[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6357563,"mediaKeyId","2214276-330fe0e1c1d07ea1f99b3a14c0dc3534","parentId",2214276,"title","Pacific Fishery Management Council committee advances draft cumulative‑impacts framework with caveats, seeks more science coordination","audioSeconds",5138,"startMs",6353000,"endMs",1215000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2214276-330fe0e1c1d07ea1f99b3a14c0dc3534&start=6353&end=1215","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2214276-330fe0e1c1d07ea1f99b3a14c0dc3534/thumbnail_6353000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6357563/Washington/Pacific-Fishery-Management-Council-committee-advances-draft-cumulativeimpacts-framework-with-caveats-seeks-more-science-coordination","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357563-4f1e9a273b68f83c9f4772fcba0f0fe1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770900647&Signature=O4biHYjsP5KcTCz9RX2IsJa5S5ibr0xi80hHo9NQYfMudrxgsc4vQJ-h-Q2vi4tYL4007vDW6XtGzj3CJ5THf23ry5O6w-do20RG26wsnX2zJSpgjGPVJuuPGap6OkwBd1VTzei0DffZ3lu2nuEno6JMlkojz9PMt7uYARL04xAN-IvUPj3O0UkK0MgBT~6fN-dO-ythFGrrGFi3IwydNsMKwYFzMGlty3wuOjRsZ1D~2nn2DBG0gMEWRHGT8Y9FZSPA~i~mNVOQWi~n6UBiKXBneg5i4Bsrh7XVlfIbTvkPhLWhzg85QyFr4XWSH4~wP2m3GtXtVLP34GWah4m4vA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Fishery Management Council, Pacific","date","2025-02-02T23:17:58Z","article","Pacific Fishery Management Council Marine Planning Committee co-chairs and staff on Friday discussed next steps for a draft cumulative impacts framework intended to help decision-makers evaluate large‑scale offshore renewable development.

The committee, which staff described as a tool for “catalog[ing] issues, items, data gaps and scientific concerns” related to potential build‑out of offshore renewables, agreed that the draft should appear in the council’s March briefing book but carry firm caveats about remaining work and the need for more scientific coordination. Kerry Griffin, staff officer for the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s marine planning committee, told the group that the draft links to recently released regional research work but still needs more input from NOAA Fisheries and other science partners.

Why it matters: Committee members said the document could shape where external researchers focus limited funding and how federal and state agencies frame environmental assessments. Several members noted the timing of a White House review of offshore wind leasing and permitting after the new administration’s directive, saying the council’s priorities could be useful to those federal reviews if the paper is clear about limits and uncertainties.

The committee’s discussion centered on three points: (1) whether to reproduce elements of the NOAA/NMFS strategic science plan inside the framework or simply reference it; (2) how to narrow the long list of data needs into a manageable set of priority questions that would actually guide research; and (3) the need to explicitly ask for a science‑policy dialogue with NOAA/NMFS and other regional partners before the council refines the framework further.

“The memo freezing funding and grants was rescinded,” Kerry Griffin said in the meeting’s opening remarks when describing the recent executive‑branch actions that have affected federal grant programs; committee members flagged that such administrative shifts complicate planning and public communication.

Committee co‑chair Mike Conroy led a wide‑ranging discussion of draft text and recommended procedural next steps. Members agreed to a near‑term schedule: staff and the co‑chairs will clean up the draft language and return a revised version for the council’s advanced briefing book; if the work cannot be tightened in time, the committee will hold the document for the briefing book’s supplemental materials. The group also asked staff to make the link to NOAA/NMFS’s Offshore Wind Strategic Science plan explicit in the draft and to annotate where the framework reproduces those priorities versus where the council is adding or emphasizing additional priorities.

Several members said priorities should be re‑stated as focused information questions researchers could address — for example, how floating foundations or subsea cables may alter oceanographic processes in local upwelling hotspots, and how anchoring and cable burial practice should be sized to protect benthic fisheries habitat. Arlene Marums of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife urged the committee to refine the list so it is actionable; Scott McMullen (ecosystem advisory subpanel) and others suggested pairing each identified deficiency with a short description of how new information would change council analyses or management decisions.

John Hansen of the West Coast Ocean Alliance said his organization has funding to begin a needs assessment on cumulative impacts and will issue a request for proposals; the committee asked staff to coordinate closely with that work so the council’s priorities can inform any RFP language.

What the committee directed: staff were asked to (a) revise the draft to make it clear which entries mirror NOAA/NMFS priorities and which are council additions, (b) add a short, plain‑language cover paragraph that describes the document’s limits and the reason the committee is submitting it now, and (c) flag the need for sustained science‑policy dialogue with NOAA/NMFS and other regional partners. The co‑chairs and staff agreed to attempt a revised draft for the council advanced briefing book next week but acknowledged that if the draft could not be tightened in time it should appear as a supplemental briefing‑book item instead.

Next steps and context: committee members repeatedly stressed that the framework is intended to be a living document — a menu of information needs for outside researchers and agencies — not a council research program or formal management decision. Several speakers emphasized that the document should not be framed as the council’s operational research plan but as a prioritized set of information gaps to help federal, state, tribal and non‑governmental research efforts.

The committee will continue work on the document and coordinate with NOAA/NMFS, the West Coast Ocean Alliance, and other partners before returning to the council for further guidance at the next meeting cycle.

Ending: Committee members said the draft puts the council’s concerns on record and will make it easier for external funders and regional research partnerships to align projects with the information the council needs to evaluate future offshore development scenarios.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Marine Planning Committee 1/30/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Pacific Fishery Management Council Marine Planning Committee co-chairs and staff on Friday discussed next steps for a draft cumulative impacts framework intended to help decision-makers evaluate large‑scale offshore renewable development.","taxTitle","Fishery Management Council, Pacific, Governor's Office - Boards & Commissions, Executive, Washington","taxId",24240,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6357558,"California Energy Commission presents draft mapping of wave and tidal resources; finds nearshore distributed applications more feasible than utility‑scale",4231,4231000,-1,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2214276-330fe0e1c1d07ea1f99b3a14c0dc3534&start=4231&end=0","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2214276-330fe0e1c1d07ea1f99b3a14c0dc3534/thumbnail_4231000.jpg","/articles/6357558/Washington/California-Energy-Commission-presents-draft-mapping-of-wave-and-tidal-resources-finds-nearshore-distributed-applications-more-feasible-than-utilityscale","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357558-b9674051f66ab3a8c6aa9ae78b26eebb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770900647&Signature=CGH30ARDOor5yX9tM51MY4F9pen7XSUD1w7c8DgHMnwxOuLafw1B4iMnB1mUHuVT9Whs7rq4OAzgkRUDWia3pq~lDeHZJqyzD-Ep4eaDiV-~R788dZW89orxYBjti5K6fxekbfdBqGIDgBD9oMPOnQH29Bv75UXttZbym9iyDkoub5X7ljalCWSel~1BGhdXkuVFPOfjewFNQXBMen1PXNqrPmjz7a6VJ1O~rabs-c2tiitVzzGfkGGOz9UkN~kwtDX~rBQ5D7-fy3Mvqq8nrHpb4y5DjakP2VW-7BULfbIT-UapLJ6P1uU1o2FPEzf0h41VcpdzHRghK6U9Jy4B6Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The California Energy Commission on Friday told the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Marine Planning Committee that state staff have nearly completed a phase‑1 feasibility evaluation of wave and tidal energy under Senate Bill 605 and are moving into a phase‑2 assessment that maps areas that could be suitable for marine energy deployment.

The presentation: Danielle (no last name given in the packet), an offshore renewable energy planner with the California Energy Commission (CEC), described mapping and analysis that the agency has produced so far. She said the CEC’s phase‑1 work — published as a consultant report and summarized in the state Integrated Energy Policy Report — concluded that wave energy resources off California are regionally significant but technical and logistical constraints mean nearshore distributed systems and small‑scale devices are most feasible in the near term.

“Wave energy is highest off the north coast of California, whereas tidal energy is really only available near major estuaries and bays,” Danielle said, describing the CEC’s regional breakdown. She noted that tidal power is concentrated around San Francisco Bay and a few other estuaries.

What the maps show: The CEC’s maps, organized by three coast regions (Northern, Central and Southern California), overlaid resource power density with exclusion layers including national marine sanctuaries, marine protected areas, offshore disposal sites, submarine cables and major shipping lanes. Danielle said device‑specific limitations and a lack of high‑resolution nearshore wave models mean the maps are a screening tool — useful for scoping where further device‑ and site‑specific analysis could be targeted.

Key takeaways the CEC summarized for committee members:
- Wave energy is more abundant and broadly available off California’s north and central coast than tidal energy.
- Most current wave technologies are likely to be deployed inside 200 meters water depth and within about 10 nautical miles of shore; the CEC’s screening analysis limited the study to 200 meters or shallower.
- Near‑term activity is most likely to be distributed, local energy applications (for ports, remote facilities or island communities) rather than utility‑scale, grid‑connected projects that would require long, federally regulated licensing and years of permitting.

Fisheries and user conflicts: The CEC overlaid federal and state fisheries datasets and found commercial and recreational fishing effort concentrated nearshore and in bays — for example, Dungeness crab, market squid and salmon effort patterns — and emphasized that these existing uses and marine protected areas limit areas that would be suitable for larger deployments.

The CEC’s timeline: Danielle said the CEC planned to release a draft report in early March with a public workshop to follow, and a separate report to the governor and legislature in mid‑2025 (quarter 3) that would summarize both phase‑1 and phase‑2 results and may include recommendations for the legislature.

Why it matters: The committee’s work on cumulative impacts and research priorities intersects with the CEC’s screening because the commission’s maps and constraints will affect where wave or tidal developers may pursue assessments and permits in California waters. Members asked for the CEC to clarify data sources and make the draft maps available to state and federal stakeholders for peer review.

Quote from the meeting: “This is not a planning document,” Danielle said of the SB 605 effort; “we’re really just doing a feasibility study.”

Next steps: Committee members requested the CEC share the draft report and mapping layers when the draft is published and recommended that the CEC coordinate its phase‑2 work with state fishery agencies and the council’s advisory bodies to refine potential conflicts and mitigation approaches.

Ending: The CEC’s work narrows early attention to certain geographic areas and confirms that fishery‑intensive nearshore waters will be key constraints for any proposed wave or tidal projects.","The California Energy Commission told the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Marine Planning Committee that its SB 605 feasibility work finds wave energy more abundant than tidal energy off California and that nearshore, distributed applications are the most feasible near‑term option.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6357553,"Port of Grays Harbor presentation on wave‑to‑hydrogen pilot highlights deployment plans, commercial fishery concerns",0,5263000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2214276-330fe0e1c1d07ea1f99b3a14c0dc3534&start=5263&end=5263","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2214276-330fe0e1c1d07ea1f99b3a14c0dc3534/thumbnail_5263000.jpg","/articles/6357553/Washington/Port-of-Grays-Harbor-presentation-on-wavetohydrogen-pilot-highlights-deployment-plans-commercial-fishery-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357553-f6cf6a64f51191d15454a52c9abb66e3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770900647&Signature=mGj9YU16L-oSEb7L8m9RQeGuQCASEij--tej0xqQilhf40srLsvwOn6GOpv7YGjfwZqjtWUF-zTcze4irudH-ChmmOHKmrjuzeWb~D90fwRkX4jy02bZSI5TiO2qaMJ-uflKXmkZ0hU4sQBzwCKiTuY0Bd8X9jeGJB5BhKca4YrguapZpIbcTpCXmCLCGvb3ghA1xPWoUfBAa~gkB-tfBMIfYD6nsVPxRaGgO4A9jzC1dYlmU4lSIJraQKj2Iep0X~HV1SB0rYMsdL~yr4Lr6T-BAep31ts0Bm2lrM0kXKqTU-jOUS3Fpm2eHAFgkVjy7z4lN0q3l2oI3K7cb9SOJA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A proposed wave‑to‑hydrogen pilot near the Port of Grays Harbor drew technical questions and fisheries concerns when committee members reviewed a port briefing presented to the Marine Planning Committee.

Presentation summary: The project proposers described a floating wave energy converter that would power an onboard electrolyzer to produce hydrogen and oxygen; hydrogen would be offloaded for shore use. The port slide deck described a deployment site roughly five miles offshore near Westport and showed hardware details including substantial anchor chain and a large anchor. The project team said they had applied for DOE grant funding and that a full‑scale deployment test was scheduled for May 2027, with an initial six‑month test season through October.

Fisheries and operational concerns: Committee members and fisheries representatives said the proposed site overlaps commercial fishing areas and noted the risk to the Dungeness crab fleet in particular. Scott McMullen and others warned that large anchor arrays and single‑point mooring designs can have limited swing radii that still require substantial safety zones; the presenter’s slides showed a difference between drawn watch circles and the likely seafloor anchor spread once water depth and chain scope are accounted for. Committee members also highlighted conflicts with nearby marine protected areas, disposal sites and navigational corridors in some regions.

Technical notes from marine users: Presenters said the device would be deployed in relatively shallow water (on the order of tens of meters) and would use heavy stud link chain and multi‑hundred‑pound anchors; presenters also noted plans to use a barge and tug for deployment and periodic maintenance. Some committee members questioned the plan’s ability to recover or tow the anchored unit in winter storms and the operational logistics of anchoring, anchor recovery and maintenance windows.

Project timeline and permitting: The presenters indicated they had support from the Port of Grays Harbor and partner services for deployment logistics, and that a DOE funding application timeline aligned with their deployment plans. Committee members noted that, because the site is in federal waters, project proponents will need to coordinate with BOEM, NOAA and U.S. Coast Guard permitting and consultation processes if they pursue a funded demonstration project.

Committee responses and next steps: Members asked the port team to make slide materials available; the presenter said the deck is part of the public meeting record for the Port of Grays Harbor and can be shared. Members recommended the project proponents engage early with state and federal fisheries managers and the council’s advisory groups to address site‑specific consequences for crab, squid and salmon fisheries as the design advances.

Ending: The committee did not take formal action on the proposal; the port presentation provided an early view of potential engineering challenges and user conflicts that regional managers will want to consider if the project moves forward and gains funding.","A Port of Grays Harbor presentation described a proposed wave‑to‑hydrogen pilot five miles offshore near Westport that would test an electrolyzer‑equipped floating device. Presenters said the project team is seeking DOE funding and planned a May 2027 deployment window for an initial test season; committee members raised concerns about anchoring,","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Pacific Fishery Management Council committee advances draft cumulative‑impacts framework with caveats, seeks more science coordination

California Energy Commission presents draft mapping of wave and tidal resources; finds nearshore distributed applications more feasible than utility‑scale

Port of Grays Harbor presentation on wave‑to‑hydrogen pilot highlights deployment plans, commercial fishery concerns