A research project green-lighted to begin off the New Jersey coast this summer is the source of concern for legislators and environmentalists who see the project’s use of seismic testing as a potential threat to marine life and the commercial fishing industry.
“It was a bad idea for the NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] to allow for seismic testing off the Jersey Shore last year, and it’s a bad idea this year,” U.S. Sens. Robert Menendez and Cory Booker (DNJ) and Rep. Frank Pallone (DMonmouth/ Middlesex) said in a joint statement. “Seismic blasting is extremely hazardous to marine mammals and can disrupt migration patterns and fish spawning. “As the New Jersey coastal economy continues to rebound from the effects of superstorm Sandy, our fisheries cannot afford to take a hit this summer. We will continue to fight at every opportunity for the environmental and economic well-being of the Jersey Shore.”
NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service authorized the project, which would study sealevel rise by analyzing sediment on the seafloor. It would use bursts of compressed air to gather data on the geology of the ocean floor and changes in sea level from 60 million years ago to the present day.
Researchers at Rutgers University and the Columbia University Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory would carry out the project, funded by the National Science Foundation. The joint statement came after the NOAA granted the research project an Incidental Harassment Authorization, known as an IHA, which the federal agency issues when a project might cause “unintentional but not unexpected” results, such as the “injury or disturbance” of marine life.
Such authorizations are only issued when the agency determines that the consequences would be of “small numbers,” have no more than a “negligible impact” on the animals affected and not include an “unmitigable adverse impact” on those species, according to NOAA. In this case, the IHA determined that the project might impact up to 32 species of marine mammals; however, the federal agency stated that the expected effects are negligible. “We expect that the seismic survey would have no more than a temporary and minimal adverse effect on any fish or invertebrate species that serve as prey species for marine mammals, and therefore consider the potential impacts to marine mammal habitat minimal as well,” the IHA, issued on May 14, reads.
Dr. Gregory Mountain, professor of geology at Rutgers University and a researcher with the project, said in an interview that gleaning accurate data about sea-level rise is critical to the future of coastal communities and that scientists have taken care to comply with laws governing the protection of marine life.
“Our goal here is one that’s been identified as being a top priority among the scientific community of understanding the history of sea-level change and what the impact is on shoreline communities, ecosystems, infrastructures and population centers,” Mountain said.
The researchers intend to build a three-dimensional map of the seafloor by sending blasts of compressed air through the water and recording the echoes with sensitive microphones. Mountain likened the technique to a sonogram.
“This is the only technology that is able to do this,” he said. “There isn’t an alternative.” The IHA noted that the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory intends to use an airgun array 50 percent smaller than the one proposed in 2014.
However, ocean advocacy group Clean Ocean Action (COA), which opposes the use of seismic testing, remains concerned that the project will negatively impact marine life in the research area and, consequently, the regional economy.
COA Executive Director Cindy Zipf cited a letter sent by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to the National Science Foundation on March 6, which is funding the research, requesting the project not go forward.
“If the project proceeds, we urge the [National Science Foundation] to use this study as an opportunity to build scientific consensus on the impacts of high-energy sound on marine life,” David Fanz, assistant director of the division of land use regulation and signatory, wrote.
The letter also addresses the project’s potential to disrupt fisheries and negatively impact the local economy.
Zipf urged researchers to reconsider the project. If researchers feel the project must go forward, she added, it should be done in the winter when the fishing industry is not as active.
Mountain said the need to understand sealevel rise and begin developing plans to address the affects of climate change on coastal communities is something that should be dealt with as soon as possible and the data his team will be acquiring is a critical piece of that planning.
“We’re research scientists. We have an agenda here to understand how the earth works. We are limited in our activities by the rule of law. It has proven itself to be effective in the past … and yet people continue to yell ‘fire,’ including our congressional delegation.”
The IHA provides a window of opportunity for the research to be conducted from June 1 to Aug. 30, according to Mountain, and researchers intend to begin the project during that timeframe.