STATE OF CALIFORNIA—NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G, BROWN. JR.., GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219 VOICE AND TDD (415) 904-5200 FAX (415) 904-5400 W13b November 13, 2012 TO: Coastal Commissioners and Interested Parties FROM: Alison Dettmer, Deputy Director Tom Luster, Staff Environmental Scientist Cassidy Teufel, Environmental Scientist SUBJECT: Addendum to Staff Report for CDP Application E-12-005 and Consistency Certification CC-027-12, Pacific Gas & Electric Company This addendum provides revisions to the November 2, 2012 staff report on Pacific Gas Electric’s proposal to conduct high energy seismic survey operations in state and federal waters offshore of San Luis Obispo County between Cayucos and Point Sal and to temporarily install and operate an array of seismic monitoring devices onshore. REVISIONS SECTION II.F – OTHER AGENCY APPROVALS AND CONSULTATIONS California State Lands Commission – page 16, beginning of first paragraph: “At the beginning of the August 20, 2012 hearing, CSLC staff presented a revised version of the three area environmentally preferred alternative identified in the EIR which limited active survey activities to only the months of November and December and provided for a second year of survey activities if PG&E failed to complete its proposed work in the two month window provided in 2012. PG&E noted its acceptance of this temporally and spatially limited project at the beginning of the hearing. At that hearing, and after taking additional public comment, the CSLC approved a geophysical survey permit for the revised project and required that PG&E committed to fund an independent third party review process be initiated to evaluate the survey design and data acquisition methodology proposed by PG&E.” Addendum to E-12-005 and CC-027-12 Pacific Gas and Electric Company SECTION II.G – MARINE RESOURCES [Note: change heading to Marine Biological Resources?] Introduction – page 18, first paragraph: “Seismic surveys are among the very loudest anthropogenic underwater sound sources (Richardson et al. 1995). The proposed conduct of high-energy seismic surveys has the potential to adversely affect marine resources and the biological productivity of coastal waters by potentially causing the disturbance, injury, and loss of marine organisms.” Marine Mammals – page 20, second full paragraph: “The project EIR includes a comprehensive discussion of the specific types of adverse impacts to marine mammals that may potentially result from the high-energy sound levels associated with the proposed survey. These impacts include masking, behavioral disturbance, temporary hearing loss, permanent hearing loss, and other physiological effects, including stranding and/or death. The discussion in the EIR draws heavily on a marine mammal technical report developed for the State Lands Commission by Wood et al. (2012) and included as Appendix H of the EIR (available on the Commission website at: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/energy/seismic/mm-technical-report-EIR.pdf). The Commission will be relying primarily on the methodology, analysis, and conclusions of this report and providing excerpts of key sections in this staff report. However, because PG&E substantially modified the project described in its CDP application and consistency certification after the development of this marine mammal technical report and certification of the EIR by the State Lands Commission, the Commission staff requested and received updates to the information provided in several of the tables included in the Wood et al. (2012) report, in order to evaluate the modified project. Information from these updated tables are referred to in the discussion below and provided for reference.” Harbor porpoise – page 34, first full paragraph: “To further illustrate the points raised above regarding the proposed conduct of active survey operations within the core habitat of the Morro Bay stock of harbor porpoise, Exhibit 6 includes a figure demonstrating the location of this core habitat area in relation to the proposed survey areas and a discussion of the genetic and geographic isolation of this stock from the 2011 U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments developed by NMFS. This figure supports the assessment of Wood et al. (2012) and NMFS that the proposed project will have significant adverse effects on the Morro Bay stock of harbor porpoise. Marine mammal aerial surveys carried out in the project area on October 2, 2012, the results of which are also included in Exhibit 6, further support these conclusions and demonstrate that harbor porpoise are likely to be present within close proximity of the proposed active survey activities. The survey would effectively close about half of the harbor porpoise core habitat area, and porpoises within that area seeking refuge from the survey would likely either move into the remaining core habitat, thereby increasing competition, or move to more marginal habitat areas.” Addendum to E-12-005 and CC-027-12 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Fish and Invertebrate Eggs and Larvae – page 44, first full paragraph: “PG&E’s analysis concluded that survey tracks totaling 1,608 miles in length would result in roughly 65 billion gallons of seawater being within the 5.5 meter radius “zone of lethality” of the air guns. Based on the results of the 1997-99 DCPP entrainment sampling, the analysis additionally concluded that this volume of seawater would be expected to contain from 8.56 to 9.20 million fish larvae. Accordingly, with the assumed 100% mortality to larvae within this water volume, PG&E’s analysis concluded that the project was expected to cause the mortality of up to 9.2 million larval fish within the project area, along with an unknown number of fish eggs. However, the project evaluated in the September 25, 2012 report from PG&E was subsequently modified and reduced in size. While Commission staff requested an updated evaluation from PG&E that reflects the currently proposed project, this information has not been provided. Commission staff therefore used the information PG&E submitted for the larger project, along with the percent reduction in the project length, to estimate a revised mortality figure. With the currently proposed project (as modified on October 1, 2012), the survey tracks total about 881 miles, or about 54% of the originally assessed 1,608 mile survey length. PG&E’s updated evaluation, provided on October 31, 2012, states that the currently proposed survey tracks would have the full array of air guns firing over a total length of about 576 miles for a total water volume in the “zone of lethality” of about 23 billion gallons (although this does not include operations during turns with only the mitigation air gun firing). Assuming the larval densities are the same for both the previously evaluated and currently evaluated survey track lengths, the expected level of mortality would be about 54%36% of 9.2 million, or approximately 5.03.3 million larvae.” Fish and Invertebrate Eggs and Larvae – page 45, second full paragraph referring to “Appropriateness of Data Used”: “Modifying the assessment to include additional data with the 1997-99 nearshore data (i.e., no more than a mile from shore) could provide a better representation of the types and expected abundance of larval species that would be affected by the project. One source of additional data may be the California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations program (CalCOFI). CalCOFI has several sampling stations in federal waters offshore of Point San Luis near the proposed project area that could provide more appropriate data on representative larval fish species and density in the project area, which extends up to about 17 miles offshore. It is not clear, however, whether CalCOFI has conducted sampling at these nearby sites during the fall season. If fall sampling data are available, Commission staff recommends that it be incorporated into the analysis. Given the seasonal variability in larval fish diversity and abundance in the water column, offshore samples from spring and summer seasons may not accurately represent the species types and numbers present during the proposed survey period; however, PG&E could review those spring/summer sampling data to determine the degree of correlation to the DCPP sampling data, which may allow partial inclusion of the offshore CalCOFI data to improve the analysis.” Addendum to E-12-005 and CC-027-12 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Fish and Invertebrate Eggs and Larvae – page 45, last paragraph, continuing to page 46: “Appropriateness of Approach Used: PG&E’s analysis used the entire volume upper 100 meters of water within the survey area as the basis for the expected project impacts. By doing so, the analysis substantially underestimated the proportional mortality that would result from the survey, and thereby discounted the significance of the survey’s potential effects. The analysis assumed that larval mortality would be limited to areas within 5.5 meters of air guns that would be towed at a depth of about 10 meters; therefore, the area of the water column within which larvae would be subject to mortality would be no more than about the uppermost 16 to 20 meters. However, rather than use this upper part of the water column as the source water area, the analysis based its proportional mortality calculations on the entire water column upper 100 meters of water within the survey area, including areas with depths of greater than 400 meters. By including these substantial volumes of water within which plankton are not likely to be affected, the analysis significantly underestimated the proportional effects on the various species. Further, any diurnal differences in the composition of the plankton community – i.e., detecting species that emerge from or descend to deeper waters during the day or night – are already included in the data, since samples were taken over 24-hour periods. It is therefore not necessary to include the deeper parts of the water column in the analysis. Conducting the analysis using just the top 20 meters of the water column as the source water area would substantially increase the expected proportional mortality of the survey – that is, the larvae affected by the survey would represent a larger proportion of the total larval population in the top 20 meters of the survey area than the total population living in the entire 400+ 100 meter depths of the water column. Even though larval densities are generally higher in the upper water column than the lower, recalculating the source water area using just the top 20 meters is likely to significantly increase the proportional mortality and the overall effect of the survey on the planktonic community. We note, too that even though there are diurnal differences in the larval composition, this characteristic is already reflected in both the DCPP and CalCOFI data, since those samples are taken during 24-hour periods. While modifying PG&E’s analysis to address the above concerns would likely improve the impact assessment, there would remain a substantial degree of uncertainty. The estimates of expected plankton mortality due to in-water sound are based on a limited number of studies, most of which were done in other areas and on species not present in the survey area. For example, available studies discuss effects on local northern anchovies and Dungeness crab, but also Atlantic cod and species offshore of Nova Scotia and Norway or in the Black Sea. As noted in the project’s Environmental Assessment (see Appendix E, page 3 of Addendum 1, “Responses to Issues Raised During a November 2, 2011 Meeting with Fishers at Port San Luis”, PG&E states: “There are a number of other gray literature studies of the effects of sound on developing eggs and larvae; none provide conclusive evidence on this topic that is germane to most Pacific Coast species. Indeed, one can conclude that there is a total dearth of material on this topic and it is an area of research that needs rigorous experimental evaluation. In summary, the few studies on the effects on eggs, larvae, and fry are insufficient to reach any conclusions with respect to the way sound would affect survival.” Addendum to E-12-005 and CC-027-12 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Fish and Invertebrate Eggs and Larvae – page 46, beginning of last paragraph: “Based on the data used by PG&E and the assessment provided, it is likely that the survey would result in mortality to about five3.2 million fish and invertebrate larvae in the project area and an unknown number of fish eggs.” Conclusion of Marine Biological Resources – page 50, beginning of third paragraph: “The Commission finds that, for the reasons discussed above, the proposed project would result in adverse impacts to marine resources and the biological productivity of coastal waters. These adverse effects include behavioral harassment and potentially injurious physiological effect on large numbers of marine mammals; the loss of fish and invertebrate eggs and larvae; the injury, disturbance, and loss of adult fish and invertebrates; and damage to marine protected areas.” SECTION II.H – COMMERCIAL FISHING Effects on Area Fish and Invertebrates – page 56, first full paragraph on “Short-Term Effects”: “Another associated short-term adverse effect is an increase a decrease in “catch per unit effort” or CPUE. The effect described above – i.e., the reduced likelihood of catching species that show “alarm” or “startle” responses to the air gun sounds – can lead to the need for a greater level of effort required to catch a given number of fish. Increased Decreased CPUE can show up in a number of ways that affect the economic vitality of the local fishing community – increased fuel consumption needed to cover a larger fishing area, inefficiencies associated with fishing in a less familiar area, cumulative effects of having more fishing boats share a smaller overall fishing area, etc. The effects of increased decreased CPUE are similar in at least one way to those described above regarding overall reductions in catch – i.e., they are difficult to measure precisely – but they differ in that the increased effects of decreased CPUE effects would be felt over a larger area and by more of the fishing community than those directly affected by the catch reductions.” Effects on Area Fish and Invertebrates – page 56, third full paragraph, continuing to page 57: “Long-term Effects: The most likely long-term effects to area fishing interests are those associated with mortality and injury of adult and larval fish and invertebrates, as well as eggs of those organisms, as previously discussed in Section xx II.G of these Findings. However, because of the many environmental and population variables that go into determining survivorship, population dynamics, community structure, and other similar ecosystem characteristics, it is not possible to determine with precision the extent of these effects. Addendum to E-12-005 and CC-027-12 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Losses of adult fish are likely to be relatively low, since they would need to be relatively close to the air guns (i.e., within several dozen feet) to experience death or injury. However, a loss of adults in some species could result in reduced catch rates in the area for as many as several seasons – for example, because rockfish generally grow relatively slowly to adulthood, losses of adult rockfish could require some time for replacement populations to develop. Regarding larvae and eggs, the losses are expected to be in the range of about 53.2 million, as discussed in Section G above. The EIR notes that several factors are likely to reduce the potential effects resulting from these losses – for example, this total represents a relatively small proportion of larvae within the survey area and within the region, and the survey would occur outside the area’s peak larval concentrations in the spring and summer. Commission staff requested that PG&E calculate the expected effects of these larval losses on adult populations; however, that information has not yet been provided. PG&E expects this level of loss to have an insignificant effect on the area’s adult fish population, though, as noted above, there are few studies to support this predicted level of mortality or to identify other adverse sublethal effects that may affect eventual adult populations. In general, however, losses of these organisms are likely to reduce to some degree the numbers of certain species that would otherwise be available to the fishing community.” Commercial Fishing Mitigation – page 58, beginning of first paragraph: “Regarding impacts such as lost catch opportunities, possible lost fishing gear, and others, Commission staff requested that PG&E develop and submit a Fishing Mitigation Plan outlining the steps PG&E would take to address adverse impacts to commercial and recreational fishing operations, including the loss and/or damage of fishing gear due to contact or entanglement with the proposed geophone array and reduction or displacement of fishing activities or catch during and after survey operations.” Commercial Fishing Mitigation – page 59, starting at first full paragraph: “Commission staff then requested PG&E provide additional detailed information, including a proposed compensation amount, and develop a claims process specifically applicable to possible damages resulting from the proposed survey. Staff recommended that PG&E develop a process similar to the Joint Oil/Fisheries Liaison Office (JOFLO), which has been used successfully since 1983 to manage claims from fishing interests for damages associated with offshore oil and gas production in California. The JOFLO process includes several key characteristics that result in a successful mitigation strategy to address damages to fishing interests. JOFLO provides an independent liaison office to review claims, to assist fishing interests in meeting filing requirements, and to provide mediation when necessary to settle claims. It also includes guidelines for claims and a standardized claims process. and benefits from having an established Further, claims managed through JOFLO benefit from contingency funds administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), and the County of Santa Barbara that are adequate to address valid damage claims from the fishing community. Although JOFLO was established as a means to provide long-term mitigation, Commission staff believes it serves as an appropriate model on which to base mitigation needed for PG&E’s relatively short-term survey. Addendum to E-12-005 and CC-027-12 Pacific Gas and Electric Company On October 5, 2012, PG&E submitted additional information about its proposed plan, which included the following:  PG&E noted that its proposed base compensation amount was still being negotiated with local fishing interests. PG&E has proposed providing an initial lump sum that would be disbursed among affected commercial fishing interests in a manner still to be determined.  PG&E again proposed to use its existing claims process to address claims beyond the initial base compensation amount, and again proposed the same mediation process as described in its September 5, 2012 proposal to settle any disputed claims.  PG&E proposed to retain the JOFLO Liason Office to assist parties in filing claims and to serve as an ombudsman, though it did not propose to incorporate other aspects of the JOFLO process into its claims process. This most recent proposal, however, still lacks the information and certainty needed to ensure effective mitigation for potential impacts to the fishing community. For example, PG&E’s proposal to partially retain JOFLO is apparently not an available option, as JOFLO is available to its members only (though PG&E could obtain JOFLO’s services by becoming a member). The Commission believes that a more robust mitigation plan based on the JOFLO model would likely provide the necessary level of mitigation; however, absent some basic information about the level of compensation PG&E would provide, the process and basis for making damage claims and resolving those claims, and concurrence from the affected fishing interests about this approach, the Commission finds that there is insufficient information to find the currently proposed compensation plan is adequate to protect fisheries or is consistent with Coastal Act Section 30234.5.” Commercial Fishing Conclusion – page 60, first paragraph: “The project would result in significant short-term impacts to both commercial and recreational fishing from preclusion of fishing efforts in the project area during the proposed survey and from behavioral reactions of targeted fish and invertebrate species that would reduce catch per unit effort both during and after the project. In addition, the anticipated injury and mortality to fish and fish larvae that would result from the proposed project activities has the potential to cause both short and long term adverse impacts to commercial and recreational fishing. For these reasons, the Commission finds the proposed project as currently proposed to be inconsistent with the commercial and recreational fishing policy of the at Coastal Act, Section 30234.5. While a As noted above, the Commission believes a more complete Communications Plan and a more robust, comprehensive and detailed fishing mitigation plan based on the JOFLO model could be sufficient to ensure protection of commercial and recreational fishing activities,. However, the Commission does not currently have a plan that is detailed enough for it to assess whether mitigation would be adequate to meet this Coastal Act policy Section 30234.5. If the proposed project were otherwise consistent with other Coastal Act policies, the Commission could ensure consistency with Section 30234.5 by requiring: (1) a more comprehensive Communications Plan identifying how PG&E would provide updated sound propagation information to the affected fishing community, how PG&E would update its database of parties interested in reviewing and commenting on the proposed Addendum to E-12-005 and CC-027-12 Pacific Gas and Electric Company project, and including measures for providing timely information updates via social media; and (2) a more comprehensive Mitigation Plan based on the JOFLO model that specifies a baseline compensation amount to address expected impacts to the fishing community, includes clear guidance on the criteria and process used to submit and determine valid claims, and to resolve any claim-related disputes.” SECTION II.I – ACCESS AND RECREATION Restriction of Water-Oriented Recreation – page 61, third paragraph: “At the request of Commission staff, PG&E submitted a map of the nearshore waters that would be expected to receive sound levels at or above 145 dB re 1 μPa of the received sound levels in nearshore waters that would be expected from the survey activities, based on sound propagation models. This map is included as Exhibit 7 and suggests that nearshore areas from Montana de Oro State Park to Cambria would be expected to experience received sound levels in excess of 160 dB re 1 μPa.” STATE OF CALIFORNIA—NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G, BROWN. JR.., GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219 VOICE AND TDD (415) 904-5200 FAX (415) 904-5400 W13b CDP Filed: 10/19/2012 180th Day: 4/17/ 2013 CC Filed: 9/7/2012 3 Months: 12/7/2012 6 Months: 3/7/2013 Staff: C. Teufel-SF Staff Report: 11/2/2012 Hearing Date: 11/14/2012 COMBINED CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION Application No.: E-12-005 Consistency Certification: CC-027-12 Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Agents: Padre Associates, Inc.; DB Neish & Associates Location: State and federal waters offshore of San Luis Obispo County. Project Description: Conduct high energy seismic survey operations in state and federal waters between Cayucos and Point Sal and temporarily install and operate an array of seismic activity monitoring devices onshore. Staff Recommendation: Denial/Objection E-12-005 and CC-027-12 Pacific Gas and Electric Company SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) has submitted a coastal development permit application and a consistency certification for the first phase of a potential two phase series of high-energy three-dimensional seismic imaging surveys (“seismic surveys”) employing acoustic pulse-generating air guns to study active faults offshore and adjacent to the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP). The survey would occur in state and federal waters offshore of San Luis Obispo County between Cambria and Pismo Beach. The seismic surveys rely on the use of air guns to generate high energy acoustic pulses capable of passing through ocean waters and penetrating from six to nine miles into the seafloor.1 The survey would be carried out by a 235-foot research vessel—the National Science Foundation’s R/V Marcus G. Langseth —towing two arrays consisting of 18 40- to 360-cubic-inch air guns with a combined total discharge volume of 3,300 cubic inches. The array would be towed at a depth of approximately 30 feet at a speed of 4 to 5 nautical miles per hour. The air gun array would generate an acoustic pulse of approximately 230 to 252 decibels at the source (dB re 1 µPa at one meter) every 11 to 20 seconds. The air gun array would be towed approximately 460 feet behind the research vessel. The research vessel would also make use of two shallow imaging devices, a multi-beam echosounder sonar device and a sub-bottom profiler. In order for the acoustic pulses created by the air guns to generate sub-surface imagery, the R/V Langseth would tow four “streamers” – each one approximately 3.7 miles long and spaced 300- to 500-feet apart. Each “streamers” would be comprised of a cable supporting a series of seven hydrophones capable of detecting the air gun generated acoustic pulses after they penetrate into the each and reflect back to the surface. The rate and manner in which these reflected pulses are detected by the hydrophones allows computer generated images to be created of sub-surface geological formations. The proposed phase one geophysical survey would be carried out in a single survey area, known as “Box Four.” Box Four would cover approximately 130 square miles offshore of Morro Bay and be comprised of 880 miles of survey lines. PG&E proposes to conduct the survey between mid-November and the end of December 2012, with the period of active air gun operations limited to approximately 17 days (9.25 days of surveys + 2 contingency days + 5 days of equipment calibration and testing). The key Coastal Act issue of concern is this project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to marine resources. Seismic surveys are among the very loudest anthropogenic underwater sound sources and can cause disturbance, injury, and loss of a large number of marine species due to air gun noise. Of particular concern are impacts to the harbor porpoise (Morro Bay stock), whose range is limited to the general project area, and the entire population of which is likely to be subject to behavioral harassment. The project would also adversely affect Marine Protected Areas, fish and other invertebrates, involving both physiological impacts as well as economic 1 A more detailed discussion of how air gun technology works can be found at: http://www.dosits.org/technology/observingtheseafloor/airgun/ 2