Join Us On Facebook
|
Changes To The CA Offshore Geophysical Permit Program
For Underwater Acoustic Seismic surveys
CSLC Requests Public Comments by August 23, 2013
What is the Definition of "Low Energy Geophysical Survey?"
What is the Definition of "No Significant Impact?"
Preface
The California State Lands Commission (CSLC) studied their 49 permitted low energy seismic surveys (LESS) during the last five years and determined the surveys may have caused both Levels A and B take of marine mammals. While typical surveys are expected to last one to four days, several surveys lasted from 20 to 54 days and used decibel levels up to 228 dB. CSLC needs to require a permit for each offshore geophysical survey rather that a three-year-blanket-permit that would not include information about the duration, location, or decibel level of each individual survey.
Introduction
California State Lands Commission (CSLC) issues Offshore Low Energy Geophysical Survey permits. CSLC is proposing to remove the less than 2 kilojoules (kJ) of energy input to acoustic equipment requirement from their new definition of Low Energy. Also proposed is a list of mitigations that they believe will result in no significant impact. However, their Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) does not state the new definition of Low Energy for Geophysical Surveys and does not state a clear definition of "no significant impact."
California (CA) State Commissions that issue permits for underwater acoustic seismic geophysical surveys offshore and nearshore CA need to know the difference between High Energy and Low Energy Geophysical Surveys to prevent harm and destruction of living marine resources and to people.
The California Coastal Commission (CCC) may issue permits for High Energy Geophysical Surveys. However, in the last two years, they have denied three High Energy Geophysical Survey proposals in California offshore waters due to the potential extensive damage to the marine mammals, fish and other marine life, and to people. Low Energy Geophysical Surveys permitted by the CSLC do not appear before the CCC.
Our former SLO Coast Journal articles of February 2013 and March 2013 show that without limits on the intensity of decibels (dB) in the low energy geophysical surveys, triple plated boomers and other equipment can produce decibels in the "high energy" range. Acoustic sound creates underwater shock waves that can have detrimental biological impacts to marine mammals, fish, other marine life, and to humans recreating in the offshore waters.
The California coastal marine resources are of high national and international significance with large numbers of dense and diverse species, in part due to multiple significant seasonal upwellings and a highly significant persistent upwelling between Point Arguello and Point Sal and a variety of sea floor geographic features such as several seamounts and sea canyons. Many threatened and endangered species continuously inhabit or seasonally inhabit or migrate through this vast oceanographic area.
California Coastal Protection Program Award of Excellence from the American Planning Association, video by Coastforyou.
CA offshore and nearshore waters contain a 1,100-mile long National Marine Monument, four National Marine Sanctuaries, many Marine Protected Areas, abundant commercial fishing, and thousands of recreation areas.
Changes to the CA Offshore Geophysical Permit Program
CSLC is proposing changes to the Offshore Geophysical Permit Program (OGPP) that may change the definition of Low Energy Geophysical Surveys. CSLC requests public comments by August 23, 2013 concerning their Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Since the MND may affect all future Low Energy Geophysical Surveys offshore and nearshore California, it is imperative to write comments stating your concerns and your suggestions for possible ways of addressing them.
CSLC states in the Executive Summary of the MND, page ES-1, that the MND has been prepared "to analyze and disclose the environmental effects associated with low energy geophysical survey activities." The CSLC determined that, "while the Initial study identified potentially significant impacts related to activities that may be carried out by individual applicants under the OGPP, project revisions and/or survey activity requirement have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or mitigate those impacts to a point where no significant impacts would occur."
What is the definition of "No Significant Impacts?" CSLC states that with their mitigations, no significant impacts would occur. But the definition is not clearly stated for all marine life and for people.
CSLC established a "typical" or hypothetical survey, described on page E-12, as a basis for impact assessment. Throughout the MND, the acoustic impact assessment for impacts to mammals and other marine life is based on exposure to a single pulse from the equipment. However, in CSLC "typical" survey and in surveys during 2008-2012, the equipment has a pulse every four seconds continuously for a duration of ten hours each day. Is the basis for assessing possible impacts an accurate predictor of impacts to marine life?
CSLC Initial Study of the OGPP 2008-2012
The Initial Study is embedded into the MND. CSLC reviewed the last five years (2008-2012) of Low Energy Geophysical Surveys, formally called "Low Energy Seismic Surveys" (LESS). The study is printed in section 2.4, pages 2-4 through 2-17 of the MND. Equipment and decibel information is in Table 2-3, "Characteristics of Equipment Used During Permitted Low Energy Geophysical surveys," pages 2-13 and 2-14. Appendix A is the "Summary of Low Energy Offshore Geophysical Permit File Review." Appendix G is the "Underwater Sound Modeling of Low energy Geophysical Equipment Operations."
The mitigations expected to result in "no significant impact" are listed in section 3.3.4.4, beginning on page 3-186 in the MND. The Mitigation Monitoring Program begins on page 5-1.
We are concerned the CSLC proposed OGPP does not provide clear definitions, adequate mitigations, or warnings to the public for their safety in CA offshore and nearshore waters near geophysical surveys.
Request for Public Comment to CSLC Low Energy Offshore Geophysical Permit Program (OGPP) Update
The CSLC update to the OGPP is for Low Energy Offshore Geophysical Surveys in California's offshore waters (to three nautical miles) from Mexico border to Oregon border. Please follow CSLC directions for written OGPP Update comments.
CA Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission Meeting
Commercial Fishermen and others can speak publicly of their concerns about the CSLC proposed OGPP that could affect fishing, MPAs, and marine ecosystem health. Next meeting is August 7th at Embassy Suites in San Luis Obispo. Agenda
Concerns with MND and Suggestions for Possible Ways of Addressing Them.
1) New Marine Mammal Behavioral Response studies in Southern CA are not included in the MND.
Suggestion: Add the new studies linked below that show links between acoustic underwater sound and mass stranding of whales.
Paper: Marine Mammal Behavioral Response Studies in Southern California: Advances in Technology and Experimental Methods, Brandon L. Southall, et al.
Paper on Beaked Whale Responses to Sound Exposure, Stacy L. DeRuiter, et al.
Paper on Blue Whale Responses to Sound Exposure, Brandon Southall, et al.
See Behavioral Response Study-Tagging Beaked Whales video by Brandon Southall
Behavioral response studies (BRS) to better understand the behavioral pattern in marine animals and impacts from underwater sounds are being conducted in Southern California. Damian Carrington reports in the Guardian, July 2013 (See: Guardian / Whales Flee Military Sonar Strandings)
"Studies are missing link in puzzle that has connected naval exercises to unusual mass strandings of whales and dolphins."
2) Short public response time while many on vacation
Suggestion: Extend response time to Sept. 30, 2013.
3) Hard to find changes to OGPP in the 428-page MND
Suggestion: Provide a list of changes with page numbers for details.
4) Need definition of "low energy geophysical survey"
Suggestion: State definition of "Low Energy Geophysical Survey."
5) Need definition of "no significant impact"
Suggestion: State definition of "no significant impact" to marine resources and to people.
6) Need decibel limit provided to Low Energy Geophysical Survey
Suggestion: State decibel limit for Low Energy
7) Blanket permits for 1 to 3 years; no individual survey EIRs
Suggestion: Offer a permit for each individual survey.
Suggestion: Define those surveys that need an EIR.
The CSLC predicted activity scenario on page ES-9 predicts surveys to last one to four days, with longer 10 days possible.
Therefore, a survey that will last more than 10 days needs an EIR.
Without a permit for each survey, the Commissioners do not know the number, location, or duration of the many surveys each year.
8) AP triple plate boomer – Table 2-3 states characteristics of one boomer rather that a triple plate of 3 boomers.
Suggestion: change chart information to characteristics of 3 boomers. See Appendix G for the characteristics of a triple boomer.
9) Impacts to fish and other marine life, including plankton
Assumes fish will swim away and return.
Suggestion: If a survey will be longer than 10 days, then significant changes may happen to the possibility of fish returning, and an EIR is needed.
Suggestion: Provide a scientific study that proves fish will return.
Does not consider the marine food could be destroyed for threatened and endangered species, for example page 3-121 line 19---Brown Pelican
Suggestion: Add possible removal of marine food sources to the EIR.
10) No Mitigation offered to Commercial Fishermen, page 4.1
Suggestion: Meet with commercial fishermen representatives to determine their financial mitigation for surveys that may reduce their catch or destroy fishing areas and fish nursery areas.
11) Recreation and Impacts to humans, 3.3.14, page 3-265
Does not consider surfers and ocean swimmers
Suggestion: Add surfers and ocean swimmers to recreation
Suggestion: Post warnings or close beach
Page ES-10 states the survey vessel could be approximately 100 meters from the beach within relatively good visibility of the shoreline. Both surfers and ocean swimmers may be beyond the breaking surf area.
Divers need more mitigation for their safety
Suggestion: Provide more mitigation, i.e. notify coast guard, post warning signs, post notices at harbors
Suggestion: Close ocean area to diving
12) MPAs – page 3-85, 3-190-assumes knowledge of MPAs & coordination with CA Dept. Fish & Wildlife (CDFW)
Suggestion: Update CA geophysical areas map to include all MPAs.
Suggestion: Put requirement of CDFW approval for MPA on all permits within 5 miles of an MPA.
13) Four National Marine Sanctuaries do not have mitigation
Suggestion: Update CA geophysical areas map to include national marine sanctuaries.
Suggestion: Provide an EIR for a survey that goes within 5 miles of a national marine sanctuary.
Suggestion: Contact the West Coast Regional Office of National Marine Sanctuaries for conditions of surveying within 5 miles of a national marine sanctuary.
Contact Information:West Coast Regional Office99 Pacific Street, Bldg. 200, Suite KMonterey, CA 93940
(831) 647-1920(831) 647-1732 Fax
14) CA Coastal National Monument has no mitigation
Suggestion: Update CA geophysical areas map to include the CA Coastal National Monument.
Suggestion: coordinate mitigation with the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
15) Unfounded assumptions for Level A and B takes to marine mammals resulting in no significant impacts
Assumes the OGPP survey will be of short duration to state the impacts will be less than significant, page 3-100
Suggestion: If a survey will be longer than 10 days, significant impacts could occur and the survey needs an EIR. Page 3-106
Assumes mitigations will be completely effective - two charts on pp. 3-168 & 3-167
The first chart estimates the Level A Take impacts to marine mammals. The second chart assumes there will be no impacts to marine mammals if mitigation is effective.
Suggestion: Plan a one-year study of the future geophysical surveys to validate the assumptions.
We are concerned that Marine Wildlife Monitors (MWMs) will not be able to spot the marine mammals and sea turtles in limited visibility in the Pacific Ocean. The following video of the Marine Mammal Protection during Geophysical Surveys shows Mary Jo Barkaszi, Biologist and Marine Mammal Business Line Manager for Contential Shelf Associates (CSA) giving a talk to the Houston Geological Society. Barkaszi discusses the marine protected species, environmental statutes, active acoustic sound sources, evaluate impact significance, define resource specific parameters, Levels A and B takes, mitigations for potential impacts, unusual mortality event, marine mammal observers, and how to spot whales.
From our research and observation from 2012's extensive Low Energy Geophysical Seismic Surveys (LESS) in our local coastal waters, we think there is a glaring and false assumption to use various sonic impact research papers and conclusions based upon these studies to forecast the numbers of 'take' for various mentioned and unmentioned marine life species, especially marine mammals. The cited studies, statistically speaking, are not in the same 'statistical universe' as the proposed seismic imaging project.
Examples, while most LESS durations were a day or two, some were dangerously longer.
1) 48 days---Offshore San Luis Obispo County,10/20/2010-12/31/2010
2) 54 days---Offshore San Luis Obispo County, 1/6/2011-3/30/2011
3) 20 days---Avila Bay, 12/4/2011-1/30/2012
4) 47 days---Estero Bay to Pt. Sal from 8/20/2012-11/20/2012
Note: all these examples were at the threshold between LESS and HESS, 2kJ of energy.
(Table A-1. Summary of OGPP survey activity, 2008-2012)
Actual intensities and durations of the sonic waves during last year's extensive LESS operations in our local coastal waters exponentially exceed any cited study or studies or possible testing suggested in the current document. The intensities and durations of the sonic waves were unprecedented in scope compared to any referenced study. Cited studies and actual testing, statistically speaking, are in separate statistical universes. Thus, the predictive model is useless other than a significantly understated guess. Many fishermen and others observed the impact upon various fish species locally was substantial, causing sea birds to leave the area due to fish having been chased out or killed by LESS operations. No such impacts have been considered. Impacts always seem to be under estimated due to use of low duration assumptions.
Background to OGPP Update
The California Ocean Protection Council (OPC), granted CSLC $222,000 to review and update their low-energy Offshore Geophysical Survey Permit Program.
The CSLC staff re-evaluation of the program involves:
1) A review of the current scientific literature on ocean acoustics particularly related to the effects of anthropogenic sound on marine biological resources
2) A review of the current program requirements and operations, concluding with recommendations to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and transparency of permits
3) A review of the environmental impacts of low-energy surveys currently permitted under the program, prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
4) To Identify feasible mitigation measures or program changes to reduce or avoid any impacts found to be potentially significant.
The OPC grant is in the minutes of the August 2011 meeting.
In the Project Description, the OPC stated the need for scientific review, "More recent evidence suggests that some survey operations may adversely affect marine mammals, reptiles, and fish." NOAA found that a single exposure to acoustic waves between 100 and 2,000 Hertz (measure of frequency), and above 208 decibels (measure of intensity) may damage fishes' hearing or air bladders. OPC states, "Given recent findings, it is critical that the CSLC update its geophysical permit program by incorporating the latest science on ocean acoustics and the associated hazards to marine life."
Conclusion
Intensities of decibel levels need to be included in the definition of Low Energy Geophysical Survey. Otherwise, new technology could increase the power output. For example, we have seen one boomer become 3 boomers plated together to increase the power. What technology will be next? Clear definition of what is meant by "no significant impact" needs to be stated. If the MND is approved, CSLC needs to scientifically study the future surveys to determine if any changes are needed in their mitigations.
CSLC needs to provide a comprehensive permit process for each survey rather than a three-year blanket permit that is basically permission to perform as many surveys as desired. The CA coastal resources are worth protecting. The coast is vital to the economy and to the quality of life in California.
Banner Image of Otter & Pup by Cleve Nash |
