Research and regulations are vying for supremacy as noise pollution in the Gulf of Mexico is debated.

What must those poor whales be thinking? After being tagged and studied in recent months, the relatively small population of sperm whales in the northern Gulf of Mexico has offered up only one real conclusive piece of information: more research is needed.

The question, of course, is the impact of E&P operations, particularly seismic surveys and their sound source, on these whales and other marine mammals. Exactly why this question has become such a political hot potato in recent months is open to some debate. Let's examine the evidence.

A couple of years ago Jack Caldwell, then with WesternGeco, gave a talk at the Offshore Technology Conference in Houston about the Marine Mammals Protection Act (MMPA); the possibility of stricter regulations on seismic operations; and the industry's near-unanimous lack of information about, understanding of or interest in the topic. Sensing the dramatic impact that unfettered regulations could have on the seismic industry, the International Association of Geophysical Contractors (IAGC) stepped up to the plate. It put the issue in front of its members as well as the industry at large, appointed a task force, solicited industry funding and generally acted as a very outspoken voice on the need for placing solid science in front of worst-case-scenario regulations.

The efforts were not over-reactionary. An increasingly vocal environmental movement was already hard at work hoping to convince government regulators that, despite any really hard evidence, seismic surveys probably were having adverse effects on the sperm whale population and therefore needed to be more heavily regulated. This all culminated with last summer's restrictions on Sale 184, where the US Minerals Management Service (MMS) dictated that any surveys shot in the deeper waters of the Gulf of Mexico should include "soft" ramp-ups, where airguns are fired up one at a time to give the whales a chance to leave the area, and provide trained observers on board each survey to monitor a 1,640-ft (500-m) exclusion zone for the presence of sperm whales and be prepared to stop operations should one be sighted.

Meanwhile the IAGC's request for more research was being met. A Sperm Whale Seismic Study (SWSS) was instituted as a follow-on program to the Sperm Whale Acoustic Monitoring Program (SWAMP) begun in 2000 and is intended to increase the body of knowledge relating to sperm whales and their responses to seismic operations. Preliminary results of this study were discussed in a meeting in January, and the report from this study indicates that there is much work to be done.

"While the concept of loud noise being harmful to marine mammals is easy to grasp, the data to verify this concept are very hard to obtain," the document reads. "...The few studies and secondary observations to date have produced inconsistent results."

Last summer's testing has so far indicated no dramatic or large-scale impacts, but the study was hampered by bad weather, and researchers were only able to get four controlled exposure experiments.
"We need the summer of 2003 and 2004 to really get something more conclusive," said IAGC President Chip Gill.

But time may be running out. Late this past December, the MMS wrote a petition to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) Fisheries Department for rulemaking under the MMPA regarding "incidental take authorization." An incidental take occurs when whales are close enough to be affected by an airgun, and this distance is still being hotly debated. IAGC asked to see a copy of this petition, but its request was denied.

Without warning, NOAA Fisheries issued a call for public comment in the Federal Register in March. Gill worries this will add fuel to the fire.

"In the first place, we believe it is likely the seismic source is outside the hearing range of the sperm whale and therefore presents almost no risk to them. But now, rather than a notice to lessees, which is public enough, it's in the Federal Register, asking everybody to comment," he said. "And one more time we have representations or conclusions that are, we believe, either not founded in science or flat wrong. The more times they are stated by either NOAA Fisheries or MMS, the more the suggestion is that they are correct and that they become part of the lexicon."

Environmental groups, meanwhile, feel that the evidence of harm to the animals is alarming enough that we simply don't have the luxury of waiting for the research to prove or disprove the theory. "It's rare that science ever gives you the kind of precise information that you need to make sharp-lined regulatory distinctions," said Michael Jasny, a senior policy analyst and attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "It's necessary under the law to consider the worst-case scenario as well as more optimum cases."

Jasny points to instances of beaked whales beaching themselves after being exposed to acoustic signals. In one event, several whales beached themselves in the Bahamas in response to a mid-frequency active sonar exercise being conducted by the US Navy. In another, marine biologists in the Gulf of California found two beaked whales that had recently died on the beach. Though it was impossible to study the whales to determine the cause of the stranding, a research vessel using near-surface side-scan sonar imaging equipment as well as an airgun array was in the vicinity carrying out operations at the time the whales beached themselves. In yet another example off the Sakhalin Islands, Western Pacific Grey Whales, a highly endangered species, were found to have altered their foraging patterns due to seismic activity in the area. And studies on fish species have indicated that the food sources of these whales might also be adversely affected by the surveys.

Jasny thinks that the new regulations in the Gulf are a good step forward, but he would like to see passive acoustic monitoring become part of the package to listen to the sperm whales while they're diving.
"The question is, what does the science say at this point? What are the potential impacts? What can be done within practicable limits to reduce impacts on a vulnerable species?" Jasny asked. "We've had the first two of those discussions, but I'm not sure we've had the last one.

"Increasingly, in order to ensure that these animals are protected over what may be a very long period of new development in the Gulf of Mexico, it's critical that we have that last discussion."

Comments