NMFS has issued the IHA to Rutgers et al:

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Thanks for putting words in my mouth.
Your bias is because (a) you are sure harm to divers will be caused, no matter the evidence, and (b) you are sure there is malice in the system and somebody will attempt to get something past your eagle eye, and (c) you think the underwater sound is actually a big problem.
Given this world view, claiming advocacy of recreational diver safety is pitiful. Of course, we are ALL for recreational diver safety, and world peace, by the way. But diverting attention from things that are actually dangerous to this kind of nonsense is a shame. You ought to start a campaign to have everybody check CO in their tanks, by the way. That has harmed more divers than underwater sound. How about not deco diving unless trained? Do you really think this anti-acoustics effort is touching the risky behaviors?
 
Thanks for putting words in my mouth.
Your bias is because (a) you are sure harm to divers will be caused, no matter the evidence, and (b) you are sure there is malice in the system and somebody will attempt to get something past your eagle eye, and (c) you think the underwater sound is actually a big problem.
Given this world view, claiming advocacy of recreational diver safety is pitiful. Of course, we are ALL for recreational diver safety, and world peace, by the way. But diverting attention from things that are actually dangerous to this kind of nonsense is a shame. You ought to start a campaign to have everybody check CO in their tanks, by the way. That has harmed more divers than underwater sound. How about not deco diving unless trained? Do you really think this anti-acoustics effort is touching the risky behaviors?
(a) “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Benjamin Franklin http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote67.htm

(b) Who is putting words in whose mouth? Just another specious statement.

(c) It’s all about distance. As you have stated :
I've dived about 100 ft from an airgun. It was not pleasant. I'd certainly dive a mile from one.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
If you choose to dive in the vicinity of their airgun array it is your choice. You make the decisions for your personal safety. I am informing the rest of the readers here, and elsewhere, so they can make their own informed decision.

By the way, personal attacks are a sign of weakness.
 
Last edited:


A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

One thread is sufficient for any topic, so multiple threads have been merged.
Further, both by intent and by our Terms of Service, ScubaBoard is a friendly place. Please keep it that way. Personal attacks are never warranted. Feel free to critique statements, but do not attack the author.
 
The “Final Amended Environmental Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V Marcus G. Langseth in the Atlantic Ocean off New Jersey, Summer 2015” is now available at:

http://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/...ended-mountain-nj-margin-ea-final-revised.pdf

Pages 57 and 58 are significant for sport divers:

“(5) Direct Effects on Recreational SCUBA Divers and Dive Sites and Their Significance
No significant impacts on dive sites, including shipwrecks, would be expected. Airgun sounds
would have no effects on solid structures. The only potential effects could be temporary displacement of
fish and invertebrates from the structures.

Significant impacts on, or conflicts with, divers or diving activities would be avoided through
communication with the diving community before and during the survey and publication of a Notice to
Mariners about operations in the area. In particular, dive operators with dives scheduled on the shipwreck
Lillian during the survey would be contacted directly. That dive site represents only a very small
percentage of the recreational dive sites in New Jersey waters. In June and July 2013 and 2014, there was
only one AIS-identified dive boat passing through the survey area. No dive vessels were observed in the
survey area during the ~13 days that the Langseth was there in July 2014.

The New Jersey Council of Diving Clubs (NJCDC) suggested that a 145-dB low-frequency sound
limit could provide a suitable margin of safety for divers. Based on in situ measurements collected during
2014 using seismic streamer data and analyzed by Crone (2015, pers. comm.), a 145-dB level would be
~14 km (~7.5 nm) from the vessel. This 145-dB value is extrapolated from measured values; measured
values at 160-dB and 180-dB distances were significantly lower, by 30–50%, than modeled values.

Except for the Lillian, there is only one potential dive site in a 14-km buffer around the survey area, an
unidentified wreck very near the outer edge of the buffer in >60 m water depth. The 14-km buffer is
conservative, as it is around the entire survey area, not the vessel itself. The vessel, which would be
constantly moving, would be a minimum of 14 km from a point on the edge of the buffer, but could be as
far away as ~65 km from that point when it is at the far end of the survey area.”
 
She is on the move! Presently in New Jersey waters off Breezy Point, NY heading south.

---------- Post added June 2nd, 2015 at 09:15 AM ----------

The Marcus G. Langseth is now listed for "Restricted Maneuverability" which indicates she is towing an array. Her track shows the wide turn of a vessel in tow. Our letter, warning our community on her mission, will be out shortly.
 
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 5, 2015

Contact: Lawrence Hajna (609) 984-1795
Bob Considine (609) 292-2994
Caryn Shinske (609) 984-1795

CHRISTIE ADMINISTRATION SEEKS FEDERAL COURT RULING TO STOP SEISMIC RESEARCH PROJECT

STATE ARGUES PROJECT WILL HARM FISH AND MARINE MAMMAL POPULATIONS IN STUDY AREA OFF
LONG BEACH ISLAND

(15/P54) TRENTON - The Christie Administration today filed a complaint in U.S. District
Court arguing that a federally funded research project using strong seismic blasts to map
ocean sediment deposits should be stopped because it will adversely impact economically
vital commercial and recreational fisheries and harm marine mammals.

The complaint filed by the Attorney General's Office this morning in U.S. District Court
in Trenton argues the project violates federal laws protecting marine animals and
requests the National Science Foundation (NSF) to perform an area-specific environmental
impact study before proceeding any further.

Rutgers University, the NSF's contractor, launched the project this week, despite
objections from Governor Christie, state and federal lawmakers, and advocacy groups.

"We are not going to give up this fight," Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) Commissioner Bob Martin said. "It is extremely disappointing that
the federal government is moving ahead with this misguided project despite widespread
objection from all quarters and without regard to the negative impacts on New Jersey.

"Starting the project now, with the summer tourism and fishing seasons shifting
into full gear, is simply wrong," Commissioner Martin added. "We must take no
chances when it comes to protecting our ocean resources, our commercial and recreational
fishing industries, and our state's $42 billion tourism economy, which depends heavily on
the shore."

The State's action today follows a letter Commissioner Martin sent this week to NSF
Director Dr. France A. Córdova "strongly condemning" the project and asserting
that the "timing of the study callously disregards the welfare of our coastal
resources and all of the people whose jobs depend on the health of those resources."


Commercial and recreational fishing support about $1 billion in revenues in New Jersey.
The testing is being done in federal waters in a 230-square-mile area southeast of Long
Beach Island, an area well-established for fishing. Among the many species of fish that
are available off the Jersey coast in the summer are bluefish, black sea bass, summer
flounder, black drum, herring and mackerel.

Those who have publicly expressed strong opposition to the project include U.S. Senator Cory Booker, U.S., Representative Frank Pallone, State Senate President Stephen M. Sweeney, Clean Ocean Action, the Marine Mammal Stranding Center, the Recreational Fishing Alliance, the Jersey Coast Anglers Association and the New Jersey Outdoor Alliance.

"Clean Ocean Action is shocked and disappointed at the lack of concern the geological community has shown toward the living marine resources," said Cindy Zipf, the environmental group's Executive Director. "At the same time, it is inspiring to see the incredible outpouring of support including federal, state, and local elected officials, the fishing community, and all citizens in defense of the ocean's marine life. This indeed is a powerful statement about the importance of the ocean to New Jersey."

"The testing could not come at a worse time of year for recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen and bait and tackle shops that depend on the summer fishing season for their livelihood," said Paul Turi, corresponding secretary for the Jersey Coast Anglers Association. "The JCAA and its member clubs see no justifiable value for this study. We believe the potential negative effects far outweigh any potential positive effects."

Bob Schoelkopf, Executive Director of the Marine Mammal Stranding Center in Brigantine, said the testing could result in deaths of dolphins and whales by disrupting feeding patterns. The waters off New Jersey provide prime birthing areas for bottlenose dolphins over the summer, Schoelkopf said. Humpback whales are also migrating from birthing areas off the Dominican Republic to North Atlantic waters.

"Both species rely heavily on being able to prey on tightly bunched schools of fish," Schoelkopf said. "Seismic testing disperses these schools and disrupts marine mammals' sonar needed to track prey."

The DEP provided the NSF with peer-reviewed studies that show that underwater seismic blasts cause fish to move out of areas where this type of testing is done, causing shifts in distribution and declines in numbers of fish that can be caught, and may even cause immediate mortality.

Rutgers is conducting seismic ocean blasting tests to examine changes in layers of deep-sea sediments. The project is taking place in waters 18 to 45 miles southeast of Barnegat Inlet.The process involves repeated underwater blasts of compressed air that can generate up to 250 decibels. In comparison, a jet engine generates about 160 decibels.

The U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals last year ruled against the State in its efforts seeking an injunction to block the work, which was initially scheduled to take place last summer. The project did not move forward at that time due to mechanical problems with the research vessel.

For a copy of the State's complaint, please visit: http://www.nj.gov/dep/docs/seismic-complaint.pdf

For a copy of the letter to the National Science Foundation, please visit: http://www.nj.gov/dep/docs/nsf-cordova-letter-20150602.pdf
 
After a full week of operations the Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V Marcus G. Langseth is finally listed in the 23rd week’s publication:

U.S. Department
of Homeland Security
United States
Coast Guard

LOCAL NOTICE TO MARINERS

District: 5 Week: 23/15

(Snip)

NJ - ATLANTIC OCEAN – SEISMIC SURVEY

Mariners are advised that the research vessel MARCUS G. LANGSETH will be conducting a scientific seismic survey in the Atlantic Ocean, bounded by 39-36N 73-42W, 39-42N 73-38W, 39-27N 73-09W, and 39-22N 73-13W, near Long Beach, NJ from June 1 until July 6, 2015. The vessel will be limited in ability to maneuver. There will be instrumentation extending up to 2 nautical miles from the vessel stern and 270 yards on both port and starboard of the vessel and will
be operating 24 hours a day 7 days a week for the duration of the project. The vessel can be contacted on VHF Channel 13 or 16. Mariners are urged to use caution when transiting the area. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this bulletin, please contact the Waterways Management staff at (215) 271-4814 or the Situation Unit Controller at (215) 271-4807.

Chart 12300 LNM: 20/15

(Snip)

http://navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/lnms/lnm05232015.pdf
 
The process involves repeated underwater blasts of compressed air that can generate up to 250 decibels. In comparison, a jet engine generates about 160 decibels.
This is the sort of nonsense and made-up science that permeates this business. Sound in air and sound in water are not referenced to the same scale See Underwater Acoustics - Navy Ships for the details. You need to add 62 dB to the in-air sound intensities to compare them to underwater sound intensities.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/teric/

Back
Top Bottom