The Importance of Updating California's Offshore Low-Energy
Geophysical Survey Program
by Carol Georgi and Karl Kempton,
Former Energy Planner for San Luis Obispo County,
Lead Author of Proposed Central Coast National Marine Sanctuary, 1990"
Introduction
We are concerned the Low-Energy Seismic Surveys (LESS) have been adversely affecting California's coastal marine resources, placing the public in harms way, and damaging commercial and recreational fishing. Our concerns are based on the high decibels (dB) of 216 dB and 223 dB produced during LESS.
California State Lands Commission (CSLC) only considers energy input of 2 kilojoules (kj) to define LESS. This definition does not include the sound pressure levels the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMSF) uses to define dB levels for marine life safety.
We thank CSLC for beginning their much-needed update of the 1984 offshore Low-Energy Geophysical Survey Permit Program (GSPP), which we described in our January Marine Sanctuary Article.
We concur with the California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) that this update is critical because scientific studies suggest LESS adversely affects marine mammals by not considering the equipment is producing sound pressure levels of received dB out of compliance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Justification for this concurrence is found below under the heading, "Observed Take by LESS, August and September 2012."
We ask the CSLC to consider the potential impacts to humans who recreate in the ocean. Currently, GSPP does not consider potential harm people could experience from received dB over the Navy human limit of 145 dB when recreating nearshore and offshore. For public safety, all CSLC geophysical survey permits (GSP) need to be suspended until public safety requirements of dB levels and warnings are provided.
We ask the CSLC to include the expertise of both the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in the process of updating of the offshore GSPP to ensure LESS is in compliance with both the California Coast Act and the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). We ask the CSLC to investigate PG&E's three - five years of LESS to determine the violations of the GSPP, including the lack of required communication and mitigation to the local commercial fishermen.
Uncovering LESS
After uncovering LESS permits for activities nearshore and offshore San Luis Obispo (SLO) County since 2008, many are asking, "Who knew what and when?" and "Why didn't the public know about the potentially harmful surveys?"
First, it is very doubtful that we would have reached the current level of knowledge had it not been for the tenacious efforts of Brian Stacy, local commercial fisherman, who first brought the significance of the hidden and outdated geophysical seismic survey permit process, as well as the incomplete documentation and the damage caused by LESS to our attention.
We credit Mr. Stacy with the uncovering of LESS. He researched and found documents he shared with us in September 2012. These documents were the first hint of seismic surveys seemingly at odds with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). LESS is permitted on a 1984 and a 1987 updated process. Nevertheless, it remains a negative declaration permit dating back to those issued for previous oil exploration.
During the fall of 2012, we and other individuals and groups were focused on fighting PG&E's proposed High Energy Seismic Survey (HESS), as we described in our September and November Marine Sanctuary articles.
However, LESS began to appear more and more in the scattered PG&E documents previously kept from public eyes. During September until late November more and more information on LESS came to the surface because of Mr. Stacy's and later our efforts, as we reported in our December Marine Sanctuary article.
While indeed there is a paper trail of LESS announcements in the Port San Luis and Morro Bay Harbors, it has to be underscored, the documents appear harmless because dB levels and specific types of equipment are not printed on the permits.
We may never know the answer to the question regarding local governmental agencies and or personnel knowing about LESS due to the incomplete permits and lack of notifications sent to all local public agencies and commercial fishermen associations. All that seems to be known is that from time to time a ship showed up to do some survey under the rubric of LESS. The notification lists were outdated. Thus, fishermen were not notified nor were fishermen consulted about potential conflicts and probable losses.
January 2013 CCC Meeting in Pismo Beach
Many citizens spoke asking the CCC to investigate PG&E's LESS, as reported by Ed Ochs in the Rock, January 14, 2013.
Speakers stated that there are observed indicators that federal and state violations of "Take Levels A and B" have occurred regarding marine life deaths and injuries nearshore and offshore SLO and possibly within federal and state marine protected areas and designations by producing 216 dB – 223 dB during the last three years of LESS
Levels A and B Take- Incidental Harassment of Marine Mammals
Since dB levels during PG&E's LESS were up to at least 216 dB, we are concerned that both Level A and Level B Take occurred without PG&E or their contractor, Fugro, having Incidental Harassment Authorizations (IHA).
An IHA is required for a Level A or Level B Take. Currently NMFS uses 160 dB re 1uPa (rms) received level for impulse noises as the threshold for the onset of Level B (behavioral) harassment. Level A is for 180 dB or higher take. The MMPA defines Level A harassment as harassment with the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild, and Level B harassment as harassment with the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavior patterns including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, breeding, nursing, feeding, or sheltering.
For example, an individual kayaker can be fined should s/he paddle within 100 feet of a rock disturbing endangered or protected sea mammals or birds. Disturbance activity is considered ‘take.'
Violations and Omissions of GSPP
Our January Marine Sanctuary Article asks for investigations of LESS and the geophysical seismic permit process and discusses the possible violations and omissions of the GSPP.
For example, the GSPP requires specific equipment and their frequencies and dB be stated on the GSP. We found one correct permit to our south. It states the specific equipment and their frequencies and decibel (dB) levels up to 223 dB.
Permit-2010 GSP 223 dB Hueneme
However, all of the permits for PG&E's LESS offshore SLO did not print specific equipment, and the equipment frequencies and dB. So, a question arises whether or not the GSP above is unique, an aberration and at variance with the usual CSLC process, or the incomplete notification permit forms are only associated with PG&E's LESS. As the permit below shows, there are equipment, frequency and dB omissions so no one can know what to expect from the survey.
Permit-2012 GSP 216 dB Morro Bay to Pt. Sal
Besides the violations and omissions on the geophysical permits, the local commercial fishermen report not being notified, not being able to fish when survey boats were present, and more than 50% loss of fish catch. Both PG&E and its contractor, Fugro, refuse to mitigate the fishermen.
Originally, PG&E's spokesperson told the fishermen to stay out of the way of the survey boats during HESS, and they would be compensated. Sadly, PG&E strung the fishermen along with a series of erroneous statements during and after LESS, and has not mitigated the commercial fishermen. Brian Stacy worked tirelessly to find the LESS agreement for 22 months. It still does not exist, to his knowledge.
Neither PG&E nor Fugro met with the fishermen's associations to produce the agreement for displacement of fishermen, or the loss of gear required by the GSPP that would have provided the needed claims process and documentation to facilitate compensation. Payment to the fishermen would come from the "rate increase" PG&E received for seismic surveys. The fishermen may be owed millions, especially if they were displaced 300 days during the last three years of LESS.
According to the CCC Mitigation Measures, p.51-60 in CCC's report, PG&E was required to create a comprehensive and detailed commercial fishing mitigation plan. The CCC found PG&E"s "proposed mitigation plan for High Energy Seismic Survey (HESS) to be inconsistent with the commercial and recreational fishing policy of the Coastal Act, Section 30234.5."
Now, we have learned the LESS pulled arrays on both the Bluefin and the Pacific Star Survey Boats, and that LESS produced at least 216 dB. Therefore, many of the conditions the CCC was concerned about protecting and mitigating were already occurring and had occurred "under the radar" during the various LESS activities.
For example, Brian Stacy reports:
The biggest impacts to his commercial fishing business were:
1. not being able to put his slime eel gear in the survey area, and
2. not being able to troll for salmon when they surveyed during the salmon season.
These impacts are the ones Mr. Stacy is concerned about as far as his business goes, and he did not get compensated for them. Mr. Stacy has also been representing the nearshore fishermen in their mitigation struggles.
The CSLC needs to review the Survey boat logs, mammal monitor reports, permits, dates and locations of actual surveys to determine possible violations and omissions by PG&E and Fugro. Mitigations to commercial fishermen are a condition of the offshore GSPP and required by Coastal Act Section 30234.5.
Section 30234.5 Economic, commercial, and recreational importance of fishing -The economic, commercial, and recreational importance of fishing activities shall be recognized and protected
Shell Beach Birds before LESS by Karl Kempton
Shell Beach Birds before LESS by Karl Kempton
Observed Take by LESS in August and September 2012
In August 2012, the humpback whales feeding in the San Luis Bay harbor area made international news. They were easy to photograph given closeness to the beach and piers. The community and tourists were delighted to watch thriving marine life.
However, when the Pacific Star LESS boat arrived in late August 2012, the whales disappeared along with other sea mammals and sea birds in the area of the Harford Pier, Port San Luis. Individuals, workers, and business owners in Avila Beach and Pismo Beach reported the departure of the sea birds as well.
No official observers or scientific baseline was provided. However, many ocean observers noticed the most significant die off of marine life offshore SLO than they could recall ever happening before. Later, we learned the Pacific Star was pulling an array, but the seismic equipment, frequencies and dB were not listed on the GSP.
From a group of ocean swimmers in Avila: Everyone concurs that the sea life all disappeared suddenly when the big ship appeared. This group was cautiously and studiously checking conditions before swimming at this time because of the greatly increased numbers of species in the area, including the humpback whales. The swimmers' worry was sharks. When the LESS activity began, they said the sea life abundance immediately disappeared; suddenly it was like winter.
Many (naturalists, nature photographers, surfers, swimmers, and others recreating nearshore or offshore) reported mammal deaths, including at least, 8 Morro Bay Harbor Porpoises, 3 dolphins, 4 sea otters, and 4 harbor seals. These observations demonstrate the need to have provided mammal observers during and after LESS.
Shell Beach Birds before LESS by Karl Kempton
Shell Beach Birds before LESS by Karl Kempton
Marine Birds
We are concerned that the Miratory Bird Treaty Act was not observed during LESS. After the LESS activity nearshore and offshore SLO from the end of August through most of September, nearly all the endangered brown pelicans left their rocks and did not return to Pismo Beach and Avila Beach. There were no pelicans on Morro Rock, a designated state bird sanctuary. In between, along the Pecho Coast, kayakers reported much less sea bird life, particularly the populous cormorants and brown pelicans.
Other kayak observations were that from Pismo Beach to Cambria, brown pelican and cormorant populations were between almost none to substantially down. An out of state tourist familiar with Cambria's sea life abundance reported observing much less sea life than expected given previous summer visits. From end of summer through late autumn is the period when our area has the densest brown pelican population in the state.
The resident cormorants also left Shell Beach and elsewhere. They have not returned as of mid January. Just these two species' 'take' numbers are way out of bounds regarding 'acceptable' take under level B, which was proposed for HESS. We were predicting level A for HESS, not expecting to witness level A ‘take' with LESS.
Bat Rays
Another kayaker observation was that of bat rays. The usual observation is seeing one bat ray a year washed ashore dead. At the end of August, four were observed dead washed ashore at the Shell Beach launch site. Another eight bat rays were seen dead in the ocean's only access coves in Shell Beach. How many more were killed or injured unobserved onshore or never having reached the shore? This also indicates many bottom dwelling species were greatly impacted, killed or injured.
Nearshore fishermen have discussed with us a variety of anomalies after LESS, including a report of no sea life off Purisima Point in September, that it was a dead zone. Another reported pulling up dead spider crabs after LESS. He pointed to San Luis Bay (this was outside the CCC hearing) and said, "The garden is dead, but nothing is lost as it will all come back."
More importantly, some testified before the CCC at the January meeting in Pismo Beach of significant loss of catch because of LESS. One fisherman, Travis Evans, told the commissioners that he had to layoff some of his crew, and that his catch was down 60 percent.
California's Overlapping Marine Protected Areas
California has both state and federally marine protected areas, many of which are nearshore and offshore SLO. Therefore, biological impacts from PG&E's LESS may have occurred near or within some of these special areas.
First the state of California has established a Network of Marine Protected Areas, SLO Coast Journal July 2012. The August 2012 Marine Sanctuary article focuses on the marine protected areas nearshore and offshore SLO.
Second, California contains five federal marine jurisdictions (sanctuaries and monuments), of which three may have been directly or indirectly impacted by PG&E's LESS.
Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary
California Coastal National Monument
The California Coastal National Monument is located along the entire coastline of the U.S. State of California. Created by Presidential proclamation on January 11, 2000, the monument, which encompasses 607 acres (246 ha), is managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, an agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior. The creation of the monument ensures the protection of all islets, reefs, and rock outcroppings from the coast of California to a distance of 12 nautical miles (22 km) along the entire 840-mile (1,350 km) long California coastline. Conservative estimates are for at least 20,000 such outcroppings, Slo Coast Journal, July, 2011.
Marine Sanctuary Expansion-Sonoma and Mendocino Coastline
We are encouraged with the announcement by the Obama Administration of marine sanctuary expansion of the collective northern boundary of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary and the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary northward from Bodega Bay to Pt. Arena in northern California.
We encourage our readers to go to the Marine Sanctuary Expansion website to learn more about the expansion and to write a letter of support.
We would like to thank Richard Charter, Chair of the Gulf of the Farallones Sanctuary Advisory Council, for coordinating the local government support that helped to bring about the creation of the Gulf of the Farallones, Cordell Bank, Channel Islands, and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries.
Conclusion
We are concerned about conserving California's coastal marine resources, keeping the public safe while recreating offshore, and maintaining thriving and sustainable commercial and recreational fishing.
Many gave public comment on PG&E's proposed HESS. The CCC, which was enacted by state law, enforces the California Coastal Act, and with that authority CCC denied PG&E's permit for HESS.
However, CSLC continues to issue companies one-year general geophysical permits for LESS. Many geophysical surveys can be performed on the company's one-year general permit. The company informs CSLC when and where they are going to do the next LESS, and the CSLC sends an “announcement permit” to the harbormasters about two weeks before each boat arrives. Thus, the one-year general geophysical permit is permission to perform surveys without considering each survey.
Therefore, whales and all marine life are at risk as LESS continues along California's coast without complete notification and mitigation for possible impacts. For example, CSLC announced Fugro will be performing a geophysical survey beginning February 9th in the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary.
Our research indicates the CSLC has been defining LESS by relying on the less than two kilojoules (kj) of energy input into seismic equipment without considering frequencies and decibels produced and received by humans, marine mammals and other sea life for decades. The CSLC issued permits for projects the CSLC assumed were low energy, and exempting them from CEQA. Yet, many of these surveys produced 216 dB, 223 dB, and possibly higher.
Further, our research suggests PG&E's LESS may have violated the California Coastal Act, as well as causing biological incidental Level A and B impacts to mammals without having appropriate federal permits (IHA). We ask the CSLC to include CCC and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in their update of the GSPP.
We ask the CSLC for a full investigation of PG&E's LESS nearshore and offshore SLO County and support for the local commercial fishermen to receive their mandated mitigations for at least three to five years of LESS.
The Surfrider Foundation asks CSLC to delay surveys until all concerns regarding the impacts of seismic surveys are addressed.
Without investigations and mitigations, we feel corporate power has been allowed to operate "under the radar" in California's precious nearshore and offshore waters. LESS needs to include accountability for omissions and violations and respect of the ocean's marine life, recreating humans, and commercial and recreational fishing.
Karl Kempton and Carol Georgi volunteer for Surfrider Foundation and California Central Coast Marine Sanctuary Alliance. They research and write articles for the Slo Coast Journal to encourage marine sanctuary designation. Their articles are posted on Themsa.org.
