USGS Home
Contact USGS
Search USGS

Permit application and approval chronology for a small airgun survey offshore southern California, June 1999

by Jonathan R. Childs, William R. Normark, Michael A. Fisher

Abstract

Offshore geophysical surveys are subject to increased restrictions resulting from new or revised Federal legislation and increased authority of State agencies that deal with environmental issues. This report reviews the process followed by the U.S. Geological Survey to obtain necessary approvals for a marine geophysical survey conducted in June, 1999, offshore Southern California. Discussions and negotiations between the USGS, National Marine Fisheries Service, the California Coastal Commission, the California State Lands Commission, and various other interested parties during six months prior to the survey are documented. A suggested timeframe that should be followed for obtaining the approvals and permits for future work offshore California is based on the outcome of the permitting process for the 1999 cruise, as well as continuing dialog with representatives of the Federal and State entities involved.
Table of Contents

Introduction

National Marine Fisheries Service: Incidental Harassment Authorization

California Coastal Commission

California State Lands Commission

Operational effects of permitting/approval process

Consequences

Timelines for permitting processes

Appendix A: Chronological Document summary

Appendix B:  Abbreviations Used

Introduction

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Western Coastal and Marine Geology Team conducts geophysical and geological surveys offshore of the western United States. Essential to these studies is the use of acoustic instruments that image the seafloor and subsurface geology. These instruments operate at frequencies ranging from 10 Hz to as high as 40 kHz and generate sound levels ranging from 200 to 260 dB referenced to one microPascal at one meter from the source. In recent years, the issue of sound in the oceans and the potential effect on marine mammals in particular has received increasing attention; the use of airguns for petroleum exploration and geologic research has been particularly scrutinized, and subjected to increasing regulation.

In June 1999, the USGS conducted a survey offshore southern California to assess coastal geologic hazards, primarily offshore faults that represent a potential for earthquake risk. The acoustic sources used during the survey included a small dual-chamber airgun and a high frequency (2.5 to 5.5 kHz) deep-towed electromechanical transducer (a Huntec "boomer"). The characteristics of these instruments are shown in Table 1.  Prior to the survey, the USGS sought approval for this work from various California and Federal entities as required by law. This report chronicles and documents the process involved in acquiring the necessary permits and consent required to proceed with the proposed work.

Table 1 - Source characteristics for seismic reflection profiling systems

National Marine Fisheries Service: Incidental Harassment Authorization

Following confirmation of the availability of FY 1999 funds for a geophysical survey and the subsequent decision to conduct the field program in the June 1999 timeframe (within a window from mid-May to mid-July), the USGS initiated the process to obtain necessary environmental approvals. In January, 1999, the USGS submitted a request for an Incidental Harrassment Authorization (IHA) to the National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS) as required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). NMFS acknowledged receipt of the request on 15 January. In that request, the USGS proposed to mitigate potential harassment of marine mammals by measures that included 24-hour monitoring by a team of independent biologists, a 50-meter safety zone for pinnipeds and odontocetes, and a 100-meter safety zone for mysticetes. The USGS planned to conduct the survey within the 3-mile limit (California state waters). NMFS published the IHA request in the Federal Register on March 5 with a public response period of 30 days. On March 10, NOAA issued a press release describing the nature of the USGS request:

NOAA seeks comments on a proposed authorization that allows USGS to disturb marine mammals during earthquake research

 

As a result of the Federal Register Notice, questions and comments were received from several parties, including the California Coastal Commission (CCC), the Orange County Register, a music store in Santa Barbara, and the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) in a letter dated 26 April, three weeks after the close of the public response period.

The IHA process required that the USGS respond to all questions raised as a result of the Federal Register notification. NMFS then determined whether the questions involved issues that needed to be specifically addressed in the IHA permit. Several of the issues raised by the CCC to NMFS (see specifics in next section) were deemed critical, resulting in a delay in the process of issuing the IHA. The IHA was eventually approved on June 3, less than one week before the start of the survey.

Mammal observations were conducted by staff of the Cascadia Research Cooperative of Olympia, Washington.  Their report concerning all aspects of the mammal observation program, as required by the IHA, was delivered to NMFS in September, 1999.

California Coastal Commission

As a result of the Federal Register Notice, significant questions and comments were received from the California Coastal Commission (CCC), which not only questioned several aspects of the proposed protocol, but also indicated their intention to invoke jurisdiction under the Federal Consistency provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).

At the May 11 meeting, CCC commissioners raised several further issues that had not been addressed by their staff in the findings report, including 1) the radius of the proposed safety zones for different species, 2) operation of the airguns at night, and 3) objections to operations in California state waters expressed by the SLC (see below).  By a 5-2 vote (two commissioners abstaining), the CCC objected to the CD, but directed the CCC staff to approve the project before the next scheduled CCC meeting if additional mitigation measures were included, specifically:

100-meter safety zone for all mammals

no airgun operations at night

no operations in state waters

While the process with the CCC proceeded during May, the IHA request to NMFS was stalled. By agreement between the Office of Protected Resources and the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, both within NOAA, the Coastal Zone Management Act was deemed to take precedence over the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Therefore the IHA would not be issued until the CCC approved a CD or ND. Although the IHA request had been submitted 6 months prior to the scheduled start of the project, by mid-May when the CCC approval was received, insufficient time remained to complete some elements of the NMFS review. Full review would have required a Biological Opinion from the Fish and Wildlife Service, as required by section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, addressing possible impact of airgun operations on endangered whale species, which includes all of the mysticetes. Therefore, the IHA did not include approval to incidentally harass mysticetes, and the USGS agreed to shut down the airgun if a mysticete entered a zone within 250 m of the airgun. The IHA was issued by NMFS effective June 3, and notification published in the Federal Register on June 11.

California State Lands Commission

As a result of the CD, the California State Lands Commission (SLC), in a letter dated April 15 to the USGS, copied to the CCC, maintained that as the property owner of State waters they would require that the USGS receive from them a permit for any work within the 3-mile limit. SLC policy requires a permit to conduct geophysical operations from the Commission for the use of any acoustic instruments under 2 kilojoule (kJ) input power. An earlier decision by the Executive Committee of the SLC mandated that an Environmental Impact Report  would be required under the California Environmental Quality Act for the use within state waters of acoustic sources operated at greater than 2 kJ, as well as any compressed air sources, specifically airguns and waterguns.

Phone discussions and email exchanges between the SLC and USGS continued until the hearing with the CCC, but no resolution was achieved. Since insufficient time remained to apply to the SLC for a geophysical survey permit (which would have allowed the use of the Huntec source, but not the airguns), the USGS agreed not to operate inside the three-mile limit during the June 1999 cruise.

Operational effects of permitting/approval process

The research project was conducted from June 6 to 17. The IHA, which incorporated the conditions from the ND approved by the CCC, specified, among other restrictions, that:

(2) the observers would record the effects of "seismic surveys and the resulting noise on marine mammals" and that monitoring would occur at all times the system was operating;

(3) the protocol for shut down of the sound source would be 100 m for dolphins, seals, and sea lions and 250 m for mysticete whales;

(4) the USGS would "not conduct seismic surveys with the GI-gun sound source at night when visibility limits marine mammal detection within the designated safety zone"; and

(5) the results of the monitoring would be reported to NMFS within 120 days from the end of the geophysical survey.

The daily operational scheme throughout the survey, therefore, was to conduct multichannel seismic reflection work between about 0530 (just before sunrise) and 2015 (just after sunset) each day. The MCS gear was recovered while the vessel departed the survey line to conduct Huntec surveys in deep water. Each morning, the vessel would resume MCS operation left off from the previous evening.

At the beginning of the field program, the marine mammal observers provided a written procedure for the geophysical watchstanders with respect to meeting the conditions of the IHA:

-- In the morning: the watchstander in the electronics lab contacted the mammal watch to ensure that the area was clear of animals before commencing use of the GI gun.

-- In the evening: the mammal watch contacted the watchstanders in the electronic van when "light conditions were too poor to detect animals within the shutdown zone".

-- Shutdowns: When called for, shutdowns were radioed in a single transmission, i.e., "E-van --- Mammal Team --- shut down."

While the GI gun was in use, all communication between the mammal team and the geophysical watchstanders was by radio on a channel also used for communication with the ship's bridge watch. Thus, all personnel on watch were aware of any communications affecting either the vessel or scientific operations regardless of which work area was initiating the transmission.

The written protocol also stated the "cut-off distances": 100 m [for] dolphins, seals, and sea lions and 250 m [for] large whales. The mammal observers also requested that if animals are seen off the stern, "clearly within [the] shut down area and haven't been detected by [the] mammal team" then the geophysical watchstanders were to shut down the GI gun and immediately contact the mammal watch.

All conditions stated in the protocol were followed throughout the cruise. The report submitted by Cascadia Research Cooperative noted that:

"Marine mammal movements and behaviors observed during the seismic-reflection operations, revealed no apparent patterns of avoidance and none could be interpreted as harassment." (p. 10)

The mitigation measures resulted in suspension of airgun operations a total of 19 times, varying in duration between 1 and 8 minutes, with a mean of 3 minutes. These shutdown periods do not include the suspension of surveying at the inboard end of each survey lines (the three-mile limit). Only one of the shutdowns resulted from the sighting of a mysticete (an unidentified baleen whale); three resulted from sighting pinnipeds (California sea lions); the remainder resulted from sightings of dolphins, often observed while riding the bow wake.

Consequences

Four primary consequences resulted from meeting the requirements of the IHA. First, the staff time required for the permitting process, which lasted from mid-December to early June, very nearly equaled the total number of hours worked by the 8-member scientific staff during the 21 days of vessel mobilization, demobilization transit, and survey. Second, loss of multichannel seismic-reflection data collection during the night amounted to 38% of the total ship days contracted. A revised budget to complete the field program as originally designed would have to be increased approximately 60%. Third, many of the active faults in the nearshore zone either cross or lie partly within the area between the beach and the three-mile limit. To complete the assessment of the earthquake hazards in the coastal offshore zone will require significant additional ship time in the future, contingent on relief from the SLC restrictions on the use of airguns for offshore geologic hazards research.  Finally, breaks in the data profiles resulting from the shutdowns and interruptions complicate the data processing and interpretation effort.

Timelines for permitting processes

Geophysical surveys in the California offshore area must be planned sufficiently in advance to allow completion of the various permitting processes. These processes are equipment dependent, with the primary distinction being whether use of an airgun or other compressed-air sound source is involved. The permitting process is also calendar dependent. Selection of a time frame for a geophysical survey should take into consideration both the variety of protected species and the population of those species that might be encountered during the proposed time period.

For work inside the three-mile limit that involves any acoustic signal generation, SLC approval must be obtained. This requirement applies to high-resolution profiling systems (3.5 kHz, boomer, mini-sparker, Huntec, etc.), echo-sounding (multibeam or swath sonar), and side-scanning sonar. The USGS has applied for and received a geophysical survey permit from the SLC valid through September 30, 2002 for use of these low power non-compressed-air acoustic sources.

Since application to the CCC must be sufficiently early so as to not compromise the IHA process, we suggest the following timeline for programs for which the use of an airgun or comparable acoustic source is planned:

• 9 months precruise: apply to the CCC for Negative Determination
• 4 months precruise: submit IHA request to NMFS
• 3 months precruise: submit requisition for marine mammal observers
• 21 days precruise: mail survey notification per SLC permit (if operating within 3-mile limit with low-power, non-compressed-air sources)

Appendix A: Chronological Document summary:

Appendix B:  Abbreviations Used