Cabrillo Port Impact on Whales Remains a
Major Contention
‘How are you going to save the
whales?’ asks one federal agency of another.
‘We’re not going to say now’ is the answer.
The federal agency that protects whales,
sea turtles, seals and other ocean mammals has told the
United States Coast Guard that it cannot sign off on plans for
a liquefied natural gas terminal proposed for the Malibu
coastline, because it has not been given enough information
about how Cabrillo Port will impact sea animals.
The differences between the National Marine
Fisheries Service and the Coast Guard could further delay or
cause more serious problems for BHP Billiton’s
request to anchor an $800 million, aircraft-carrier-sized LNG
terminal off the coast.
And as a result, some commercial
whalewatchers along the Central California coast are suddenly
watching Cabrillo Port warily. “If this thing scares the
whales away, they will elect to completely bypass the
channel and migrate outside the back of the islands,”
said Santa Barbara whaleboat Capt. Dennis Longaberger.
“That could completely destroy us.”
Marine fisheries experts warn that Cabrillo
Port’s construction and eventual 24/7 gas boiler
operations could be so loud as to chase migrating whales away
from the key choke point between Point Mugu and Anacapa
Island, as the noisy LNG terminal will sit between the
two. Migrating whales might avoid Santa Monica Bay and the
Santa Barbara Channel, traveling instead on the far
side of the Channel Islands.
In addition, NMFS warns of the danger from
“the possibility of impacts to marine mammals and sea
turtles from ship strikes, and possible avoidance behavior by
these animals in response to increase(d) ship traffic
associated with the project.” Federal law requires
any agency planning to permit a project that might harm
protected ocean animals to consult with NMFS, and to come up
with a plan to avoid injuries and monitor compliance.
NMFS officials have repeatedly told the two
federal agencies deciding on Cabrillo Port, the Coast Guard and
the Commerce Department, that they cannot fulfill their legally
mandated goal of consulting on the project unless they get
detailed information about how many ships can be expected to
strike and kill whales and sea turtles within the 200-mile
federal territory.
The Coast Guard has told NMFS that it
will not supply a wildlife mitigation plan for
Cabrillo Port until it has approved the
project’s environmental documents and issued an operating
permit, and then will only examine the impact in nearby
waters, not out to the 200-mile line.
“They have told us they will not
supply us with a mitigation plan or a monitoring plan until
after the environmental studies are already approved, and we
really need our questions answered before we can determine
if the project is in compliance [with federal laws],”
said NMFS marine mammals biologist Monica DeAngelis from
her Long Beach office.
The environmental studies have been
underway nearly four years, and the final version will be
released to the public in late February. Ocean advocates say
the big federal and state study—which is tantamount to
approval—cannot possibly be finalized
without knowing how many whales and other sea mammals
might be killed or driven away by Cabrillo Port.
“If it endangers a protected species,
and if that is not addressed in the Environmental
Impact Study, then there is no way for the Coast Guard to
make a conclusive determination of what the impact of the
project will be,” said Karen Kraus, an attorney for the
Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Center.
That, she said, is one of many legal
problems that could mire the project in lawsuits for years.
According to company projections,
construction activity will emit 192 decibels of underwater
noise, levels the federal government says are loud enough to
kill, injure, or scare away whales and their food supply.
Once construction is over, gas boilers are
projected to operate 24/7 over the project’s 40-year
lifetime, and be so loud as to prevent normal conversation on
boats at the edge of the ship’s security cordon, 1100
yards off the floating facility.
The current draft environmental report does
not say how loud that sound will be underwater, how far the
sound will travel, or how migratory whales and other animals
will react to that.
Coast Guard officials in Washington did not
return requests for comment, their standard practice. But
in a letter sent to NMFS last December, Coast Guard officials
said they would require BHP Billiton to avoid injuring sea
turtles and whales as much as practicable.
“We acknowledge that turtles (and
marine mammals) may be entangled in construction or operating
equipment, resulting in injury or mortality,” the
Coast Guard letter said. “All construction support
vessels will carry a qualified marine mammal monitor with
a 360-degree view to watch and alert vessel crews of the
presence of marine mammals and sea turtles.
“The applicant will also ensure
that vessel operations will deploy any material with the
potential for ensnaring turtles (and marine mammals)
only as long as necessary to complete the task,” said
Mark Prescott, the chief of the Coast Guard’s
Deepwater Ports Standards Division.
Speaking onboard the whalewatching boat
Sunset Kidd from Stearns Wharf, Longaberger says he had not
until now known that Cabrillo Port might impact the ocean
creatures that he visits on a daily basis.
“We offer our cruises on a sailboat,
and let me assure you, the whales act completely
differently when they are near motors. The relationship we have
with the whales offshore is completely different when they are
near boats with engines.”
Longaberger operates one of more than a
dozen whalewatching boats between Santa Barbara and
Redondo Beach, boats that would find their whales too far
offshore if they avoid the Anacapa-Mugu passage. “That
could just force them out on the far side of the islands, too
far for us to go,” he said.
The final draft of the environmental
impact assessments could be released to the public as early as
Feb. 23, with a joint hearing planned by the Coast Guard,
Commerce Department and California State Lands Commission
following, probably in late March.
If approved by those three agencies, the
California Coastal Commission would consider Cabrillo Port at
its meeting on April 12 in Santa Barbara. Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger could then play a role in the approval
process.
But even after that, Cabrillo Port would
also need a key air pollution permit from the Environmental
Protection Agency, which was supposed to rule on the matter
last summer. EPA has been delayed by a major public uproar over
apparent White House interference in the matter.
Congress has demanded documents from EPA
about its 2005 regulatory flip-flop on the proposed annual
discharge of 484 tons of smog-causing chemicals.
A spokesman for Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los
Angeles, said some documents have been handed over, but not yet
analyzed.
