The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is proposing a fast-track permit process for ocean wave energy as a renewable energy alternative. These technologies use wave action to generate electricity and are still in the development stages. Stakes are high for venture capital investors, manufacturers and power companies.

For fishermen, the primary concern is the loss of fishing grounds because most of these devices will take up significant area and will likely be surrounded by an exclusion zone banning all fishing and vessel traffic. Fishermen are supportive of renewable energy in concept but also concerned about the impact of these devices on marine life and the habitat for fish.

Oregon has taken the lead in promoting wave energy plants. Two projects proposed in California, off Eureka and Fort Bragg, have drawn considerable public interest and anger from fishing communities that may be blocked off from their livelihoods by this new technology.

More than twenty pilot project applications have been filed with FERC, and like mining claims they seek to set stakes in the water and lock up promising areas before their market competitors do it first. The often-used analogy describing the wave energy activity as a "gold rush" is not misplaced.

In terms of area, Pacific Gas & Electric's proposed project off of Fort Bragg is one of the largest, covering sixty-eight square miles in front of Noyo Harbor, from 20 fathoms to 70 fathoms (120-420 feet) deep, ranging from Caspar Point to Westport. If the project area were to be filled with wave energy buoys and closed off from public access, saltwater recreational fishing out of Noyo Harbor would cease to exist.

There is big money behind this. One company developing wave energy generation equipment recently held two initial public offerings and raised $140 million. Without doubt, some of these projects will be licensed. FERC is proposing a pilot permitting process that is inconsistent with its normal rulemaking, and exempt from much of the red tape and environmental review normally associated with power plant projects.

In October, a panel of scientists met in Newport, Oregon to outline the potential environmental impacts that could be associated with wave energy generators in the ocean. Many of the devices are anchored and tethered to the sea floor, forming an artificial structure that attracts and holds predatory fish, like rockfish, throughout the water column. Out-migrating salmon smolts could face a gauntlet of these fish at the surface, further impacting threatened and endangered species. Loss of fishing area concentrates the effort in smaller areas, contributing to localized depletion of fish stocks.

What are the effects of stray current and electromagnetic fields? Fish species respond to these electrical impulses and may alter their migration routes. Some of the generators work on tidal flow and use turbines to create power from devices submerged underwater; these can kill fish that get sucked into the works.

If FERC issues a 5-year pilot license for any wave energy power project the project may continue to operate until FERC completes its lengthy review process for a subsequent 30-50 year license. FERC has dragged out similar relicensing reviews for decades to allow power projects with serious environmental impacts to continue operating. Local communities will have no more control over these plants than the tribes have over the FERC-licensed Iron Gate Dam on the Klamath River.

FERC states that the proposed projects will not be placed in "sensitive" marine areas, yet one of the projects has been deployed within the Olympic National Marine Sanctuary. The documents also state that in the case of negative environmental impacts, the plants would be "removable or able to shut down on short notice." This would indicate that plants could be disabled, but not removed.

Local stakeholders, including fishermen and the environmental community, have taken a skeptical turn based on numerous public meetings along the northwest coast. On October 2nd, FERC held a workshop in Portland on the pilot permit process. Thanks to the membership of the Recreational Fishing Alliance and the North Coast Fishing Association, saltwater recreational fishermen were represented at the meeting. The panels of speakers consisted of industry representatives, both power companies and manufacturers of the wave energy devices, a tribal representative, and spokespeople from the Oregon and Washington governor's offices.

The energy industry's goals were clear: they asked for a streamlined and flexible permit process. Industry lobbyists did not favor a requirement to post a bond to guarantee removal of the wave energy plants if abandoned. They felt five years was not enough to get a return to the investor and sought a longer term for the pilot projects.

They wanted a generic environmental assessment for the entire Pacific Northwest rather than one for each project area, and wanted to foster investor certainty of a "full commercial build-out" if they completed the permit process successfully. All of these goals depended on a flexible approach to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and other laws that apply to everybody else.

Bob Lohn, Northwest Region chief of the National Marine Fisheries Service, expressed a willingness to engage and some enthusiasm for the wave energy projects, but cautioned that his office is overburdened with a backlog of Endangered Species Act consultations and that they could possibly undertake "one or two" projects and get them done in "ten to twelve months" if the applicants did their due diligence in collecting data and working with stakeholder groups.

Oregon's Lincoln County Commissioner Terry Thompson spoke about the impacts to local fishermen, and how some areas off Oregon's coast produce over $100,000 per square mile for the local economy every year. "The basic flaw in all this," he said, "is when the power companies mark off a box and say, 'this is ours.' We believe there is a better process. There will be untold conflicts if you go on the way you are going. There are businesses out there already, fishermen who depend on these areas for their livelihoods."

However, FERC's attorney made it clear at the hearing that the new policy of pilot permits had already been adopted and the clock was ticking on the six-month application process. How can federal fishery managers sign off on ESA consultations in six months? Two of the panelists pointed out the lack of any rule-making process. This leaves projects open to lawsuits that could tie them up for years. Yet Commissioner Phil Moeller concluded the hearing by announcing, "a common theme is emerging here: that we must get some of these devices in the water so we can learn more."

The Recreational Fishing Alliance has filed to intervene in the proceedings. We support renewable energy but are opposed to fast-tracking this permit process. Our members are opposed to any further loss to our fishing grounds, especially to power companies that have proven negatives on our fisheries.