have components that move relative to each other (e.g., float and spar) would present negligible entanglement hazards to individuals in their immediate vicinity because the spacing between moving parts would be minimal (e.g., less than 1 in [2.5 cm]). Mooring lines that secure the WEC devices to surface buoys would be under constant tension (i.e., without slack), which would present little entanglement hazard to any recreational swimmers or divers in the area.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG49

Visual effects of the Proposed Action would be minimal from shore. WEC devices at the shallow-water WET berth are almost imperceptible when viewed from the Mokapu Peninsula shoreline. At approximately twice the distance from shore, WEC devices at the deep-water WETS berths—though they may be larger than those at the shallow-water site—would be less visible. Lights and navigational aids associated with the new deep-water berths would be visible at some distance, but are necessary for maritime safety.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG50

The Proposed Action and HDD Alternative may contribute to an increase in biomass and biodiversity in the affected area by providing suitable substrate for recruitment.

APPENDIX A: WAVE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PROJECT, OFFSHORE MARINE CORPS BASE HAWAII
YEAR 1 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT OCTOBER 2003 THROUGH OCTOBER 2004

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG51

It is important to note, the NMFS, USFWS and DLNR concluded that the project was not likely to adversely impact any of the resources under their jurisdiction. Nevertheless, some individuals, within those agencies expressed concern regarding the following issues:
1. Sea turtles might be attracted to the structure and become entangled or trapped.
2. Monk seals might be attracted to the structure and become entangled or trapped.
3. The structure might promote the growth and/or spread of alien species.

Alien Assessment. During the Marine Aliens Workshop at the University of Hawaii (May 18, 2001) five invasive alien algae, and 21 alien invertebrates were listed as being present within Kaneohe Bay. The Marine Corps Base Hawaii Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Study (December 2002) lists, one algae, 47 invertebrates and eight fishes. Some of these alien organisms can be quite confidently identified in the field, e.g. the snowflake coral Carijoa riisei and the sea frost worm Salmacina dysteri. Most, however, must be collected and identified in a laboratory. Suspicious specimens were noted and sampled and/or photographed. Large-scale sampling was not within the scope of this project. Appendix 3 lists the alien species recorded from the workshop and the report. It is important to note, that most of these records listed in Appendix 3 are from inside Kaneohe Bay, and none were from the actual project site itself. Alien assessments were performed during the Replicate Quadrats and Replicate Transects, and also by completing a meandering swim over, around, and under, when possible, each of the six study locations listed in Table 1.

APPENDIX A: WAVE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PROJECT, OFFSHORE MARINE CORPS BASE HAWAII
YEAR 1 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT OCTOBER 2003 THROUGH OCTOBER 2004

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG52

Fish Assessment. Appendix 4 lists the fish species which were sighted and the general locations where the sightings took place. All the fish species sighted at the buoy, anchor base, power conversion system, and along the transmission cable were commonly occurring Hawaiian species. No rare or unusual fish were sighted. None of the fishes sighted appeared to be diseased or to be behaving in an abnormal manner. The author had expected that large numbers of baitfish and sharks might be attracted to the buoy assembly. However, no large schools of baitfish and no sharks were sighted during any of the dives.

Fish Assessment. This activity involved recording every species of finfish, which could be identified in the field, or by photographs taken in the field. Photographs were also taken of the anchor base and used to estimate the total numbers of the two numerically dominant fish species which frequent the anchor base. An effort was also made to determine if any of the fishes exhibited unusual behavior and/or showed any signs of abnormalities, such as lesions. Fish assessments were performed by completing a meandering swim over, around, and under, when possible, each of the six study locations listed in Table 1.

APPENDIX A: WAVE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PROJECT, OFFSHORE MARINE CORPS BASE HAWAII
YEAR 1 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT OCTOBER 2003 THROUGH OCTOBER 2004

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG53

It is important to note, the NMFS, USFWS and DLNR concluded that the project was not likely to adversely impact any of the resources under their jurisdiction. Nevertheless, some individuals, within those agencies expressed concern regarding the following issues:
1. Sea turtles might be attracted to the structure and become entangled or trapped.
2. Monk seals might be attracted to the structure and become entangled or trapped.
3. The structure might promote the growth and/or spread of alien species.

Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment. The threatened green sea turtle Chelonia mydas, and the endangered hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), the endangered Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi) and the endangered humpback whale (Megaptera novaeanglia) have all been reported within the project area. Field identification of each of these animals is relatively easy. The MDSU 1 divers were instructed in how to identify each of these species and, in the case of the turtles, to also estimate the size and sex. Whales can often be heard, but not seen. Care was taken during the dives to listen for whales. Each member of the team kept a look out for these four species during the dives and on the surface from the dive boat.

APPENDIX A: WAVE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PROJECT, OFFSHORE MARINE CORPS BASE HAWAII
YEAR 1 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT OCTOBER 2003 THROUGH OCTOBER 2004

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG54

It is important to note, the NMFS, USFWS and DLNR concluded that the project was not likely to adversely impact any of the resources under their jurisdiction. Nevertheless, some individuals, within those agencies expressed concern regarding the following issues:
1. Sea turtles might be attracted to the structure and become entangled or trapped.
2. Monk seals might be attracted to the structure and become entangled or trapped.
3. The structure might promote the growth and/or spread of alien species.

Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment. The threatened green sea turtle Chelonia mydas, and the endangered hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), the endangered Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi) and the endangered humpback whale (Megaptera novaeanglia) have all been reported within the project area. Field identification of each of these animals is relatively easy. The MDSU 1 divers were instructed in how to identify each of these species and, in the case of the turtles, to also estimate the size and sex. Whales can often be heard, but not seen. Care was taken during the dives to listen for whales. Each member of the team kept a look out for these four species during the dives and on the surface from the dive boat.

APPENDIX A: WAVE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PROJECT, OFFSHORE MARINE CORPS BASE HAWAII
YEAR 1 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT OCTOBER 2003 THROUGH OCTOBER 2004

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG54

It is important to note, the NMFS, USFWS and DLNR concluded that the project was not likely to adversely impact any of the resources under their jurisdiction. Nevertheless, some individuals, within those agencies expressed concern regarding the following issues:
1. Sea turtles might be attracted to the structure and become entangled or trapped.
2. Monk seals might be attracted to the structure and become entangled or trapped.
3. The structure might promote the growth and/or spread of alien species.

APPENDIX A: WAVE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PROJECT, OFFSHORE MARINE CORPS BASE HAWAII
YEAR 1 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT OCTOBER 2003 THROUGH OCTOBER 2004

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG55

It is important to note, the NMFS, USFWS and DLNR concluded that the project was not likely to adversely impact any of the resources under their jurisdiction. Nevertheless, some individuals, within those agencies expressed concern regarding the following issues:
1. Sea turtles might be attracted to the structure and become entangled or trapped.
2. Monk seals might be attracted to the structure and become entangled or trapped.
3. The structure might promote the growth and/or spread of alien species.

APPENDIX A: WAVE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PROJECT, OFFSHORE MARINE CORPS BASE HAWAII
YEAR 1 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT OCTOBER 2003 THROUGH OCTOBER 2004

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1EYK5JBWao979AIN_j-SzPaUcZ3gQAwG55

It is important to note, the NMFS, USFWS and DLNR concluded that the project was not likely to adversely impact any of the resources under their jurisdiction. Nevertheless, some individuals, within those agencies expressed concern regarding the following issues: 1. Sea turtles might be attracted to the structure and become entangled or trapped. 2. Monk seals might be attracted to the structure and become entangled or trapped. 3. The structure might promote the growth and/or spread of alien species.

Invertebrate Assessment. This activity was primarily intended to record the condition of stony corals (live, dead, partially bleached, 100% bleached, over grown with filamentous algae, or diseased). The number of individual mollusks (e.g. cowry shells, oysters, octopus), echinoderms (e.g. sea urchins, sea cucumbers, sea stars), and arthropods (e.g. spiny lobsters, slipper lobsters and crabs) was also recorded. Invertebrate assessments were performed by completing a meandering swim around, over and when possible under each of the six study locations listed in Table 1.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

The WEC buoys would not impact oceanographic conditions. This determination is based on analyses of (1) wave height reduction due to wave scattering and (2) wave height reduction due to energy absorption. Using a numerical solution to evaluate wave scattering caused by a wave passing through an infinite grating of circular cylinders, results indicate that the effects of six WEC buoys on wave transmission and reflection would be negligible. This is due to the relatively large design spacing between the buoy cylinders, 169 ft (51.5 m), as compared to the buoy diameter of 15 ft (4.5 m). Potential effects on wave heights due to energy absorption were analyzed by running a wave refraction-diffraction model. Results estimated that wave heights near the shoreline would be reduced by 0.5 percent for a wave period of 9 s, and less than 0.3 percent for a period of 15 s. The impact of six WEC buoys on a wave field would be minimal and would not be noticeable or quantifiable given the randomness of the wave action.

Appendix J provides details of the inputs, methodology, and findings of the analyses used to evaluate the predicted effects of the buoys on oceanographic conditions.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

The noise produced by drilling holes for the rock bolts would be localized, intermittent, and of short duration. Humpback whales, dolphins, and green sea turtles would be able to sense the sound produced by the drills but neither the amplitude nor the frequencies of noise produced would be sufficient to constitute an impact on these animals.It is unlikely that the noise would adversely impact marine species by disrupting feeding or other behaviors. Turtles and fish, in particular, may be attracted to the activity, possibly by the bottom biota stirred up by the drilling.

Appendix F provides further discussion on this subject.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

The noise produced by drilling holes for the rock bolts would be localized, intermittent, and of short duration. Humpback whales, dolphins, and green sea turtles would be able to sense the sound produced by the drills but neither the amplitude nor the frequencies of noise produced would be sufficient to constitute an impact on these animals.It is unlikely that the noise would adversely impact marine species by disrupting feeding or other behaviors. Turtles and fish, in particular, may be attracted to the activity, possibly by the bottom biota stirred up by the drilling.

Appendix F provides further discussion on this subject.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

The noise produced by drilling holes for the rock bolts would be localized, intermittent, and of short duration. Humpback whales, dolphins, and green sea turtles would be able to sense the sound produced by the drills but neither the amplitude nor the frequencies of noise produced would be sufficient to constitute an impact on these animals.It is unlikely that the noise would adversely impact marine species by disrupting feeding or other behaviors. Turtles and fish, in particular, may be attracted to the activity, possibly by the bottom biota stirred up by the drilling. & FOR INSTALLATION OF THE BUOY: The noise produced by drilling holes for the rock bolts would be localized, intermittent, and of short duration, as discussed in Section 4.2.3.1. Pelagic fish such as wahoo and skipjack tuna are highly mobile and, therefore, would not be affected during installation of the buoys and associated hardware. Bottom-dwelling fish such as goatfish are not abundant in the project site, and those that may be present would be displaced to nearby areas.

Appendix F provides further discussion on this subject.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

Installation of the cable would minimize interactions with biota by avoiding areas of rich biological diversity and high percentages of coral coverage. The selected cable route follows cracks and sand channels, most of which are filled with a layer of sand, precluding settlement of biota

Appendix E provides further discussion on this subject.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

While unlikely, there is potential for entanglement of marine mammals and sea turtles with the undersea cable. Historically, problems with entanglement were due primarily to the lack of technology available to precisely place and secure a cable or control the amount of tension. This resulted in spanning or bridging of the cable, and loops developing over time. In contrast to the these early systems, the WEC undersea cable would have the following characteristics:
• Installation would occur in shallow water (i.e., depths to approximately 100 ft [30.5 m]).
• Installation would occur with adequate tension to allow the cable to contour to the seafloor
without suspensions or forming loops. Divers would inspect the cable route once it is placed.
• The length of the cable is relatively short compared to trans-oceanic undersea cables, about 3,900 ft (1,190 m).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

While unlikely, there is potential for entanglement of marine mammals and sea turtles with the undersea cable. Historically, problems with entanglement were due primarily to the lack of technology available to precisely place and secure a cable or control the amount of tension. This resulted in spanning or bridging of the cable, and loops developing over time. In contrast to the these early systems, the WEC undersea cable would have the following characteristics:
• Installation would occur in shallow water (i.e., depths to approximately 100 ft [30.5 m]).
• Installation would occur with adequate tension to allow the cable to contour to the seafloor
without suspensions or forming loops. Divers would inspect the cable route once it is placed.
• The length of the cable is relatively short compared to trans-oceanic undersea cables, about 3,900 ft (1,190 m).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

No significant impacts to marine species would occur with installation of the buoys. In the area of the deep reef platform selected for the buoy array (the 95- to 104-ft [29.0- to 31.7-m] depth), the composition of the bottom is very homogeneous, consisting of limestone covered with a thin veneer of algal turf. The placement of the buoy anchors on the seafloor would impact the biota directly beneath each anchor, an area approximately 30 by 30 ft (9.1 by 9.1 m). The total area of the seafloor ultimately covered by six anchors would be 5,400 sq f. (497 sq m). Holes would be drilled to rock-bolt the anchors to the seafloor.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

Buoy installation and anchoring would cause only minor, localized turbidity as the seafloor at the site is relatively devoid of sand or sediment.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

The heavy ballast of the anchors and the installation of rock bolts on the flange frames would restrict movement of the anchors and scouring of the seafloor. Impacts on marine biota would be minimized by avoiding areas containing live corals.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

Entrapment. The potential for entrapment of marine species such as sea turtles within the WEC buoy structure is minimal (refer to Figure 2-5, Section 2.4.1.2, and Appendix F). The top of the buoy is closed, and the bottom is open, allowing ingress and egress through only one end. Although the possibility exists for an animal to enter and become disoriented, the size of the opening in the bottom of the WEC buoy provides a ready egress path. There are no entanglement or snagging obstructions within the interior of the structure to prevent egress. No horizontal flat surfaces exist within the buoy to provide resting habitat for marine species such as turtles.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

Power cables generate both electric and magnetic fields. The flow of seawater across the electric field of a power cable generates a weak magnetic field. Potential electric and magnetic fields surrounding the WEC undersea cable have been calculated for a range of electrical currents through the cable.
Based on the anticipated current passing through the WEC cable, the electric field strength at the surface of the cable would range from approximately 1.5 to a maximum of 10.5 millivolts per meter (mV/m) and would decrease exponentially with distance from the cable. The magnetic field strength at the surface of the cable would range from approximately 0.1 amperes (amps [A]) per meter (A/m) to a maximum of 0.8 A/m and would decrease exponentially with distance from the cable.
Organisms sensitive to magnetic fields may exhibit one of three behaviors: (1) detection and no effect, (2) detection and confusion or avoidance, or (3) attraction. Based on the available data as described in Chapter 4 and cited in Appendix F, impacts of electric and magnetic fields on marine organisms can be expected to range from no impact to avoidance of the vicinity of the WEC cable. Organisms sensitive to electric or magnetic fields may detect emissions near the WEC cable; however, the effects would be temporary. Since the cable occupies a small area of the seafloor, the impact of avoidance behavior would be minimal. The cable route would not occupy any unique feeding, breeding, birthing, or egg-laying areas. The analysis provided in Appendix F found no evidence in the literature of either short- or long-term effects of electric or magnetic fields from cables similar to the WEC cable on marine organisms, other than the possible behaviors described. Although there have been numerous inconclusive studies of the effects of electromagnetic fields on animals in air, no similar studies have been found of the effects of EMR on marine animals in seawater.During operation, the WEC system could possibly experience an electrical fault or short due to damage to the cable. In the event of an electrical fault, there is a short period of time during which the electrical current generated by the WEC system would leak to seawater. However, the computer-controlled electrical fault detection and circuit interruption system would shunt the electrical current to the load resistors within 6 to 20 milliseconds (ms), limiting the duration of the electrical field.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

Power cables generate both electric and magnetic fields. The flow of seawater across the electric field of a power cable generates a weak magnetic field. Potential electric and magnetic fields surrounding the WEC undersea cable have been calculated for a range of electrical currents through the cable.
Based on the anticipated current passing through the WEC cable, the electric field strength at the surface of the cable would range from approximately 1.5 to a maximum of 10.5 millivolts per meter (mV/m) and would decrease exponentially with distance from the cable. The magnetic field strength at the surface of the cable would range from approximately 0.1 amperes (amps [A]) per meter (A/m) to a maximum of 0.8 A/m and would decrease exponentially with distance from the cable.
Organisms sensitive to magnetic fields may exhibit one of three behaviors: (1) detection and no effect, (2) detection and confusion or avoidance, or (3) attraction. Based on the available data as described in Chapter 4 and cited in Appendix F, impacts of electric and magnetic fields on marine organisms can be expected to range from no impact to avoidance of the vicinity of the WEC cable. Organisms sensitive to electric or magnetic fields may detect emissions near the WEC cable; however, the effects would be temporary. Since the cable occupies a small area of the seafloor, the impact of avoidance behavior would be minimal. The cable route would not occupy any unique feeding, breeding, birthing, or egg-laying areas. The analysis provided in Appendix F found no evidence in the literature of either short- or long-term effects of electric or magnetic fields from cables similar to the WEC cable on marine organisms, other than the possible behaviors described. Although there have been numerous inconclusive studies of the effects of electromagnetic fields on animals in air, no similar studies have been found of the effects of EMR on marine animals in seawater.During operation, the WEC system could possibly experience an electrical fault or short due to damage to the cable. In the event of an electrical fault, there is a short period of time during which the electrical current generated by the WEC system would leak to seawater. However, the computer-controlled electrical fault detection and circuit interruption system would shunt the electrical current to the load resistors within 6 to 20 milliseconds (ms), limiting the duration of the electrical field.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

Power cables generate both electric and magnetic fields. The flow of seawater across the electric field of a power cable generates a weak magnetic field. Potential electric and magnetic fields surrounding the WEC undersea cable have been calculated for a range of electrical currents through the cable.
Based on the anticipated current passing through the WEC cable, the electric field strength at the surface of the cable would range from approximately 1.5 to a maximum of 10.5 millivolts per meter (mV/m) and would decrease exponentially with distance from the cable. The magnetic field strength at the surface of the cable would range from approximately 0.1 amperes (amps [A]) per meter (A/m) to a maximum of 0.8 A/m and would decrease exponentially with distance from the cable.
Organisms sensitive to magnetic fields may exhibit one of three behaviors: (1) detection and no effect, (2) detection and confusion or avoidance, or (3) attraction. Based on the available data as described in Chapter 4 and cited in Appendix F, impacts of electric and magnetic fields on marine organisms can be expected to range from no impact to avoidance of the vicinity of the WEC cable. Organisms sensitive to electric or magnetic fields may detect emissions near the WEC cable; however, the effects would be temporary. Since the cable occupies a small area of the seafloor, the impact of avoidance behavior would be minimal. The cable route would not occupy any unique feeding, breeding, birthing, or egg-laying areas. The analysis provided in Appendix F found no evidence in the literature of either short- or long-term effects of electric or magnetic fields from cables similar to the WEC cable on marine organisms, other than the possible behaviors described. Although there have been numerous inconclusive studies of the effects of electromagnetic fields on animals in air, no similar studies have been found of the effects of EMR on marine animals in seawater.During operation, the WEC system could possibly experience an electrical fault or short due to damage to the cable. In the event of an electrical fault, there is a short period of time during which the electrical current generated by the WEC system would leak to seawater. However, the computer-controlled electrical fault detection and circuit interruption system would shunt the electrical current to the load resistors within 6 to 20 milliseconds (ms), limiting the duration of the electrical field.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

Heat losses from the WEC undersea transmission cable would have negligible impacts on seawater temperature in the vicinity of the cable, due to immediate dissipation by the natural flow of seawater. The large volume of seawater around the cable would keep temperature differences less than the natural differences due to solar heating, upwelling, and current- induced mixing. Although the WEC cable is in contact with the seafloor, the thermal resistance of the sediments or other seafloor material is substantially higher than that of the seawater. Hence, the heat transferred directly into the seabed materials would be negligible.Heat released from the equipment canister, load resistors, and hydraulic fluid heat exchanger into the surrounding water is anticipated to be similar in nature to heat released from the undersea cable. The resulting temperature increase for a single buoy would be approximately 0.07o F (0.02o C). For six buoys, the resulting temperature rise would be 0.42o F (0.12o C), and in the constantly moving water at the project site, this change would be negligible.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

There are no field data available on the acoustic output of the WEC system during operation. The WEC system is expected to produce a continuous acoustic output with an amplitude approximately similar to that of light to normal ship traffic, with a spectral content shifted to frequencies somewhat higher than shipping (Appendix F). Humpback whales, dolphins, and green sea turtles can sense acoustic energy of this amplitude and frequency content. However, no adverse impact on these species are anticipated because (1) there is no evidence in the literature that the amplitude and frequency of the noise expected to be produced by the WET system during operation will constitute an impact on these species, and (2) no other continuous sounds with a similar frequency, which could contribute to additive effects, were identified in the area. The taking of marine mammals, as defined under the MMPA, is unlikely.

Refer to Appendix F for a more detailed discussion.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

There are no field data available on the acoustic output of the WEC system during operation. The WEC system is expected to produce a continuous acoustic output with an amplitude approximately similar to that of light to normal ship traffic, with a spectral content shifted to frequencies somewhat higher than shipping (Appendix F). Humpback whales, dolphins, and green sea turtles can sense acoustic energy of this amplitude and frequency content. However, no adverse impact on these species are anticipated because (1) there is no evidence in the literature that the amplitude and frequency of the noise expected to be produced by the WET system during operation will constitute an impact on these species, and (2) no other continuous sounds with a similar frequency, which could contribute to additive effects, were identified in the area. The taking of marine mammals, as defined under the MMPA, is unlikely.

Refer to Appendix F for a more detailed discussion.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

Potentially beneficial direct impacts on marine biological resources associated with the presence of the WEC system could occur. The WEC cable, anchor, and mooring block and chain could promote settlement of benthic organisms such as corals, which is validated by the observation of the high colonization rate of a discarded track from an amphibious vehicle in the reef flat zone. As a result of coral growth on the cable and buoy anchor, a new fish habitat may be created. In addition, the buoys, anchors, and associated structures are anticipated to act as a Fish Aggregating Device (FAD).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

Potentially beneficial direct impacts on marine biological resources associated with the presence of the WEC system could occur. The WEC cable, anchor, and mooring block and chain could promote settlement of benthic organisms such as corals, which is validated by the observation of the high colonization rate of a discarded track from an amphibious vehicle in the reef flat zone. As a result of coral growth on the cable and buoy anchor, a new fish habitat may be created. In addition, the buoys, anchors, and associated structures are anticipated to act as a Fish Aggregating Device (FAD).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

There would be no indirect impacts to marine species such as the triggering of algal blooms or other negative shifts in biotic composition, particularly by the introduction of alien species. It is likely that alien species presently considered a nuisance within Kane‘ohe Bay are restricted to the particular oceanographic conditions and habitat that are unique to the Inner Bay. As the oceanographic climate at the wave-exposed project site varies greatly from the Inner Bay, the spread of alien algal species is unlikely

(refer to Appendix H)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

Potential impacts on visual resources include the extent or degree to which the project would: (1) degrade the quality of an identified visual resource, including but not limited to, a unique topographic feature, undisturbed native vegetation, or surface waters, or (2) obstruct public views of a scenic vista.
Impacts on views would be minimal and temporary. Navigational aids from the buoys would extend 30 ft (9 m) above sea level. The impact would be minimal during both daytime and nighttime hours. At night, safety lights on the navigational aids would be visible in the distance.

APPENDIX F: Wave Energy Technology (WET) Project Environmental Impacts of Selected Components. July 2002. Sound & Sea Technology.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

From the available information, it is impossible to confidently predict the magnetic emissions impact from the WEC undersea cable on the nearshore biota but it is likely that elasmobranchs, sea turtles and cetaceans can sense the cable’s magnetic field. There is little information regarding the threshold levels of sensitivity for these species. Based on background geomagnetic levels and the ability of several species to track geomagnetic features, their sensitivity is likely to be significant. Thus, there are four behavioral scenarios of impact assuming magnetic detection of the cables: 1) detection and no effect, 2) detection and confusion, 3) detection and avoidance or 4) attraction.The best means of mitigating the impacts of an electrical fault are to prevent it from happening. The strength of the WEC undersea power cable and its armored construction provide the first level of mitigation. If there is a fault, the computer-controlled electrical fault detection and circuit interruption system shunts the electrical current to the load resistors in from 6 to 20ms, limiting the duration of the electrical field created by a fault.

DETAILED ANALYSIS WITHIN THIS ATTACHMENT

APPENDIX F: Wave Energy Technology (WET) Project Environmental Impacts of Selected Components. July 2002. Sound & Sea Technology.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

From the available information, it is impossible to confidently predict the magnetic emissions impact from the WEC undersea cable on the nearshore biota but it is likely that elasmobranchs, sea turtles and cetaceans can sense the cable’s magnetic field. There is little information regarding the threshold levels of sensitivity for these species. Based on background geomagnetic levels and the ability of several species to track geomagnetic features, their sensitivity is likely to be significant. Thus, there are four behavioral scenarios of impact assuming magnetic detection of the cables: 1) detection and no effect, 2) detection and confusion, 3) detection and avoidance or 4) attraction.The best means of mitigating the impacts of an electrical fault are to prevent it from happening. The strength of the WEC undersea power cable and its armored construction provide the first level of mitigation. If there is a fault, the computer-controlled electrical fault detection and circuit interruption system shunts the electrical current to the load resistors in from 6 to 20ms, limiting the duration of the electrical field created by a fault.

DETAILED ANALYSIS WITHIN THIS ATTACHMENT

APPENDIX F: Wave Energy Technology (WET) Project Environmental Impacts of Selected Components. July 2002. Sound & Sea Technology.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

From the available information, it is impossible to confidently predict the magnetic emissions impact from the WEC undersea cable on the nearshore biota but it is likely that elasmobranchs, sea turtles and cetaceans can sense the cable’s magnetic field. There is little information regarding the threshold levels of sensitivity for these species. Based on background geomagnetic levels and the ability of several species to track geomagnetic features, their sensitivity is likely to be significant. Thus, there are four behavioral scenarios of impact assuming magnetic detection of the cables: 1) detection and no effect, 2) detection and confusion, 3) detection and avoidance or 4) attraction.The best means of mitigating the impacts of an electrical fault are to prevent it from happening. The strength of the WEC undersea power cable and its armored construction provide the first level of mitigation. If there is a fault, the computer-controlled electrical fault detection and circuit interruption system shunts the electrical current to the load resistors in from 6 to 20ms, limiting the duration of the electrical field created by a fault.

DETAILED ANALYSIS WITHIN THIS ATTACHMENT

APPENDIX F: Wave Energy Technology (WET) Project Environmental Impacts of Selected Components. July 2002. Sound & Sea Technology.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

All of these species can sense sounds in the frequency range of the sound produced by the hydraulic drills. Sound levels typically decrease by ~40 dB at 100 m in water, i.e., a sound measured at 160 dB re 1 μPa at a distance of 1 m from the source will measure ~120 dB re 1μPa 100 m away from the source. This is below the level that appears to affect any of the species listed here. Smith (2002) observed during construction activities involving drilling similar to those for the WET installation that marine life, turtles and fish in particular, were attracted to the activity, possibly by the bottom biota stirred up by the drilling. This suggests that the magnitude of the sound produced by the drills is not sufficient to alter behaviors of the species near the activity. Because of the short and intermittent nature of the noise produced by the drills during the construction phase of the project, it is unlikely that the noise will significantly disrupt feeding or other behaviors of these species.The noise produced by drilling during the construction phase of the project is localized, intermittent and of short duration. Although the species of interest for this assessment can sense sound of the magnitude and frequency content produced by the drills similar to those expected to be used for the installation operations, neither the amplitude nor the frequencies are sufficient to constitute an impact on the species. No mitigation measures are required during the construction and installation phases of the project.

DETAILED ANALYSIS WITHIN THIS ATTACHMENT

APPENDIX F: Wave Energy Technology (WET) Project Environmental Impacts of Selected Components. July 2002. Sound & Sea Technology.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

The WET system is expected to produce a continuous acoustic output with an amplitude approximately similar to that of “light” to “normal” shipping, with a spectral content shifted somewhat to higher frequencies than that of shipping. All of the species listed above can sense acoustic energy of this amplitude and frequency content. It is unlikely that this will have any noticeable impact on the behaviors of humpback whales, since these tend to become habituated to the noise produced by shipping. It is possible that dolphins may be attracted to the buoy site by their natural curiosity (as they often are with ships), but there are no aspects of the buoy design that present a possible threat of injury to the animals. There is no evidence in the literature that the amplitude and frequency of the noise produced by the WET system during operation will have an impact on either the porpoises or pinnipeds. There are no field data yet available on the acoustic output of the WET system during operation. The noise produced by the system is expected to be similar to that from light to normal shipping in amplitude, with a frequency content somewhat higher than that due to shipping.

DETAILED ANALYSIS WITHIN THIS ATTACHMENT

APPENDIX F: Wave Energy Technology (WET) Project Environmental Impacts of Selected Components. July 2002. Sound & Sea Technology.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

All of these species can sense sounds in the frequency range of the sound produced by the hydraulic drills. Sound levels typically decrease by ~40 dB at 100 m in water, i.e., a sound measured at 160 dB re 1 μPa at a distance of 1 m from the source will measure ~120 dB re 1μPa 100 m away from the source. This is below the level that appears to affect any of the species listed here. Smith (2002) observed during construction activities involving drilling similar to those for the WET installation that marine life, turtles and fish in particular, were attracted to the activity, possibly by the bottom biota stirred up by the drilling. This suggests that the magnitude of the sound produced by the drills is not sufficient to alter behaviors of the species near the activity. Because of the short and intermittent nature of the noise produced by the drills during the construction phase of the project, it is unlikely that the noise will significantly disrupt feeding or other behaviors of these species.The noise produced by drilling during the construction phase of the project is localized, intermittent and of short duration. Although the species of interest for this assessment can sense sound of the magnitude and frequency content produced by the drills similar to those expected to be used for the installation operations, neither the amplitude nor the frequencies are sufficient to constitute an impact on the species. No mitigation measures are required during the construction and installation phases of the project.

DETAILED ANALYSIS WITHIN THIS ATTACHMENT

APPENDIX F: Wave Energy Technology (WET) Project Environmental Impacts of Selected Components. July 2002. Sound & Sea Technology.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

The WET system is expected to produce a continuous acoustic output with an amplitude approximately similar to that of “light” to “normal” shipping, with a spectral content shifted somewhat to higher frequencies than that of shipping. All of the species listed above can sense acoustic energy of this amplitude and frequency content. It is unlikely that this will have any noticeable impact on the behaviors of humpback whales, since these tend to become habituated to the noise produced by shipping. It is possible that dolphins may be attracted to the buoy site by their natural curiosity (as they often are with ships), but there are no aspects of the buoy design that present a possible threat of injury to the animals. There is no evidence in the literature that the amplitude and frequency of the noise produced by the WET system during operation will have an impact on either the porpoises or pinnipeds. There are no field data yet available on the acoustic output of the WET system during operation. The noise produced by the system is expected to be similar to that from light to normal shipping in amplitude, with a frequency content somewhat higher than that due to shipping.

DETAILED ANALYSIS WITHIN THIS ATTACHMENT

APPENDIX F: Wave Energy Technology (WET) Project Environmental Impacts of Selected Components. July 2002. Sound & Sea Technology.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

Benthic Flora and Fauna: Because the heat from the cable is dissipated quickly and completely by the natural flow of seawater around the cable, the temperature rise in the seafloor materials is negligible. No impact on seafloor or benthic flora or fauna is expected.Water Quality: Since no measurable increase in the water temperature around the cable is anticipated, no impacts on water quality are expected. Benthic Flora and Fauna: Because the heat from the equipment canister is dissipated quickly and completely by the natural flow of seawater around the canister, the temperature rise in the seafloor materials is negligible. No impact on seafloor or benthic flora or fauna is expected. Water Quality: Since no measurable increase in the water temperature around the canister is anticipated, no impacts on water quality are expected. Because the heat from the load resistors is dissipated quickly and completely by the natural flow of seawater around the heat exchanger, the temperature rise in the immediate vicinity of the heat exchanger is expected to be small. The temperature rise at the seafloor is expected to be negligible. No impact on seafloor or benthic flora or fauna is expected. The temperature rise at the heat exchanger surface is considered to be small enough and the duration short enough that only a transient increase in the water temperature around the hydraulic system heat exchanger is anticipated. No impacts on water quality are expected.

DETAILED ANALYSIS WITHIN THIS ATTACHMENT

APPENDIX F: Wave Energy Technology (WET) Project Environmental Impacts of Selected Components. July 2002. Sound & Sea Technology.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

Demersal Fauna: Since no impacts due to heat from the cable are anticipated on the benthic flora or fauna, no impacts on demersal species are expected. Demersal Fauna: Since no impacts due to heat from the canister are anticipated on the benthic flora or fauna, no impacts on demersal species are expected. Because the heat from the load resistors is dissipated quickly and completely by the natural flow of seawater around the heat exchanger, the temperature rise in the immediate vicinity of the heat exchanger is expected to be small. The temperature rise at the seafloor is expected to be negligible. No impact on seafloor or benthic flora or fauna is expected.

DETAILED ANALYSIS WITHIN THIS ATTACHMENT

APPENDIX F: Wave Energy Technology (WET) Project Environmental Impacts of Selected Components. July 2002. Sound & Sea Technology.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

The cable will be installed with adequate slack to allow it to contour the seafloor without suspensions., and offers negligible potential for marine mammal entanglement. The WEC undersea cable is quite short, about 3900 ft (1190 m) long. The installation is anticipated to require less than two days, resulting in very limited temporal exposure of the cable in the water column. In addition, the cable is installed in shallow water. The species of concern that may appear in the WET project area are the Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schaninslandi) and the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Both species have been reported to be highly transient in the project area. Because of the very limited duration of the WEC undersea cable installation operations, and the fact that the cable will lie flat on the seafloor, the risk of these species encountering or becoming entangled in the WEC undersea cable is considered negligible.

DETAILED ANALYSIS WITHIN THIS ATTACHMENT

APPENDIX F: Wave Energy Technology (WET) Project Environmental Impacts of Selected Components. July 2002. Sound & Sea Technology.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

The cable will be installed with adequate slack to allow it to contour the seafloor without suspensions., and offers negligible potential for marine mammal entanglement. The WEC undersea cable is quite short, about 3900 ft (1190 m) long. The installation is anticipated to require less than two days, resulting in very limited temporal exposure of the cable in the water column. In addition, the cable is installed in shallow water. The species of concern that may appear in the WET project area are the Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schaninslandi) and the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Both species have been reported to be highly transient in the project area. Because of the very limited duration of the WEC undersea cable installation operations, and the fact that the cable will lie flat on the seafloor, the risk of these species encountering or becoming entangled in the WEC undersea cable is considered negligible.

DETAILED ANALYSIS WITHIN THIS ATTACHMENT

APPENDIX F: Wave Energy Technology (WET) Project Environmental Impacts of Selected Components. July 2002. Sound & Sea Technology.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

The design of the buoy is such that there do not appear to be any hazards to sea turtles should they enter the buoy. The bottom of the buoy is open and unobstructed. During daylight hours, there will be a substantial amount of light at the open end of the buoy, providing a means for animals to orient themselves to the exit from the buoy. It should be noted also that the buoy is in constant motion, discouraging animals from entering the buoy. The size of the opening in the bottom of the WEC buoy, while providing an ingress path for sea turtles, also provides a ready egress path. The interior of the buoy is free of entanglement or snagging obstructions. There appears to be no impact on sea turtles from the presence of the WEC buoys.

DETAILED ANALYSIS WITHIN THIS ATTACHMENT

Appendix H: Wave Energy Technology (WET) Marine Corps Base Hawaii Marine Environmental Assessment. May 2002. Marine Research Consultants.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

In addition, the mooring will ensure that there is no contact with the WEC buoys during installation and maintenance. In addition to the stability provided by the four point permanent mooring, the mooring will cause substantially less impact to the ocean bottom than anchoring of the work boat during each minimum of 30 bi-monthly deployments over the five-year duration of the project.As with the cable route, there are no HAPC or commercial and recreationally important species that will be affected by the WEC buoys or the four-point mooring buoy deployments.

Appendix H: Wave Energy Technology (WET) Marine Corps Base Hawaii Marine Environmental Assessment. May 2002. Marine Research Consultants.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

In addition, the mooring will ensure that there is no contact with the WEC buoys during installation and maintenance. In addition to the stability provided by the four point permanent mooring, the mooring will cause substantially less impact to the ocean bottom than anchoring of the work boat during each minimum of 30 bi-monthly deployments over the five-year duration of the project.As with the cable route, there are no HAPC or commercial and recreationally important species that will be affected by the WEC buoys or the four-point mooring buoy deployments.

Appendix H: Wave Energy Technology (WET) Marine Corps Base Hawaii Marine Environmental Assessment. May 2002. Marine Research Consultants.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

There are no aspects of the fixed cable that will cause any negative environmental effects to federally protected species. Nor will there be any potential for triggering of algal blooms or other negative shifts in biotic composition, particularly the introduction of alien species. Numerous metal objects (e.g., moorings, anchors, cables, buoys, artificial reefs constructed from derelict ships) presently occur in Hawaiian waters with no negative effects such as triggering of algal blooms. In addition, during the decades when introduced algal species have occurred in Kaneohe Bay, numerous boats have traversed the inner Bay to the open ocean near the project site without the spread of alien species. It is likely that the alien species that are presently considered a nuisance within the Bay are restricted to the particular oceanographic conditions and habitat characteristics that are unique to inner Kaneohe Bay. As the oceanographic climate at the wave- exposed project site is drastically different than the Inner Bay, it is likely that spread of the alien algal species is not possible.

Appendix H: Wave Energy Technology (WET) Marine Corps Base Hawaii Marine Environmental Assessment. May 2002. Marine Research Consultants.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu2y5fto5dngL_Jf9BihdzXa8bFWlTSc/view?usp=sharing

The anchor design would eliminate the potential for scour of the bottom. In fact, as validated by the observation of the high rate of colonization of a discarded amphibious vehicle track, the anchor array will likely result in an overall increase in biotic composition and abundance in the areas where the anchoring system is situated. The anchor design should minimize or eliminate any movement of the anchor that could result in breakage of some of the corals and small ledges observed in the anchoring zone. There would be a relatively small amount of change caused by movement of the anchors over a short distance.