Acoustic Thermometry Project Off Kaua`i Receives Conservation Permit from Land Board
The Scripps Institution of Oceanography has received the clearance it needed from the Board of Land and Natural Resources to move forward with experiments designed to measure possible changes in climate related to global atmospheric warming. Board approval for Scripps’ controversial Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) project was granted on February 23, 1996, with the award of a permit for an after-the-fact installation of a cable placed in October 1993 over submerged land in the Conservation District off the north shore of Kaua`i. The cable will be used to deliver power to an ATOC sound source to be installed about 8 miles north of Hanalei Bay, at a depth of more than 800 meters.
The project will send low-frequency pulses of noise through the ocean approximately 2 percent of the time. The length of time the sound takes to travel through the ocean to distant receptors (along the California coast and possibly elsewhere) allows scientists to measure seasonal and year-to-year fluctuations in the ocean’s temperature, since the speed of sound through water varies slightly with temperature.
Opposition to the ATOC project has run high. Most of it has come from people concerned that the noise will have adverse effects on marine animals — concerns that were elevated early last November, when three humpback whale carcasses were found off the coast of California shortly after an ATOC sound source in the region began transmitting signals (without the required advance notification of the National Marine Fisheries Service).
More recently, some opponents, including Fred Madlener, of Hawai`i’s Thousand Friends, have begun questioning the very intent of the project. The justification of the project in the name of important environmental research is but window dressing for the project’s real intent, they say — which is to refine a means of underwater communication that will have significant military application. To underscore their point, these critics note that the funds for the research come from the Department of Defense’s Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, established by Congress to promote technological solutions to environmental and energy problems.
At the Land Board meeting in late February, most of the discussion centered on the impact on whales of ATOC experiments.
Sounds of Silence
One of those testifying February 23 on the impact of the project on animals was Marsha Green, a professor of psychobiology at Oberlin College who is conducting research on humpback whales. Green informed the Land Board that whale behavior can be changed even by the noise of vessels traveling up to half a mile away. After a Navy experiment near Heard Island, in the Indian Ocean, involving a 205 decibel sound (many times larger than that proposed in the ATOC experiments), pilot whales left the area and bottlenose dolphin sightings dropped to less than half the usual number. Sperm whales left the area altogether or stopped communication among themselves for three to four days following the end of the transmission, Green said.
Green stated that the effect of transmissions of ATOC sounds on whales and other marine animals might be noticeable only over time, while the marine mammal research project (MMRP) to be conducted as part of ATOC will last just 180 days, a span too short to reveal long-term problems. “ATOC noise could interfere with the rate at which sperm whales encounter prey at depth, cause humpback whales, sperm whales and other whales increased stress over the long term, resulting in lower fertility, miscarriages, et cetera, and interfere with the rates at which mates find each other. None of these effects would be detectable by the MMRP,” Green said, referencing a letter to the board by Hal Whitehead and Linda Weilgart, both of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Whitehead, a member of the prestigious Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (equivalent to the American Academy of Sciences) is an expert on the population biology and social organization of deep-water whales. Weilgart did her Ph.D. research in the areas of whale bioacoustics and behavior. They have both been outspoken in their opposition to ATOC.
The Money Trail
Leading the anti-ATOC charge locally has been the Kaua`i Friends of the Environment and its co-chair, Ray Chuan. Chaun, who has his Ph.D. from the California Institute of Technology, is a scientist specializing in atmospheric research, although he has also conducted research in the area of underwater acoustics.
Chuan has argued before the Land Board that the ATOC project has little scientific merit. “If we already know global warming is here,” he asked the board, “why wait ten years for ATOC to tell us so?”
In addition, Chuan has been obtaining information about the ATOC project through repeated and successful requests under the federal Freedom of Information Act. On the basis of his FOIA requests, Chuan claims that the ATOC project has nearly run out of money, even before its research begins. As of September 30, 1995, Chuan reports, the entire ATOC project had spent 85 percent of its total budget of some $38 million, including all of the funds set aside for the Marine Mammal Research Program.
In testimony to the board at a public hearing held February 8, 1996, Chuan noted that Scripps “has publicly placed the MMRP in a priority position, to precede the main temperature measuring program; and in so doing executed an agreement with six main-line environmental groups in June 1995, under which these groups pledged not to oppose ATOC, in return for a promise by Scripps that there would be an 18- to 24-month Marine Mammal Research Program before the start of the main ATOC activities, and that during this preliminary period the control of the sound source would be in the hands of the marine mammal researchers.” The six groups were the Human Society of the United States, the American Oceans Campaign, Earth Island Institute, the Environmental Defense Fund, the League for Coastal Protection, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“As it turned out,” Chuan continued, “Scripps failed to abide by this agreement. To begin with, Scripps knew at the time the agreement was signed there was not enough money left in the program to support even an 18-month MMRP. As a matter of record from the financial office at Scripps, the allocated funds for the MMRP, to the tune of $3,194,935, had been depleted by September 30, 1995, before the announced commencement of the operation of the California ATOC source on November 9, 1995. Unknown to the marine mammal researchers, who were supposedly in charge of the source, Scripps started broadcasting from the California source on October 28, 1995.” Soon thereafter, the dead whales were found.
No Foul
ATOC attorney Mary Hudson denied that Scripps had violated either the rules of its National Marine Fisheries Permit or terms of its settlement agreement with the six environmental groups when it jumped the gun in late October by starting transmissions from its California sound source before notifying any of the marine mammal researchers.
“What happened was, neither the settlement agreement nor the NMFS permit spelled out the rules that would control the engineering testing when the sound source was first installed,” Hudson told the Land Board on February 23. “That mistake has been corrected and I want you to know that the Hawai`i permit has been amended — the scientific research permit has been amended to take care of that problem…. The settlement agreement didn’t cover this; there’s been no violation of the settlement agreement, and everyone is in agreement on that point.”
Actual terms of the settlement agreement are not quite as clear as Hudson suggests, however. In the second paragraph, the agreement states: “The MMRP Pilot Study will be extended through the entire initial research period of approximately 18 to 24 months… As a result, the MMRP will retain control of the sound source (including determination of duty cycle and decisions regarding operation, suspension, and termination) through the entire 18 to 24 month initial research period, and no transfer of control or shift to a climate research transmission schedule will occur during that period.”
Approval
Big Island Board Member Christopher Yuen made the motion to approve the ATOC Conservation District Use Permit, prefacing his motion with a statement:
“When I first heard about this project, I was extremely concerned… I would say I would definitely never vote in favor of this project if I thought there was any real risk of harm to whales or significant risk of harm to other kinds of marine life. I tried to check this out very thoroughly, and one of the things I did was I called Dr. Roger Payne, who is one of the leading whale scientists in the world, one of the leading scientific experts on the effect of sound on whales and also somebody who had been involved in whale conservation for about 25 years. He had also written a critical letter concerning the ATOC project; he obviously had no vested interest in it.
“Now, there were a number of well respected scientists who are working with the project who feel that it’s a reasonable project and that there isn’t a real chance of harm, but I’m always concerned about the possibility for bias because of funding sources and the like.
“In my conversation with Dr. Payne, he felt that there was no real risk that there would be harm to whales coming from this project as it’s presently constituted. Just on a common-sense basis, the sounds that the whales would be experiencing are not as loud, on a perceived basis, as many common sounds that whales encounter in the Hawaiian islands from ships and boats as they transit the islands.
“There was something said by someone in the audience that I completely agree with — that we have to look seven generations ahead in what we do. If this were simply some kind of commercial project, I might look at in a different way. But it does have a potential to play a part in analyzing one of the really most important environmental problems of our time, and that is changes in the global climate. It may not be the definitive experiment, but there seems to be a consensus that it may be a useful experiment on that very important question.”
Yuen’s motion varied on some points from the recommendation for approval submitted by staff. Going along with a request from Scripps, Yuen proposed to extend the time frame to a total of 42 months, as opposed to the 24 months suggested in the staff report. He then proposed giving staff from the Department of Land and Natural Resources’ Division of Aquatic Resources the same authority as a member of the MMRP in bringing official attention to any perceived adverse effect of the project on marine life, and established procedures for Scripps to obtain a full hearing before the Land Board should there be any administrative suspension of the permit for a period longer than 60 days.
Land Board Chairman Michael Wilson sought to obtain some payment from Scripps to the state so that the state would have no out-of-pocket expenses as a result of ATOC-associated work. “I would say direct monetary payment beyond what’s being contemplated now may be necessary to compensate those at the University of Hawai`i that … our Aquatics Division would need to work with to analyze the information from the ATOC MMRP,” Wilson said. “Whether that means additional funds to the DLNR may depend on how much activity is taking place outside of Hawai`i.”
The board unanimously approved the ATOC permit, with the specific role of the Division of Aquatic Resources, as well as the amount of payment to be made to the state, to be determined later.
Chuan has called the decision a sell-out “for the vague promise of a few dollars to the University of Hawai`i.” In California, he notes, much the same thing occurred, with the California Coastal Commission giving ATOC the go-ahead following a pledge of $2 million from Scripps to the University of California at Santa Cruz.
Kaua`i Friends of the Environment has no plans to appeal the Land Board decision in court, Chuan has told Environment Hawai`i. The Greenpeace Foundation of Hawai`i, another opponent of the project, has announced it intends to organize a “high seas flotilla” to interfere with construction and operation of the sound source.
The Sound of the Turtle?
While much attention has been focused on ATOC’s effect on marine mammals, particularly whales, little has been directed to the way in which sea turtles may be affected.
The environmental impact statement prepared for ATOC gives short shrift to turtles, noting that only leatherback turtles dive to depths of 500 meters or more. “Leatherbacks may be sensitive to low frequency sound,” the EIS states. “However, densities are presumed low in the Pioneer Seamount area [off the California coast], and it is expected that the 5-minute ramp-up [gradual increase in volume] and limited duty cycle would mitigate potential effects.”
About the only comment published to date has come from George H. Balazs, a turtle expert with the Honolulu office of the National Marine Fisheries Service. In a letter to the editor of The Maui News published April 13, 1994, Balazs writes: “Greater attention to sea turtles is justified when considering whether to allow the Kaua`i-based undersea sound pollution project to be turned on. The project proposes to regularly sound off at an intense but low frequency emission of 70 Hz for an initial two-year test period.
“Both threatened and endangered green and hawksbill turtles are native to Kaua`i’s coastal waters. In addition, adult green turtles living around all of our populated islands, including Maui, must periodically travel past Kaua`i when migrating to and from French Frigate Shoals to breed in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
“How sea turtles navigate when migrating is a mystery, but hearing may very well play some important part in the process. In 1969, U.S. Navy scientist Dr. Sam Ridgway and his colleagues published one of the few papers on hearing in the green turtle. The article appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“The final paragraph of Dr. Ridgway’s paper states: “We conclude from these observations that the giant (green) sea turtle has a serviceable ear, with a reasonable degree of sensitivity within a restricted range. Its ear is clearly a low-frequency receptor, with a useful span of perhaps 60 to 1,000 Hz. Both on land and in the sea this no doubt enables the animal to perceive many important signals.”
Kaelepulu Pond Work Stalls Out in Kailua
For almost two decades, the illegal filling of Kaelepulu Pond in Kailua, O`ahu, has remained an unresolved legal issue. Starting in 1990, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began a process intended to bring closure to the matter, pending since 1977, when much of the wetland area was filled and the Enchanted Lakes subdivision was developed. Now, the landowner claims to have done more than 90 percent of the required work — but has told the Land Board he doesn’t have the funds to complete the job.
In 1992, the Board of Land and Natural Resources approved a Conservation District Use Permit, necessary for the Corps-approved restoration to go forward. The permit contained the standard condition, requiring work to be completed within three years.
In April 1995, David Bills of Gray, Hong, Bills & Associates, Inc., agent for landowner James Lee, Sr., wrote the Land Board to request a time extension. At the time, Bills stated that the work “is approximately 90 percent complete.” Funds to allow completion of the project were “partially tied up by the concurrent subdivision being completed in the adjacent urban district,” Bills wrote. “Upon final subdivision approval, the necessary funds will be released to complete all work in the Conservation District. Final subdivision approval is expected within 3-4 months, maximum.” According to the city’s Department of Land Utilization, final subdivision approval was granted May 4, 1995 — more than a month in advance of the board’s action in June on the time extension request.
Although Bills sought a one-year extension, the Land Board, relying on the time frame set forth in his request, granted a six-month extension instead, with work to be completed by November 8, 1995.
On November 7, Bills wrote Land Board Chairman Mike Wilson, asking for an additional six months to complete work. “The reasons for this time extension are solely to allow completion of the grading permit requirements on the embankment portion of the property. All subdivision work and wetland work has been completed and accepted by the City and County of Honolulu and the Army Corps of Engineers,” Bills stated.
The board took up Bills’ request at its January 12 meeting. Bills could not promise the board that he would not seek an additional time request. “We feel it’s going to be enough time,” Bills said. “Essentially, the project is 99.9 percent done… The subdivision lots which were providing the equity to make the whole deal come about have been sold. Unfortunately, due to economic times, Mr. Lee, who’s been before you before, had to probably buy back half of it. So, you know, there was a conservation lot next door to it — it has vegetation on it, but it isn’t finished up exactly in conformance with the plan… It’s not causing dust flying around — and yes, a neighbor has complained probably about a vehicle being there. However, your people have gone out there and taken a look at it and agreed it was in conformance with a regular construction site….
“I hope that I do not have to come before you again and ask for another six months. But Jimmy’s been through a very tough time on this. He has performed on all the requirements… The only thing he hasn’t seen is any type of reward as far as cash back in his pocket to finish up the very last end of this.”
Without discussion, the board granted Lee the time extension to May 8, 1996.
DLNR Report Available for `93-`94
The Department of Land and Natural Resources has issued its annual report for the 1993-1994 fiscal year. With the many changes the department has undergone in the 20 months that have passed since that period ended (June 30, 1994), much of the information contained in the report is long out of date.
Nonetheless, the report notes the year’s highlights.
For environmentalists, the best news may be found in the section on the activities of the Division of Aquatic Resources. Among other activities in the year covered, that division continued to evaluate the recovery of Kaua`i streams from the effects of Hurricane `Iniki, which devastated the island in September 1992. “Results are showing that recovery was very rapid,” the report states, from which, it goes on to say, it may be inferred “that restoration of aquatic habitats altered by human activity may be relatively simple, because the return of native fishes will occur automatically once favorable conditions exist and the mountain-ocean (mauka-makai) connection is maintained.”
DAR also notes that its staff “rediscovered Megalagrion damselflies that had entirely disappeared from the Hanakapiai watershed after Hurricane `Iniki. This is extremely significant biologically because many species have evolved into specialized habitats and some are known only from single watersheds.”
Want to know the value of all property transferred from July 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994? The DLNR’s Bureau of Conveyances, which keeps track of such things, reports the dollar amount of real property sales in this period stands at $15.8 billion ($11.3 billion alone from sales on O`ahu).
A total of 1,719 wild pigs were killed by licensed hunters, who also took 69 black-tailed deer; 1,125 goats; 757 mouflon sheep; 126 feral sheep; and 831 axis deer, for a statewide total of 4,627 mammals taken in 23,000 hunter trips. Hunting was best apparently on the island of Moloka`i, with a mammals-per-hunting-trip ratio of 0.55. Worst hunting was on O`ahu (0.09 mammals per trip).
There were 8,063 trips taken by bird hunters, who killed a total of 5,777 game birds. If you were a bird hunter on O`ahu, you spent an average of 32 hours for each bird killed, and the number of birds per hunting trip was 0.16. On Moloka`i, again, the hunting was best: 3.33 birds per trip. (The Moloka`i figures do not include hunting trips taken or animals killed in hunts on Moloka`i Ranch’s private game preserve.)
Minutes Marathon
Following the report of the overdue Land Board minutes that appeared in the [url=/members_archives/archives_more.php?id=963_0_28_0_C]February 1996 Conservation District column[/url] of Environment Hawai`i, the board has now received and approved minutes for all meetings held in 1995. Minutes for six of the board’s 21 meetings in 1995 were approved on March 8, 1996, as well as minutes for the February 9, 1996 meeting. With that, the board came into compliance, for the first time in more than a year, with the state’s legal requirement that minutes be produced within 30 days of agency meetings.
Volume 6, Number 10 April 1996