PAPER
Examining the Impacts of Tidal Energy
Capture from an Ecosystem
Services Perspective
AUTHORS
Heather M. Leslie
Megan Palmer
Brown University, Institute at
Brown for Environment and Society
and Department of Ecology and
Evolutionary Biology
Introduction
H
uman energy demands are increasing rapidly, motivating research
for new ways to meet this growing
need. From 2010 to 2040, world energy consumption is projected to increase by 56%, placing a huge fuel
demand on limited resources (U.S.
DOE, 2013). Growth in the renewable
energy sector can lessen the impacts
of energy consumption; however, the
contribution of alternative fuel sources
to overall energy is still small. In the
United States, renewable energy sources,
including hydroelectric, geothermal,
solar, wind, and biomass, comprised
only 9% of primary energy sources in
2013 (U.S. IEA, 2013).
Governments from the local to national level have recognized the need to
integrate renewable sources into their
energy portfolios because of the environmental and human health costs of
carbon-intensive fuels, concern for energy security, and direct incentives and
other economic considerations (Long,
2008). Relatedly, there has been a recent
push to innovate and harness the diverse
sources of marine renewable energy
in particular. These include marine
ABSTRACT
As governments from the local to national level have recognized the need to integrate renewable sources into their energy portfolios, there has been a recent push to
harness diverse sources of ocean energy, including those generated by tides and
waves. Despite the potential benefits, development of these marine and hydrokinetic
(MHK) resources has raised concerns in terms of their potential socioeconomic and
environmental impacts. An ecosystem services perspective offers a useful means of
monitoring how MHKs will affect both people and nature by enabling the identification
of the benefits provided by functioning ecosystems to people, including biodiversity,
tourism and recreation, and food provision. To illustrate the value of this approach in
evaluating the potential impacts of an MHK project, we present the case study of the
Muskeget Channel Tidal Energy Project (United States) and identify the types of data
and analytical tools that could be used to develop an ecosystem service assessment
of MHK development in this study region. To complement this case study, we also
reviewed the published literature on tidal energy and other MHK project types, which
highlighted how little is known about the ecological effects of MHK development in
coastal and marine ecosystems. Integrating ecosystem service knowledge into projects like Muskeget Channel can contribute to more scientifically informed MHK siting
processes and more effective, ecosystem-based management of the diverse human
activities undertaken in coastal and marine environments.
Keywords: ecological, marine and hydrokinetic resources, Massachusetts,
Muskeget Channel, ocean energy
and hydrokinetic (MHK) sources (i.e.,
waves, tides, and ocean currents) and
offshore wind energy (NRC, 2013).
In the northeastern United States
specifically, there is considerable industry, government, and civil society
interest in deploying offshore wind
turbines and MHK energy devices
(Musial & Ram, 2010). Governmentled marine spatial planning (MSP)
has been largely motivated by the opportunities and challenges created by
ongoing efforts to harness wind energy
resources off the coasts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island (CRMC, 2010;
Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
2009). Several tidal current energy
development projects also are under
development in the Northeast, including Roosevelt Island in New York
City’s East River, in the Gulf of Maine,
and Muskeget Channel south of Cape
Cod, Massachusetts (Bedard et al.,
2010; Devine Tarbell & Associates,
2006).
MHK energy devices have the potential to contribute to regional and
national scale energy portfolios, but
how the arrays will function in the different marine settings raises many
January/February 2015
Volume 49
Number 1
97
questions (NRC, 2013). While designs of offshore wind turbines are
quite standardized, in part because
the technology is farther along (Inger
et al., 2009), the designs of wave and
tidal energy capturing devices are
quite diverse, and neither form of energy generation has fully reached commercialization (Kadiri et al., 2011;
NRC, 2013). Tidal energy technologies in particular are garnering attention for their predictability and the
alternative they offer to carbon-based
energy capture. Tidal energy is captured in two main forms: tidal barrages
and tidal stream turbines. Tidal barrages are dam-like structures built
across estuaries. Turbines are incorporated into the dam and capture potential energy from the rise and fall of the
tide. Tidal in-stream capture is a newer
technology and most often consists rotating submerged turbines that capture
the kinetic energy of moving tidal
waters. These structures can be submerged and are thus are aesthetically
more appealing than some other
MHK designs; these features make
them particularly suitable in proximity to highly urbanized coastlines
(O’Rourke et al., 2010). These characteristics also may help reduce conflicts
between tidal energy projects and other
marine uses, in contrast to some other
MHK designs (Terray et al., 2014).
Despite the potential benefits of
marine renewable energy production,
MHKs have raised concerns in terms
of their potential socioeconomic and
environmental impacts. MHKs are expanding into coastal and ocean spaces
that are already used by people in
many different ways, including commercial and recreational fishing, tourism, and navigation (Kim et al., 2012;
NRC, 2013; White et al., 2012). Initial
concerns over MHKs, like those regarding offshore wind development, have
98
focused on the impacts on iconic marine mammals such as dolphins, migratory birds and seabirds, and fish (Miller
et al., 2013). Concerns also have been
raised about the potential effects on
hydrodynamics, sediment transport,
and water quality (Gill 2005). For example, changes in the flow speeds and
regimes of tidal channels have important
consequences for sediment transport as
well as for movement of nutrients and
marine organisms, particularly larval
forms (Bunn & Arthington, 2002;
Freeman et al., 2001). These processes
are well understood in many ecological settings, but the specific effects of
MHK technologies—particularly tidal
energy infrastructure—on coastal and
marine ecosystems are largely unknown
(Devine Tarbell & Associates, 2006;
Gill, 2005; Terray et al., 2014).
Ecological effects of MHK construction and operation will depend
both on the environmental context as
well as on existing human uses and
other human dimensions of the project.
Moreover, they will vary with the phase
of the project; marine species and biophysical conditions at MHK sites will
be differently impacted during the
construction and installation stages of
a given project in comparison with
the operation and decommissioning
stages (Gill, 2005). Finally, impacts
from pilot scale projects are not necessarily indicative of the magnitude of
impacts due to scaled-up commercial
arrays (Miller et al., 2013).
An ecosystem services perspective
offers an integrative means of evaluating and monitoring how MHKs will
affect both people and nature. “Ecosystem services” are the benefits provided
by functioning ecosystems to people,
and marine ecosystems provide a diverse array of such services (Halpern
et al., 2012). For example, coastal estuaries and offshore areas with complex
Marine Technology Society Journal
bottom habitats support the production of recreationally and commercially
valuable fish species by sheltering
young fish and providing habitat for
feeding and breeding (Beck et al.,
2001; Lindholm et al., 1999). Other
coastal habitats, including salt marshes,
mangroves, and coral reefs, can reduce
the effects of coastal flooding and
storms on coastal human communities
by attenuating wave forces and providing a buffer for the communities
(Arkema et al., 2013). Coastal and
marine ecosystems not only are valued
by people for the benefits like fish production and coastal storm protection
that can be measured in dollars but
also for less tangible benefits, including
sense of place and opportunities for
tourism and recreation (Daniel et al.,
2012).
By enabling integrative analyses of
the production, value, and use of benefits provided by marine ecosystems,
ecosystem service assessments facilitate
explicit evaluation of the multiple dimensions of the ecology and humanenvironment connections associated
with an MHK site. Such assessments
also can be used to forecast the effects
of different conservation and development strategies, including ocean energy projects and coastal development
(Guerry et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2012;
Ruckelshaus et al., 2013). On the west
coast of Vancouver Island, for example, Kim and colleagues tested a decision support tool to assist with siting
wave energy facilities (Kim et al.,
2012). The tool allows the user to balance environmental and economic
constraints unique to this form of
MHK infrastructure, while minimizing the conflicts with fisheries and
other ecosystem services. Ecosystem
service analyses also have been used
in terrestrial settings to help inform
agricultural, flood control, and land
use policy (e.g., Chan et al., 2006;
Eigenbrod et al., 2011; Kareiva et al.,
2011).
During an MHK planning process,
an ecosystem services analysis could
facilitate analyses required by both
developers and regulators that link
the effects of deploying and operating
an MHK to changes in ecosystem
structure, functioning, and services
(Figure 1). Consider, for example,
how construction and deployment of
an MHK may alter the structure of
the marine ecosystem such as the
amount of hard structure that exists
on the seafloor. This structure creates
habitat for bottom-dwelling fish and
marine invertebrates (e.g., crustaceans,
bivalves, and gastropods) and consequently changes in structure due to
MHK development may have important individual and population level
effects. Whether organisms are simply
attracted to the MHK underwater infrastructure or, alternatively, marine
populations increase due to changes
in recruitment, growth, or reproduction that are causally related to the
MHK deployment is an important
issue, as it is in the artificial reef context
(Caselle et al., 2002; Langhamer 2012;
Powers et al., 2003). Addition or alteration of structure on the ocean bottom
can influence ecosystem processes at
the community level, e.g., via shifts
in prey availability or other changes
in species composition and abundance
(Gill, 2005). These ecosystem changes
can ultimately affect the delivery of
valuable benefits to people such as
food provision via commercial fishing.
Construction and deployment of
an MHK also can influence humans’
activities, and these shifts in people’s
behavior are also important when evaluating the full effects of MHK development. With an ecosystem services
approach, monitoring data on ecosystem condition (e.g., water quality,
abundances of habitat-forming organisms and species of economic and/or
conservation concern; current speeds
and direction; and the rugosity of the
ocean bottom) and human activities
(e.g., the number and types of vessels
engaged in fishing, whale-watching,
and other commercial and recreational
activities) can be integrated in order
to evaluate how MHK development
may affect the benefits provided by
the site to people and the ecosystem
they are part of, both negatively and
positively. In summary, such analyses
can inform both site-based planning
as well as implementation, monitoring, and adaptive management of
MHK projects.
To illustrate the value of an ecosystem services approach in prospectively
assessing the potential impacts of an
MHK project, we present the case
study of the Muskeget Channel Tidal
FIGURE 1
Conceptual framework linking the deployment of an MHK energy device to changes in ecosystem
structure, functioning, and services. The construction and deployment of an MHK device can alter
the structure of the marine ecosystem such as the amount of hard structure (habitat for organisms) that exists on the seafloor. Through this alteration, the functioning of the ecosystem may
change and ultimately affect the delivery of valuable benefits to people such as biodiversity, food
production, and sense of place. Adapted from Bernhardt and Leslie (2013).
Energy Project, a proposed array of
tidal stream turbines south of Cape
Cod, Massachusetts (Figure 2). While
a full assessment of the ecosystem services of the Muskeget Channel study
region and the possible consequences
of MHK development in this location
is beyond the scope of this paper, here
we begin this process by identifying
the types of data and analytical tools
that could be used to develop a full
ecosystem service assessment in the future. To place this case study in context, we first conducted a review of
the published literature on tidal energy
projects and other MHK projects, focusing particularly on the extent and
content of research to date on the environmental aspects of tidal energy
capture. This review highlighted how
little is known about the ecological effects of MHK development on coastal
and marine ecosystems. We conclude
with a discussion of the opportunities
and challenges of bringing ecosystem
service considerations into MHK citing, regulatory, and monitoring processes, and how such analyses could
contribute to more scientifically informed siting and monitoring of
MHK developments as well as more
effective, ecosystem-based management of the diverse human activities
undertaken in the coastal and marine
environments off the coast of New
England and elsewhere.
Methods
To conduct the literature review,
we used the Web of Science database
(© 2014, Thomson Reuters) and a
predetermined set of terms in order
to search for peer-reviewed publications regarding the ecological impacts
of MHKs and other articles relevant
to ecosystem services assessments of
MHK development. The search terms
January/February 2015
Volume 49
Number 1
99
FIGURE 2
The Muskeget Channel Tidal Energy Project is located between the islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket south of Cape Cod, MA (USA) at
approximately 41°21′0.43″N, 70°23′58.08″W. The study region is delineated by the box outlined in gray, and the proposed tidal stream turbine
array would be situated within it, directly between the two islands.
included the combination of each term
in List A: “marine renewable energy,”
“offshore wind,” “tidal energy,” “wave
energy,” and “hydrokinetic,” with
each term in List B: “environment,”
“fish,” “benthic,” “habitat,” and “impact,” for a total of 25 searches (e.g.,
“marine renewable energy” AND “environment”). Each search returned results
with a match by either topic or title.
Each return was saved and recorded,
and the full record for all articles was
exported to the citation manager
EndNote X5 (© 2011, Thomson
Reuters). After removing duplicate
papers, 406 articles were found. After removing 115 irrelevant articles,
291 papers remained, which were
then classified by MHK type and geographic location.
To create a synthetic description
of the Muskeget Channel tidal energy
100
development project and how an ecosystem services perspective may contribute to the next phases of this and
related projects, we reviewed reports
from diverse organizations involved
with the project, including University
of Massachusetts’ Dartmouth School
for Marine Science and Technology,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Provincetown Center for Coastal
Studies, and Harris Miller Miller &
Hanson, Inc. Supplementary information about the regional ecological context was provided by U.S. Geological
Survey’s Coastal and Marine Science
Center in Woods Hole, Massachusetts (Poppe et al., 2010). We also reviewed relevant data accessible via the
Web-based Northeast Ocean Data
Viewer, a component of the Northeast Ocean Data Portal (http://www.
northeastoceandata.org/), to create
Marine Technology Society Journal
maps of potential indicators of ecosystem services relevant to the proposed
MHK development in Muskeget
Channel.
Results
Published Literature on MHK
and Ecological Impacts
We surveyed the peer-reviewed literature on MHKs globally in order to
assess the extent of research on the environmental impacts of such projects.
We investigated which types of
MHKs were most often studied,
where the studies were conducted, if
the types of ecosystems were specified,
and what results were reported. We
summarized our results according to
the frequency of MHK type addressed
in each article, including offshore
wind, tidal, all, wave, and tidal and
FIGURE 3
Review of the published literature revealed (A) the frequencies of published articles (n = 291) about
particular types of MHKs varied considerably and (B) the geographic distribution of published
papers regarding tidal energy is highly skewed towards the United Kingdom. Note that “all” in
(A) refers to publications not specific to an MHK type and in (B) “N/A” refers to articles that
were not specific to a location.
wave (Figure 3A). The classification
“all” indicates that the article discussed
all types of MHKs and did not focus
on one specific technology or place.
We found that, among the 291 relevant articles identified in our search,
offshore wind energy projects were
most intensively studied. One hundred ninety-four articles focused exclusively on offshore wind. This result
matched our initial expectation, as
this technology has been commercialized. The next highest frequency by
MHK type was the tidal category: we
found 36 articles focused on tidal energy projects. We also classified 36 articles in the “all” category, meaning
that these did not focus on a singular
type of MHK. This category included
several review papers. We found only
17 wave energy articles. This also fit
our initial expectation because wave
energy technologies are not as commercialized as the other MHK technologies (Drew et al., 2009). Finally,
eight publications addressed both
tidal energy and wave energy considerations. This reflects an interest in developing interlocking tidal and wave
energy designs to harness both types
of energy at the same site.
Focusing exclusively on the 36 tidal
energy articles, we synthesized the geographic and thematic foci discussed in
each article. These papers include publications on both tidal barrage projects
and submerged in-stream turbine projects: the full list of citations can be
found in Appendix I. The geographic
distribution of the topics of these pub-
lications was particularly telling (Figure 3B). Only eight countries were
represented by these 36 articles, and
of those geographically specific papers, half were focused on the United
Kingdom, with 18 publications. This
distribution can be explained by a
longstanding interest in the U.K.’s
Severn Estuary. For decades, people
have proposed damming the Estuary.
Consequently, researchers have devoted substantial effort to characterizing the ecology and hydrodynamics
of the study region and conducted
other investigations related to the
project feasibility. More recently, a
proposed tidal barrage for this U.K. estuary has generated species-specific
ecological studies and simulation
models of the estuary’s tidal regimes.
In Figure 3B, the category N/A refers
to those articles without a specific
geographic location (n = 6). Of these
six articles, two are review papers of
tidal conversion technologies, and
four address results from computers
models of different tidal energy extraction scenarios, siting scenarios,
life cycle assessment of the Seagen
marine current turbine, and distribution of global tidal energy (Liu et al.,
2010; Bryden & Melville, 2004;
Douglas et al., 2008; Kowalik, 2004).
Finally, there are a number of locations
with four or fewer publications: the
United States, Ireland, New Zealand,
Malaysia, Italy, Germany, and South
Korea.
In terms of the 36 tidal energy articles specifically, they covered a wide
range of topics, including project citing, introductions of specific designs,
water quality, baseline data, commercial viability, and impacts and potential impacts on fish communities,
sediments, and acoustic environments. Of these 36, a small set explicitly addressed ecosystem concerns. For
January/February 2015
Volume 49 Number 1
101
example, Shields and colleagues assessed the possible impacts of tidal energy development in the Pentland
Firth by explicitly considering the influence of MHK development on different marine habitat types (benthic,
intertidal, etc.) and how those effects
would likely vary with the phase of
the project (e.g., construction, operation, decommissioning; Shields et al.,
2009). Relatedly, Sheehan and colleagues demonstrated the value of careful experiment design, in order to
generate robust baseline (i.e., preconstruction) environmental data at Big
Russel, a potential site for tidal energy
development (Sheehan et al., 2013).
This type of preconstruction monitoring is needed, along with monitoring
during operation and decommissioning of MHK projects. We ultimately
hope to see future research that incorporates these approaches (consideration of ecosystem impacts in varied
ecological settings and different phases
of MHK projects; collection of baseline data through careful experimental
design); they are illustrative of the
types of data that are needed in order
to develop ecosystem services analyses
relevant to tidal energy projects and
other MHK developments.
Not only did the topics covered by
the 36 tidal articles vary, but so too did
the methodologies the authors employed. Seventeen of the 36 papers
that did discuss ecological or environmental concerns were modeling studies that simulated the potential effects
of tidal energy development in various
contexts. Of the remaining 20 tidal energy articles, nine were empirical,
seven were reviews, and three focused
on economics.
While the peer-reviewed scientific
literature is not the only source of information on MHK developments
and impacts, our review illustrates the
102
paucity of published articles focused
on ecosystem services and other environmental dimensions of tidal energy
development. Gray literature reports,
environmental impact statements, policy briefs, and other related documents
created by government, private sector,
and nongovernment organizations also
contain much valuable information (as
the References section of this paper attests). While full review of these other
sources was beyond the scope of the literature review we undertook—which
focused on peer-reviewed scientific
articles—such sources are certainly relevant to future assessments of MHK
projects, particularly those that are
place-based.
Case Study: Muskeget
Channel, Massachusetts
We chose to focus on the Muskeget
Channel Tidal Energy Project because
of the ecological value of the site and
because this project is still in development (Barrett, 2013; Devine Tarbell
& Associates, 2006; King et al.,
2010; Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2009). The case study below
highlights some of the challenges
of developing an integrative understanding of the socioeconomic and
environmental context of a potential
offshore energy site as well as the
value of connecting such an analysis
with ongoing marine spatial planning
efforts at the state and regional levels
(Tierney & Carpenter, 2013).
Environmental Context
Muskeget Channel is a 10-km
(6-mile) wide channel situated between
Muskeget Island and Chappaquiddick
Island, south of Cape Cod, Massachusetts (Devine Tarbell & Associates,
2006). The two larger, more visible
islands surrounding the channel are
Martha’s Vineyard (to the west) and
Marine Technology Society Journal
Nantucket Island (to the east) (Figure 2). Importantly, the channel is
characterized by an annual average
tidal current velocity of 2.0 m s−1 on
the flood and 1.7 m s−1 on the ebb
tide. These characteristics make
Muskeget a feasible location for energy
extraction (Devine Tarbell & Associates, 2006; O’Rourke et al., 2010).
The project site is in an area of fairly
homogenous gravel sediment between
the islands, at depths ranging from
<20 to 40 m.
The marine ecosystems of Muskeget Channel are ecologically important
for several reasons. The proposed site
includes or is adjacent to two Significant Coastal Habitats, as designated
by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
(USFWS): the Muskeget Channel
and Muskeget and Tuckernuck Islands, and Martha’s Vineyard Coastal
S a n dp l a i n a n d B e a c h C o m pl e x
(USFWS, 1991). Shallow waters
around the islands are known to be
productive areas for finfish, specifically
bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), winter
flounder (Psudopleuronectes americanus), striped bass (Morone saxatilis),
and Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua)
(Devine Tarbell & Associates, 2006;
King et al, 2010; Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, 2009). Unfortunately
site-specific information on the marine
ecology of the channel is sparse: trawl
survey stations and infaunal grab sample stations conducted by the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
consistently under-sample Muskeget
Channel (King et al., 2010), and the
NOAA fisheries trawls are conducted
offshore of this area and thus do not
capture population abundances either
(NOAA 2014). However, regionspecific reports (USFWS, 1991; Leeney
et al., 2010) indicate that the adjoining
nearshore areas are important for eelgrass (Zostera marina) and a variety of
marine crustaceans, gastropods, and
bivalves, including the commercially
valuable soft shell clam (Mya arenaria),
the quahog (Mercenaria mercenaria),
and conch species (Busycotypus canaliculatus and Busycon carica). Several
species of marine pinnepeds, including
the harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) and
gray seal (Halichoerus grypus), use
coastal sites in this area as haul out or
resting locations, and a number of
whales including the humpback whale
(Megaptera novaeangliae), minke
whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata),
and the endangered North Atlantic
right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) also
are regularly found here. Seabirds [including common terns (Sterna dougallii),
gulls (Larus argentatus, Larus marinus,
and Larus atricilla), and common eiders
(Somateria mollissima)] use the surrounding areas for breeding, feeding,
and/or resting. Tidal energy capture devices, both during the construction and
operations phases, could impact these
organisms’ behavior and abundances.
Based on this site-specific information, we used the ecosystem services
framework developed by Halpern et al.
(2012) to identify the services most salient for the Muskeget Channel study
region (Figure 4). These are heretofore
referred to as “focal ecosystem services.” As Figure 4 illustrates, ecosystem services include a wide range of
benefit created by ocean ecosystems.
Each of these services, or “goals,” as
Halpern and colleagues refer to them,
are generated by a quantifiable set of
interactions between marine ecosystem components and the people who
valuable these services. For example,
in the case of tourism and recreation,
the ecosystem services models published by Halpern and colleagues
(2012, 2014), enabled quantitative estimates of the extent of tourism and
recreation activity in the geographic
FIGURE 4
Benefits provided by coastal and marine ecosystems include the ten goals (and associated subgoals)
listed below. By synthesizing globally available data on the status and trends in each of these ten goals
or ecosystem services, Halpern and colleagues (including the first author, HL) present a framework
for assessing ocean health using an ecosystem services perspective (Halpern et al., 2012). This
“ocean health index” framework can be used to forecast the consequences of different marine policy
choices, like MHK development, as well as to systematically monitor ecosystem condition and human
activities in specific marine environments. See text for details. Adapted from Halpern et al. (2012).
area of interest and how such activity
has changed both through time and
under different marine management
scenarios. This explicit connection
between ecosystem functioning and
benefits to people is one of the notable
differences between an ecosystem services analysis and a typical environmental impact statement (EIS). An
EIS is required in the United States
for all major federal government actions or actions that involve federal
funding that significantly affect the environment, under section 102(2)(C) of
the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). EISs tend to be organized
around specific natural resources; e.g.,
water resources or wetlands, although
they allow for cumulative impacts
analyses, which could enable integration of an ecosystem services approach
(Salzman et al., 2001; Scarlett & Boyd,
2011).
Based on the published information we were able to review and knowledge of first principles of marine
ecology and ecosystem service science
(Daily et al., 2009; Kareiva et al.,
2011), we have preliminarily identified
the following focal services for the
Muskeget Channel case: biodiversity,
tourism and recreation, and food provision. In the context of a full ecosystem services assessment for this area,
it would be prudent to gather additional data on these and other ecosystem services from resource users and
other stakeholders, both to validate
this list as well as to gain further insight into the array of values people
hold for this ocean space and the potential impacts of MHK development
in this study region. Such value and
ecosystem service mapping has proven
quite useful in other marine spatial planning contexts, including the
January/February 2015
Volume 49 Number 1
103
Channel Islands, Massachusetts, and
Vancouver Island processes cited earlier (Airamé et al., 2003; Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2009; Kim
et al., 2012).
As a first step in evaluating the potential spatial overlaps between MHK
development and areas important for
the focal ecosystem services we identified for the Muskeget Channel study
region, we accessed spatial information for the study region using the
Web-based Northeast Ocean Data
Viewer, a component of the Northeast
Ocean Data Portal (http://www.
northeastoceandata.org/). Here we
include several representative spatial
overlays to illustrate how such tools
can be used to visualize and integrate diverse biophysical and social
science data relevant to MHK energy
development (see Leslie, 2005, for a
review of related spatial planning
tools, in the context of biodiversity
conservation).
First, in terms of biodiversity, inspection of the available seabird and
marine mammal data indicates that
Musekget Channel is an important
area for coastal birds. This is indicated
by the spatial overlap between the tidal
energy project icon (in blue) and identified bird habitat (in the green polygons; Figure 5). These data were
created from NOAA’s Environmental
Sensitivity Index, which was developed
to characterize shorelines based on
their sensitivity to spilled oil in order
to understand the potential risk to various target species (in this case, coastal
birds). The dataset from which this
layer was created includes sensitive
habitat for coastal bird species in
Connecticut, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New York, and Rhode
Island. Based on the data available
through the portal, the channel does
not seem to be an important area for
104
whales or other marine mammals.
However, other portal layers identify
coastal areas of both Martha’s Vineyard
and Nantucket that are important for
bird nesting and marine mammal
haul-out areas, as well as coastal habitats such as eelgrass beds and salt
marshes.
Second, terms of tourism and recreation, available data suggest that recreational boaters do not heavily use
Muskeget Channel, whether for
fishing, wildlife observation, or other
boat-based activities, relative to other
adjacent areas (Figure 6). The mapped
data were collected by SeaPlan and the
Northeast Regional Ocean Council
(NROC) through the 2012 Northeast
Recreational Boater Survey and illustrate major routes of recreational
traffic. Companion point data, specific to each recreational activity (not
shown here, but also available through
the data portal), suggest that recreation is concentrated on the shores of
Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket,
with a small set of trips reported in
2012 to the southern part of the channel for fishing and other unidentified boat-based recreation (Northeast
Ocean Data Working Group, 2014).
No recreational activity was reported
for the center of the channel in the
area where the proposed tidal energy
array would be constructed.
Finally, in terms of food provision
via commercial fishing, the Muskeget
Channel study region has yielded relatively low fisheries catches, in terms of
total biomass (in kg), relative to areas
throughout the northwest Atlantic,
based on data collected from 2007 to
2011 (Figure 7). These data were
collected from the Bay of Fundy to
Cape Hatteras, North Carolina through
fall bottom trawl research surveys
conducted by the National Marine
Fisheries Service of NOAA, and they
Marine Technology Society Journal
were synthesized as part of The Nature
Conservancy’s Northwest Atlantic
Marine Ecoregional Assessment (Greene
et al., 2010).
In-the-water validation of these observations, over a more extensive time
period than that covered by the datasets mapped here, would be an important next step, should a full ecosystem
services assessment be conducted for
this region.
Regulatory Context
The permitting process for MHKs
involves many organizations at both
the federal and state levels (Tierney
& Carpenter, 2013). At the federal
level, U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) has jurisdiction
to issue licenses for MHKs on the
outer continental shelf, while the
U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has jurisdiction to issue leases
on these same projects. As mentioned
before, an environmental impact statement also is required in the United
States for all major federal government
actions or actions that involve federal
funding that significantly affect the
environment, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Tidal
energy arrays have not yet been permitted in U.S. state or federal waters,
and thus, this project is breaking new
regulatory ground (NRC, 2013; Tierney
& Carpenter, 2013).
The Town of Edgar town on
Martha’s Vineyard (Massachusetts,
USA) first applied for a preliminary permit with FERC in 2007 and
received the preliminary permit in
2008. Next, the municipality filed for
a draft pilot license application in
2011. A renewed preliminary permit
(filed in 2011) expired in July 2014
and the town signaled its intention to
submit a final application prior to that
date (Barrett, 2013). HHMH, Inc.,
FIGURE 5
Mapping of bird habitat data (in green polygons) and the location of the Muskeget Channel Tidal Energy Project (in blue) illustrates the spatial overlap
between bird habitat, a proxy for the ecosystem service biodiversity, and the proposed MHK development. This map was created in the Northeast
Ocean Data Viewer, a component of the Northeast Ocean Data Portal (Northeast Ocean Data Working Group 2014). (Color versions of figures are
available online at: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mts/mtsj/2015/00000049/00000001.)
submitted a Final Progress Report
to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission on behalf of the Town
of Edgartown on August 13, 2014,
again signaling its intention to seek a
successive preliminary permit. And in
August 2014, Massachusetts Governor
Deval Patrick signed Bill H. 4375 into
law, which allocated $300,000 to the
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
to conduct remaining studies for the
Muskeget Channel Tidal Energy Project, as part of a comprehensive environmental bond bill (Rothe, 2014).
The Town of Edgartown holds the
FERC permit but plans to use a private company’s technology to develop
the site (Barrett, 2013). The Town of
Edgartown has had several partners
in this project, including the Town
of Nantucket and the Provincetown
Center for Coastal Studies. Multiple
governmental and nongovernmental
scientific institutions, including the
University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth Marine Renewable Energy Center and Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution, have conducted baseline
ecological surveys and studies of compatibility of the site. The lead role
played by the town with this MHK
project is quite distinctive, in contrast
with the state-led marine renewable
energy development off the coast of
Rhode Island (through the Ocean Special Area Management Plan; CRMC,
2010) and the multiobjective marine
spatial planning process conducted by
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
which culminated in the first-ever,
Massachusetts Ocean Plan (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2009).
Evaluating the Impacts of Tidal
Energy Development with an
Ecosystem Services Approach
There are at least two ways of using
the ecosystem services conceptual
framework to inform MHK siting,
regulatory, and monitoring processes
(Figure 1). The first approach parallels
a typical Environmental Impact Assessment but goes a step further by incorporating ecosystem services. For
example, consider how deploying
tidal current turbines would impact
the ecosystem service biodiversity and
specifically seabird populations. Deployment of the array would result in
subtidal habitat structure and could
lead to changes (either decreases or increases) in the distribution and abundance of prey species targeted by
seabird species in the channel. These
January/February 2015
Volume 49 Number 1
105
FIGURE 6
Mapping of recreational boating density (as represented by a gradient of warm to cool colors, where red represents high density and green represents
low density) and the location of the Muskeget Channel Tidal Energy Project (in blue) illustrates the spatial overlap between recreational boating activity,
a proxy for the ecosystem service tourism and recreation, and the proposed MHK development. This map was created in the Northeast Ocean Data
Viewer, a component of the Northeast Ocean Data Portal (Northeast Ocean Data Working Group, 2014).
changes in prey resources as well as
the presence of new subtidal structure
itself could in turn influence bird behavior and potentially reproductive
success and survival (for a related review, see Wiese et al., 2001). The condition of coastal birds—both at the
individual and population levels—
following the turbine deployment
could also be conceptually linked
to other ecosystem services (e.g., tourism and recreation related to wildlife
viewing).
The alternative approach first requires identifying valuable services
and the supporting ecology. For example, the preliminary mapping we did
of indicators of the focal services (Figures 5–7) suggest that the channel is
important habitat for coastal birds,
but not heavily used for either commercial fishing or recreation. These
106
observations suggest that the tradeoffs between MHK development and
food provision and between MHK development and tourism and recreation
are likely to be limited, albeit not trivial
(Figures 6 and 7). In contrast, however, spatial overlap of the biodiversity
indicator, bird habitat, and the project
site (Figure 5) suggests potentially a
stronger trade-off between this service
and the proposed MHK development.
There is a fair amount of uncertainly regarding these relationships, a
point we return to in the Discussion.
We caution that these observations
are based on temporally limited data
that vary in resolution and only reflect
spatial overlays, rather than causal relationships between the relevant ecosystem processes, human activities, and
the possible socioeconomic and ecological effects of MHK development.
Marine Technology Society Journal
Nonetheless, if biodiversity is identified as an ecosystem service of particular interest, we can trace the conceptual
model from right to left and identify
relevant indicators that must be maintained at quantifiable levels when turbines are deployed in order to preserve
the focal service (for a detailed discussion of setting management targets
and thresholds for those targets, see
Samhouri et al., 2010, 2012). In the
case of Muskeget Channel, for biodiversity, these indicators could include not only coastal bird habitat
but also spatially explicit information
on populations of fish, invertebrates,
marine mammals, and turtles of either
commercial or conservation concern
(Greene et al., 2010). Including indicators that are linked to specific ecosystem services as part of pre and post
construction monitoring would help
FIGURE 7
Mapping of commercial fisheries landings (biomass in kilograms, as represented by a gradient of warm to cool colors, where red represents high
landings and purple represents low landings) and the location of the Muskeget Channel Tidal Energy Project (in blue) illustrates the spatial overlap
between fisheries catch, a proxy for the ecosystem service food provision, and the proposed MHK development. This map was created in the Northeast
Ocean Data Viewer, a component of the Northeast Ocean Data Portal (Northeast Ocean Data Working Group, 2014).
ensure that the project proceeds in a
manner that does not unduly compromise biodiversity and the other ecosystem services provided by Muskeget
Channel.
While an actual ecosystem service
analysis for the Muskeget Channel
Tidal Energy Project is beyond the
scope of this study, depending on
how the project progresses and the resources available, formal analysis could
include either conceptual or quantitative modeling, as well as empirical
data collection based on in situ and
remotely sensed information (Tallis
et al., 2010). We can take the case of
the West Coast of Vancouver Island
(WCVI), Canada, as an example. In
WCVI, Guerry and colleagues (2012)
used the ecosystem service modeling software INVEST to investigate
how different coastal conservation
and development scenarios would influence the extent of habitats of interest and, consequently, the production
of focal ecosystem services (Guerry
et al., 2012). In the WCVI case,
these included the same three we
identified: recreation, food provision,
and biodiversity. They began by conducting interviews with community
members, resource managers, and
other stakeholders in order to identify three potential scenarios for future management: a baseline scenario,
similar to the current level of development; a conservation-oriented scenario
that represented increased protection
of coastal habitats; and an industry
expansion scenario that represented increased aquaculture and tourism infrastructure development. They then
used the decision support tool
InVEST to estimate how the three
scenarios would affect fisheries, recreation, water quality, and coastal
marine habitats (Sharp et al., 2014).
Some of the INVEST models—like
those for fishing and recreation—
were essentially spatial overlays in
GIS, whereas the models for water
quality and habitat incorporated
more information on ecological processes as well as linkages between
human activities and the ecosystem
services themselves. The resulting
analyses helped the local community
to visualize the trade-offs among different services, activities, and development paths and through proactive
marine spatial planning to resolve and,
in some cases, avoid conflicts among
particular uses.
January/February 2015
Volume 49 Number 1
107
Discussion
The case study of the Muskeget
Channel Tidal Energy project illustrates the value of an integrative analysis based on ecosystem services. Marine
renewable energy projects, like other
ocean uses, have varied impacts on existing human activities and ecosystem
health. An ecosystem services approach enables researchers and energy
developers to create an integrative description of the possible environmental
and socioeconomic impacts of a particular project, which in turn can
help inform project planning (i.e., citing and regulatory processes), implementation, and monitoring. Rather
than considering the effects of MHK
development on the diverse sectors,
species, and resource users who are
active in coastal and marine environments around the world in a piecemeal manner, an ecosystem services
perspective enables one to take a
more systematic and system-based
approach to managing potential
trade-offs associated with MHK development. Indeed, ecosystem-based
management of human interactions
in the marine environment is increasingly called for in policy and scientific
circles, both in the United States and
globally (McLeod & Leslie, 2009).
By connecting site-based analyses
with broader marine spatial planning
efforts, developers will be in a better
position to access relevant ecosystem
and human use data and also to efficiently address the substantial regulatory demands associated with such
projects (Tallis et al., 2010; Tierney
& Carpenter, 2013). In the case of
Muskeget Channel, in addition to
the ongoing marine spatial planning
effort in Massachusetts (Commonwealth of Massachusetts 2009, 2014),
the regional ecosystem-based ocean
m a n a g e m e n t p r o c e s s co n v e n e d
108
through the Northeast Regional Planning Body is particularly relevant.
Muskeget Channel is one of the
better-documented tidal project development efforts currently underway,
based on our review of the peerreviewed and gray literature. Yet,
many gaps remain in terms of forecasting the full impacts of ocean energy
development in this area. We conclude
with discussion of two of these.
First, there is a serious lack of placebased information regarding the ecology and human uses and values of
the marine ecosystems of Muskeget
Channel in particular. This situation
mirrors what we found in a survey of
the scientific literature on tidal energy
development and ocean renewables
more broadly, highlighting the paucity
of place-based investigations of the
social and environmental dimensions
of proposed existing MHK project
sites. Nonetheless, scientists already
know a lot about how coastal and
marine ecosystems work, especially in
the coastal and continental shelf areas
of the Northeastern United States
(Fogarty, 2005), and the lack of sitespecific data may be partially addressed
by drawing on knowledge of how
marine ecosystems work from other
contexts in order to inform predictions
of MHK impacts on ecosystem functioning and services. For example,
jetties, artificial reefs, offshore oil platforms, and other built structures in the
marine environment provide hard substrate that can be colonized by marine
organisms such as invertebrates and
algae, and lead to increased densities
of mobile species, including commercially and recreationally valuable fish.
This “reef effect” can increase biodiversity and biomass in a given location
but may also provide new habitat for
invasive species, which are often socially undesirable (Glasby & Connell,
Marine Technology Society Journal
1999, 2007). Given the potential for
MHK devices to create new surfaces
for benthic organisms, inclusion of
location-specific literature on artificial
reefs may enrich future assessments
like the one outlined above. Relatedly,
the peer-reviewed scientific papers and
government documents we found that
related to the geographic area in and
around Muskeget Channel largely focused on the coastal and nearshore species and ecosystems, as our references
to the USFWS publications earlier illustrate. And yet, the coastal margin
is quite distinct ecologically and in
terms of human uses from the center
of the channel, and the same socialecological heterogeneity no doubt exists at other MHK project sites. For
this reason, repeated mapping of species and habitat occurrences and
human activities at fairly fine spatial
scales (on the order of hundreds of meters to kilometers) will be critical in
order to ensure that ecosystem services
influenced by MHK development are
appropriately assessed, similar to the
scale utilized in site-based marine conservation planning (see Airamé et al.,
2003; Arkema et al., 2014; Guerry
et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2012; Leslie,
2005, for relevant examples).
Second, those empirical studies of
MHK development that have been
done are largely based on demonstration or pilot-scale arrays, rather than
on the commercial scale arrays that developers envision eventually deploying
(Shields et al., 2009). Consequently in
many cases we can only forecast what
the ecological and social consequences
of MHK installations will be based on
data collected at a more limited spatial
scale. This situation raises serious challenges and requires that we confront
multiple types of uncertainty, e.g.,
what the current status of the marine
ecosystems and socioeconomic context
is in the channel; what the impacts
of MHK construction, maintenance,
and eventually, decommissioning,
will be on both ecological processes
and human activities; and how transferable knowledge from other, related
settings are to this specific ecological
and social context. As MHK developments, including the one proposed for
Muskeget Channel, are implemented,
it will be critical to collect empirical
data on both the ecological and socioeconomic effects so that future projects
in other locations can be sited in a
more data-driven manner. Moreover,
such integrated monitoring enable
appropriate adjustments can be made
to the Muskeget project as more is
learned (in the spirit of adaptive management, after Lee, 1999).
The science and practice of marine
reserves, marine protected areas, and
other types of area-based marine management have proceeded in a similar
fashion and thus may offer some lessons for how to effectively proceed in
inevitably uncertain and evolving context: at first, the predictions of the social and ecological effects of siting
parks in the ocean were based largely
on theory, then, on very small scale,
science or community-driven experiments. More recently, with the increased use of area-based marine
management to meet both biodiversity
and fisheries goals (e.g., Murawski
et al., 2000; Hamilton et al., 2010),
scientists and practitioners are gaining
place-based knowledge of how marine
ecosystems respond to the changing
ecological and socioeconomic conditions created by marine protected
areas, which in turn is changing how
these protected areas are designed and
implemented in the water.
In summary, development of projects like Muskeget Channel presents
an opportunity scientifically as well as
economically and in terms of renewable energy production. As highlighted
in by the maps presented above, many
valuable sources of data already exist,
including Web-based data sources
and sector-specific assessments previously conducted to guide fisheries management, biodiversity conservation,
and multiobjective planning (i.e., marine spatial planning). We anticipate
that future ocean energy development
projects will take fuller advantage of
these resources and that as both ocean
energy development and marine spatial
planning progress, these efforts will be
better integrated, with measurable benefits for both human well-being and
marine ecosystem health.
Acknowledgments
We thank Shreyas Mandre, Kenneth
Breuer, Jennifer Franck, and colleagues
for inspiring us to investigate the ecosystem effects of ocean renewable energy
development and three anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on
earlier versions of this manuscript. We
gratefully acknowledge support from
the Brown University Humanities Research Fund and the U.S. Department
of Energy’s ARPA-E Program.
Corresponding Author:
Heather M. Leslie
Brown University, Institute at
Brown for Environment and
Society and Department of
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Box 1951, 85 Waterman St.,
Providence, RI 02912
Email: [email protected]
References
Airamé, S., Dugan, J.E., Lafferty, K.D.,
Leslie, H., McArdle, D.A., & Warner, R.R.
2003. Applying ecological criteria to marine
reserve design: A case study from the California Channel Islands. Ecol Appl. 13:S170-84.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2003)
013[0170:AECTMR]2.0.CO;2.
Arkema, K.K., Guannel, G., Verutes, G.,
Wood, S.A., Guerry, A., Ruckelshaus, M., …
Silver, J.M. 2013. Coastal habitats shield
people and property from sea-level rise and
storms. Nature Clim Change. 3:913-918.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1944.
Arkema, K.K., Verutes, G., Bernhardt, J.R.,
Clarke, C., Rosado, S., Canto, M., … Zegher,
J.D. 2014. Assessing habitat risk from human
activities to inform coastal and marine spatial
planning: a demonstration in Belize. Environ
Res Lett. 9:114016. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1088/1748-9326/9/11/114016.
Barrett, S.B. 2013. The Muskeget Channel
Tidal Energy Project: A unique case study in
the licensing and permitting of a tidal energy
project in Massachusetts. Mar Technol Soc J.
47:9-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.4031/MTSJ.
47.4.10.
Beck, M.W., Heck, K.L., Able, K.W.,
Childers, D.L., Eggleston, D.B., Gillanders,
B.M., … Weinstein, M.P. 2001. The identification, conservation, and management of
estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and
invertebrates. BioScience. 51:633-41. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051
[0633:TICAMO]2.0.CO;2.
Bedard, R., Jacobson, P., Previsic, M.,
Musial, W., & Varley, R. 2010. An overview
of ocean renewable energy technologies.
Oceanography. 23:22-31. http://dx.doi.org/
10.5670/oceanog.2010.40.
Bernhardt, J.R., & Leslie, H.M. 2013.
Resilience to climate change in coastal marine
ecosystems. Ann Rev Mar Sci. 5:371-92.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine121211-172411.
Bryden, I., & Melville, G.T. 2004. Choosing
and evaluating sites for tidal current development. J Power Energy. 218(8):567-77. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1243/0957650042584375.
Bunn, S.E., & Arthington, A.H. 2002. Basic
principles and ecological consequences of
January/February 2015
Volume 49 Number 1
109
altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity.
Environ Manage. 30:492-507. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s00267-002-2737-0.
Caselle, J.E., Love, M.S., Fusaro, C., &
Schroeder, D. 2002. Trash or habitat? Fish
assemblages on offshore oilfield seafloor debris
in the Santa Barbara Channel, California.
ICES J Mar Sci. 59:258-65. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1006/jmsc.2002.1264.
Chan, K.M.A., Shaw, R., Cameron, D.,
Underwood, E.C., & Daily, G.C. 2006.
Conservation planning for ecosystem services.
PLoS Biol. 4:e379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pbio.0040379.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 2009.
Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan,
Volume 1: Management and Administration.
Boston, MA: Massachusetts Executive Office
of Energy and Environmental Affairs.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 2014.
Massachusetts Draft Ocean Management
Plan, Volume 1: Management and Administration (September 2014). Boston, MA:
Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and
Environmental Affairs.
CRMC. 2010. Rhode Island Ocean Special
Management Plan (Ocean SAMP), Volume I.
Wakefield, RI: Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC). Adopted October 19,
2010.
Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J.,
Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., …
Shallenberger, R., 2009. Ecosystem services in
decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol
Environ. 7:21-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/
080025.
Daniel, T.C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A.,
Aznar, O., Boyd, J.W., Chan, K.M.A., …
vonderDunk, A. 2012. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda.
Proc Natl Acad Sci. 109:8812-9. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109.
Devine Tarbell & Associates. 2006. Instream
Tidal Power in North America: Environmental and Permitting Issues, EPRI-TP-007-NA.
Palo Alto, CA: Prepared for Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
110
Douglas, C.A., Harrison, G.P., & Chick, J.P.
2008. Life cycle assessment of the Seagen
marine current turbine. J Eng Maritime
Environ. 222(1):1-12.
C.-K., … Spencer, J. 2012. Modeling benefits
from nature: Using ecosystem services to inform coastal and marine spatial planning. Int J
Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. 8:107-21.
Drew, B., Plummer, A.R., & Sahinkaya,
M.N. 2009. A review of wave energy converter technology. Proc Inst Mech Eng A:
J Power Energy. 223:887-902. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1243/09576509JPE782.
Halpern, B.S., Longo, C., Hardy, D.,
McLeod, K.L., Samhouri, J.F., Katona, S.K.,
… Zeller, D. 2012. An index to assess the
health and benefits of the global ocean. Nature. 488:615-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
nature11397.
Eigenbrod, F., Bell, V.A., Davies, H.N.,
Heinemeyer, A., Armsworth, P.R., & Gaston,
K.J. 2011. The impact of projected increases
in urbanization on ecosystem services. Proc R
Soc B: Biol Sci. 278:3201-8. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1098/rspb.2010.2754.
Fogarty, M.J. 2005. Ecology of the Northeast
Continental Shelf. Woods Hole, MA: NMFS
Northeast Fisheries Science Center and
Northeast Regional Office. http://www.nero.
noaa.gov/nero/outreach/Ecosystems.pdf.
accessed online 7.10.14
Freeman, M.C., Bowen, Z.H., Bovee, K.D.,
& Irwin, E.R. 2001. Flow and habitat effects
on juvenile fish abundance in natural and
altered flow regimes. Ecol Appl. 11:179-90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2001)
011[0179:FAHEOJ]2.0.CO;2.
Gill, A.B. 2005. Offshore renewable energy:
ecological implications of generating electricity
in the coastal zone. J Appl Ecol. 42:605-15.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.
01060.x.
Glasby, T.M., & Connell, S.D. 1999. Urban
structures as marine habitats. Ambio. 28:595-8.
Glasby, T.M., & Connell, S.D. 2007. Nonindigenous biota on artificial structures: Could
habitat creation facilitate biological invasions?
Mar Biol. 151:887-95. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s00227-006-0552-5.
Greene, J.K., Anderson, M.G., Odell, J., &
Steinberg, N. 2010. The Northwest Atlantic
Marine Ecoregional Assessment: Species,
Habitats and Ecosystems, Phase One. Boston,
MA: The Nature Conservancy, Eastern U.S.
Division.
Guerry, A.D., Ruckelshaus, M.H., Arkema,
K.K., Bernhardt, J.R., Guannel, G., Kim,
Marine Technology Society Journal
Halpern, B.S., Longo, C., Scarborough, C.,
Hardy, D., Best, B.D., Doney, S.C., …
Samhouri, J.F. 2014. Assessing the health
of the U.S. west coast with a regional-scale
application of the Ocean Health Index. PLoS
ONE. 9:e98995. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0098995.
Hamilton, S.L., Caselle, J.E., Malone, D.P.,
& Carr, M.H. 2010. Incorporating biogeography into evaluations of the Channel Islands
marine reserve network. Proc Natl Acad Sci.
107:18272-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.0908091107.
Inger, R., Atrill, M.J., Bearhop, S., Broderick,
A.C., Grecian, W.J., Hodgson, D.J., …
Godley, B. 2009. Marine renewable energy:
potential benefits to biodiversity? An urgent
call for research. J Appl Ecol. 46:1145-53.
Kadiri, M., Ahmadian, R., BockelmannEvans, B., Rauen, W., & Falconer, R. 2011.
A review of the potential water quality impacts
of tidal renewable energy systems. Renew Sust
Energ Rev. 16:329-41. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.160.
Kareiva, P., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T. H.,
Daily, G.C., & Polasky, S., editors. 2011.
Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of
Mapping Ecosystem Services. New York:
Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588992.001.
0001.
Kim, C.-K., Toft, J.E., Papenfus, M.,
Verutes, G., Guerry, A.D., Ruckelshaus, M.H.,
… Polasky, S. 2012. Catching the right wave:
evaluating wave energy resources and potential
compatibility with existing marine and coastal
uses. PloS One. 7:e47598. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0047598.
King, J.R., Camisa, M.J, & Manfredi, V.M.
2010. Massachusetts Division of Marine
Fisheries trawl survey effort, lists of species
recorded, and bottom temperature trends,
1978–2007. Massachusetts Division of
Marine Fisheries Technical Report TR-38.
Boston, MA.
Kowalik, Z. 2004. Tide distribution and
tapping into tidal energy. Oceanologia.
46(3):291-331.
Langhamer, O. 2012. Artificial reef effect in
relation to offshore renewable energy conversion: state of the art. Scientific World J.
386713. http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/2012/
386713.
Lee, K.N. 1999. Appraising adaptive
management. Conserv Ecol. 3:3. [online]
http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art3/.
Leeney, R.H., Nichols, O.C., Sette, L., Wood
LaFond, S., & Hughes, P.E. 2010. Marine
Megavertebrates and Fishery Resources in the
Nantucket Sound-Muskeget Channel Area:
Ecology and Effects of Renewable Energy
Installations. Report to Harris Miller Miller &
Hanson Inc., September 2010. Provincetown
Center for Coastal Studies. 1-88.
Leslie, H.M. 2005. A synthesis of marine
conservation planning approaches. Conserv
Biol. 19:1701-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1523-1739.2005.00268.x.
Lindholm, J.B., Auster, P.J., & Kaufman,
L.S. 1999. Habitat-mediated survivorship of
juvenile (0-year) Atlantic cod Gadus morhua.
Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 180:247-55. http://dx.doi.
org/10.3354/meps180247.
Liu, W., Xiao, Q., & Cheng, F. 2013. A bioinspired study on tidal energy extraction with
flexible flapping wings. Bioinspir Biomim.
8(3):036011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/
1748-3182/8/3/036011.
Long, J.C.S. 2008. A blind man’s guide
to energy policy. Issues Sci Technol. 24.
http://issues.org/24-12/long/. Accessed online
7.10.14.
McLeod, K.L., & Leslie, H.M. 2009.
Ecosystem-Based Management for the Oceans.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Miller, R.G., Hutchison, Z.L., MacLeod,
A.K., Burrows, M.T., Cook, E.J., Last, K.S.,
& Wilson, B. 2013. Marine renewable energy
development: assessing the benthic footprint
at multiple scales. Front Ecol Environ.
11:433-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/120089.
Murawski, S.A., Brown, R., Lai, H.L., Rago,
P.J., & Hendrickson, L. 2000. Large-scale
closed areas as a fishery-management tool
in temperate marine systems: The Georges
Bank experience. Bull Mar Sci. 66:775-98.
Musial, W., & Ram, B. 2010. Large-scale
Offshore Wind Power in the United States:
Assessment of Opportunities and Barriers.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Golden, CO. http://www.nrel.gov/wind/
pdfs/40745.pdf. accessed online 7.10.14.
NOAA. 2014. Resource Survey Reports.
Woods Hole, MA: Ecosystem Surveys Branch,
Northeast Fisheries Science Center. http://
nefsc.noaa.gov/esb/mainpage/spring_rsr.html.
Accessed online 11.12.14.
Northeast Ocean Data Working Group.
2014. Northeast Ocean Data. Boston,
MA: Northeast Regional Ocean Council.
http://www.northeastoceandata.org/. Accessed
online 11.29.14.
NRC. 2013. An Evaluation of the U.S.
Department of Energy’s Marine and Hydrokinetic Resource Assessments. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.
O’Rourke, F., Fergal, B., & Reynolds, A.
2010. Tidal energy update 2009. Appl Energ.
87:398-409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2009.08.014.
Poppe, L.J., McMullen, K.Y., Foster, D.S.,
Blackwood, D.S., Williams, S.J., Ackerman,
S.D., … Glomb, K.A. 2010. Geological
interpretation of the sea floor offshore of
Edgartown, Massachusetts: U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 2009-1001. U.S.
Geological Survey. http://pubs.usgs.gov/
of/2009/1001/. Accessed online 7.10.14.
Powers, S.P., Grabowski, J.H., Peterson,
C.H., & Lindberg, W.J. 2003. Estimating
enhancement of fish production by offshore
artificial reefs: uncertainty exhibited by diver-
gent scenarios. Mar Ecol Prog Ser.
264:265-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/
meps264265.
Rothe, A. 2014. Legislature Enacts $2.2
Billion Environmental Bond Bill, Passes
Water Infrastructure Bill. Weston, MA:
Charles River Watershed Association. http://
blog.crwa.org/blog/legislature-enacts-2.2billion-environmental-bond-bill-passes-waterinfrastructure-bill. Accessed online, 11.13.14.
Ruckelshaus, M., McKenzie, E., Tallis, H.,
Guerry, A., Daily, G., Kareiva, P., …
Bernhardt, J. 2013. Notes from the field:
Lessons learned from using ecosystem service
approaches to inform real-world decisions.
Ecol Econ. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.
1007.1009.
Salzman, J., Thompson, B.H., & Daily, G.C.
2001. Protecting ecosystem services: Science,
economics, and law. Stanford Environ Law J.
20:309-32.
Samhouri, J.F., Levin, P.S., & Ainsworth,
C.H. 2010. Identifying thresholds for ecosystem-based management. PLoS One. 5.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES11-00366.1.
Samhouri, J.F., Lester, S.E., Selig, E.R.,
Halpern, B.S., Fogarty, M.J., Longo, C., &
McLeod, K.L. 2012. Sea sick? Setting targets
to assess ocean health and ecosystem services.
Ecosphere. 3:art41.
Scarlett, L., & Boyd, J. 2011. Ecosystem
Services: Quantification, Policy Applications,
and Current Federal Capabilities. In: RFF
Discussion Paper. 11-13. Washington, DC:
Resources for the Future.
Sharp, R., Tallis, H.T., Ricketts, T., Guerry,
A.D., Wood, S.A., Chaplin-Kramer, R., …
Vogl, A.L. 2014. InVEST User’s Guide.
Stanford, CA: The Natural Capital Project.
Sheehan, E.V., Gall, S.C., Cousens, S.L., &
Attrill, M.J. 2013. Epibenthic assessment of a
renewable tidal energy site. The Scientific
World Journal. 906180.
Shields, M.A., Dillon, L.J., Woolf, D.K., &
Ford, A.T. 2009. Strategic priorities for assessing ecological impacts of marine renewable energy devices in the Pentland Firth
January/February 2015
Volume 49 Number 1
111
(Scotland, UK). Mar Policy. 33:635-42.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.
12.013.
Tallis, H., Levin, P.S., Ruckelshaus, M.,
Lester, S.E., McLeod, K.L., Fluharty, D.L., &
Halpern, B.S. 2010. The many faces of
ecosystem-based management: Making the
process work today in real places. Mar Policy.
34:340-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.
2009.08.003.
Terray, E., Howes, B., Stein, W., McGowan,
J., Manwell, J., Flament, P., … Mullison, J.
2014. Roadmap: Technologies for Cost
Effective, Spatial Resource Assessments for
Offshore Renewable Energy. U.S. Dept. of the
Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs,
Herndon. OCS Study BOEM 2014-604.
White, C., Halpern, B.S., & Kappel, C.V.
2012. Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis
reveals the value of marine spatial planning for
multiple ocean uses. Proc Natl Acad Sci.
109:4696-4701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1114215109.
Wiese, F.S., Montevecchi, W.A., Davoren,
G.K., Huettmann, F., Diamond, A.W., &
Linke, J. Seabirds at risk around offshore oil
platforms in the North-west Atlantic. Mar
Pollut Bull. 42:1285-90. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0025-326X(01)00096-0.
Tierney, S.F., & Carpenter, S. 2013. Planning for offshore energy development: how
marine spatial planning could improve the
leasing/permitting processes for offshore wind
and offshore oil/natural gas development.
Analysis Group, Inc. white paper commissioned by the New Venture Fund’s Fund for
Ocean Economic Research, Boston, MA.
http://www.analysisgroup.com/uploadedFiles/
Publishing/Articles/Planning_for_Ocean_
Energy_Development_Complete.pdf.
accessed online 7.10.14.
U.S. DOE. 2013. International Energy Outlook 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Energy
Information Administration, Office of
Energy Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy
(U.S. DOE).
U.S. IEA. 2013. What are the major sources
and users of energy in the United States? U.S.
Energy Information Administration (IEA).
http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/article/
major_energy_sources_and_users.cfm.
Accessed 7.10.14.
USFWS. 1991. Final report, Northeast coastal
study: significant coastal habitats of southern
New England and portions of Long Island,
New York. U.S. Fish and WIldlife Service
(USFWS). http://library.fws.gov/pubs5/necas/
web_link/39_muskeget.htm. Accessed online
7.10.14.
112
Marine Technology Society Journal
Appendix 1
Tidal Energy Publications
Included in the
Literature Review
Ahmadian, R., & Falconer, R.A.
2012. Assessment of array shape
of tidal stream turbines on hydroenvironmental impacts and power
output. Renew Energ. 44:318-27.
Ahmadian, R., Falconer, R., &
Bockelmann-Evans, B. 2012. Far-field
modelling of the hydro-environmental
impact of tidal stream turbines.
Renew Energ. 38(1):107-16.
Brown, J.L. 2010. Fish-friendly
turbine captures tidal energy. Civil
Eng. 80(9):44-5.
Bryans, A.G., Fox, B., Crossley,
P.A., & O’Malley, M. 2005. Impact
of tidal generation on power system
operation in Ireland. Power Syst.
20(4):2034-40.
Bryden, I., & Melville, G.T. 2004.
Choosing and evaluating sites for tidal
current development. J Power Energy.
218(8):567-77.
Defne, A., Haas, K.A., & Fritz,
H.M. 2011. Numerical modeling of
tidal currents and the effects of power
extraction on estuarine hydrodynamics
along the Georgia coast, USA. Renew
Energ. 36(12):3461-71.
Denny, E. 2009. The economics
of tidal energy. Energy Policy.
37(5):1914-24.
Douglas, C.A., Harrison, G.P., &
Chick, J.P. 2008. Life cycle assessment
of the Seagen marine current turbine.
J Eng Maritime Environ. 222(1):1-12.
Fairley, I., Evans, P., Wooldridge,
C., Willis, M., & Masters, I. 2013.
Evaluation of tidal stream resource in
a potential array area via direct measurements. Renew Energ. 57:70-8.
Falconer, R.A., JunQiang, X.,
BinLiang, J., & Ahmadian, R., 2009.
The Severn Barrage and other tidal
energy options: hydrodynamic and
power output modelling. Technol
Sci. 52(11):3413.
Gao, G., Falconer, R.A., & Lin, B.
2013. Modeling effects of a tidal barrage on water quality indicator distribution in the Severn Estuary. Front
Environ Sci Eng. 7(2):211-8.
Hasegawa, D., Sheng, J., Greenberg,
D.A., & Thompson, K.R. 2011. Farfield effects of tidal energy extraction
in the Minas Passage on tidal circulation in the Bay of Fundy and Gulf
of Maine using a nested-grid coastal
circulation model. Ocean Dyn.
61:184-68.
Henderson, P.A., & Bird, D.J.
2010. Fish and macro-crustacean
communities and their dynamics in
the Severn Estuary. Mar Pollut Bull.
61(1-3):100-14.
Jinshan, X., Deng, Z.D., Martinez,
J.J., Carlson, T.J., Myers, J.R., &
Weiland, M. 2012. Broadband acoustic environment at a tidal energy site
in Puget Sound. Mar Technol Soc J.
4(2):65-73.
Johnstone, C.M., Pratt, D., Clarke,
J.A., & Grant, A.D. 2013. A technoeconomic analysis of tidal energy technology. Renew Energ. 49:101-6.
Kadiri, M., Ahmadian, R.,
Bockelmann-Evans, B., Rauen, W.,
& Falconer, R. 2012. A review of the
potential water quality impacts of tidal
renewable energy systems. Renew Sust
Energ Rev. 16(1):329-41.
Kowalik, Z. 2004. Tide distribution and tapping into tidal energy.
Oceanologia 46(3):291-331.
Langston, W.J., Pope, N.D., Jonas,
P.J.C., Nikitic, C., Field, M.D.R.,
Dowell, B., … Brown, A.R., 2010.
Contaminants in fine sediments
and their consequences for biota of
the Severn Estuary. Mar Pollut Bull.
1(1-3):68-82.
Lee, S., Lie, H., Song, K., Cho, C.,
& Lim, E. 2008. Tidal modification
and its effect on sluice-gate outflow
after completion of the Saemangeum
dike, South Korea. J Oceanogr.
64:763-76.
Lim, Y.S., & Koh, S.L. 2010.
Analytical assessments on the potential
of harnessing tidal currents for electricity generation in Malaysia. Renew
Energ. 35(5):1024-32.
Liu, W., Xiao, Q., & Cheng, F.
2013. A bio-inspired study on tidal
energy extraction with flexible flapping
wings. Bioinspir Biomim. 8(3):036011.
MacEnri, J., Reed, M., & Thiringer,
T. 2013. Influence of tidal parameters
on SeaGen flicker performance. Philos
Trans R Soc. 31(198):20120247.
Neill, S.P., Jordan, J.R., & S.J.
2012. Impact of tidal energy converter
(TEC) arrays on the dynamics of headland sand banks. Renew Energ.
37(1):387-97.
Ng, K., Lam, W., & Ng, K. 2013.
2002-2012: 10 years of research progress in horizontal-axis marine current
turbines. Energies. (3):1497-1526.
Plew, D.R., & Stevens, C. L. 2013.
Numerical modelling of the effect of turbines on currents in a tidal channel—
Tory Channel, New Zealand. Renew
Energ. 57:269-82.
Polagye, B., & Thomson, J. 2013.
Tidal energy resource characterization:
Methodology and field study in Admiralty Inlet, Puget Sound, WA (USA).
J Power Energy. 227(3):352-67.
Sheehan, E.V., Gall, S.C., Cousens,
S.L., & Attrill, M.J. 2013. Epibenthic
assessment of a renewable tidal energy
site. Scientific World J. 906180.
Shields, M.A., Dillon, L.J., Woolf,
D.K., & Ford, A.T. 2009. Strategic
priorities for assessing ecological impacts of marine renewable energy devices in the Pentland Firth (Scotland,
UK). Mar Policy. 33:635-42.
Stevens, C.L., Smith, M.J., Grant,
B., Stewart, C.L., & Divett, T. 2012.
January/February 2015
Volume 49 Number 1
113
Tidal energy resource complexity in a
large strait: The Karori Rip, Cook
Strait. Cont Shelf Res. 33:100-9.
Tel-Geziry, T.M., Bryden, I.G., &
Couch, S.J. 2009. Environmental
impact assessment for tidal energy
schemes: an exemplar case study
of the Strait of Messina. J Mar Eng
Technol. 13:39-48.
Thode, K., & Eichweber, G. 2011.
The Elbe estuary fairway—history and
future challenges. Wasserwirtschaft.
101(6):22-6.
Underwood, G.J.C. 2010. Microphytobenthos and phytoplankton in
the Severn estuary, UK: Present situation and possible consequences of a
tidal energy barrage. Mar Pollut Bull.
61(1-3):83-91.
Wiese, F.S., Montevecchi, W.A.,
Davoren, G.K., Huettmann, F.,
Diamond, A.W., & Linke, J. Seabirds
at risk around offshore oil platforms in
the North-west Atlantic. Mar Pollut
Bull. 42:1285-90.
Work, P.A., Haas, K.A., Defne, Z.,
& Gay, T. 2013. Tidal stream energy
site assessment via three-dimensional
model and measurements. Appl
Energy. 102:510-9.
Xia, J., Falconer, R.A., & Lin, B.
2010. Hydrodynamic impact of a
tidal barrage in the Severn Estuary,
UK. Renew Energ. 35(7):1455-68.
Xia, J., Falconer, R. A., & Lin, B.
2010. Impact of different operating
modes for a Severn Barrage on the
tidal power and flood inundation in
the Severn Estuary, UK. Appl Energy.
87(7):2374-91.
Xia, J., Falconer, R.A., Lin, B., &
Tan, G. 2012. Estimation of annual
energy output from a tidal barrage
using two different methods. Appl
Energy. 93:327-36.
114
Marine Technology Society Journal