barnegat-bay.JPG
A geological survey to study sea level rise near Barnegat Bay has been criticized by Clean Ocean Action for the effect of airgun blasts on marine life.
(Andrew Mills/The Star-Ledger)
By Cindy Zipf
In direct response to Lincoln Hollister's June 10 op-ed titled "As N.J. sea levels rise, politics trumps science," how tragic for such a distinguished professor of geology to profess such bunk.
Let us all agree on one fact, geologists study non-living matter -rocks, soil, sand, minerals. Hence, they are not experts in the field of marine biology, and would not be the "go to" scientists to determine harm from a seismic ocean blasting study led by the Rutgers Geology Dept. Would you go to a plumber for heart surgery? So while it's a free country and they are welcome to an opinion about the effect of the Rutgers study on marine life - 250-decibel blasts, every five seconds, 24 hours a day for 30 days, in a tiny (as the ocean goes) area of ocean off Barnegat Light - it is not a studied one, and should be taken with a grain of salt.
At issue here is not the need for research about sea level rise. Clean Ocean Action has long been dedicated to protecting our shore communities from the effects of climate change. Rather, the outrage is that researchers put their study ahead of marine life and the livelihoods of fishermen and the tourism industry. There are over 20 years of peer reviewed data about the harm that sound causes to marine mammals. There is strong and growing, albeit limited, evidence that sound also harms fish and shellfish. That's no surprise to most people--everyone knows not to tap on a fish tank. Based on these studies, the New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection found the study inconsistent with New Jersey's legal obligation to protect fisheries and demanded Rutgers cease any seismic surveying during peak migration of mammals and fish. In addition, New Jersey's Senators, coastal Congressmen and many state representatives also independently asked Rutgers to stop the study. To assert their concerns as "politics" discredits their experienced and knowledgeable staff's ability to research and render studied independent opinions.
Shockingly, the geologists have flatly rejected all requests to delay the study to another time of year when less marine life will be affected or even adopt more stringent mitigation measures to prevent further harm to marine life. They justify this decision, in part, by noting that they have to go back to school to teach class and make a living. Well, tell that to the fishermen whose livelihoods are impaired.
Truly, if ocean blasting is so safe, Rutgers would not be required to obtain permits to harm over 32 species of marine life, including 18,000 dolphins, four species of sea turtle and 19 species of whale to comply with the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act? These include endangered species such as the Kemps Ridley Sea Turtle and the North Atlantic Right Whale - two of the most endangered marine species on the planet.
Why is professor Lincoln Hollister so strident against those opposing the study anyway? Perhaps it is because a similar study he proposed in Canada in 2007 was terminated because the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency determined that there was not enough information to prove his study was safe for marine life.
Finally, with over 30 years of ocean advocacy based on science, Clean Ocean Action has a proven track record documenting and proving every issue it has tackled with a robust roster of Ph.D-accredited analysts, attorneys and distinguished experts.
Harm is harm. Climate change harms our coastal resources. Marine life is harmed by seismic blasting. We do not have to choose one to prevent the other. Lincoln Hollister should get his facts right.
Cindy Zipf is executive director of Clean Ocean Action.
Follow The Star-Ledger on Twitter @starledger. Find The Star-Ledger on Facebook.