A dramatic drop in the number of plankton in the waters off Newfoundland and Labrador has renewed calls to halt seismic testing by the oil and gas industry.

Data collected by scientists with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) have revealed a steady decline over the last five years in phytoplankton and zooplankton. The tiny organisms live near the ocean’s surface and underpin the entire marine food web, feeding the smallest and largest of creatures that call the ocean home. Small but mighty, they are what make life on Earth possible.

“It started off as a bit of a dip, but then it got more profound,” says Pierre Pepin, a senior researcher with the department in St. John’s, N.L.

“We’re looking at values that are about 50 per cent of what we saw five years ago. That’s a substantial decline. And it’s not only a decline in the overall biomass; we’ve also seen a shift in the composition of the plankton.”

There’s been a shift toward smaller species of the plankton, not just in the Newfoundland region, but in other parts of Atlantic Canada, as well. In the Gulf of St. Lawrence, there’s been a huge increase in species that are fairly small — values scientists haven’t seen before.

While it’s not just a problem on Canada’s East Coast, what’s not clear yet is whether the decrease in plankton has affected everything that feeds on them. That’s a gap in the knowledge that’s hard to get a handle on, Pepin says. While more research is needed on the domino effect of declining plankton levels, it’s “difficult and costly.”

That said, while the changes he’s seeing are substantial — “the kind of signals you have to pay attention to” — he says it’s difficult to transform it into advice.

“How should you handle that from a management standpoint? I don’t think we need to be alarmist about this (or) become excessively precautionary,” he says. “It means we have to keep it in mind when we’re looking at other elements of the ecosystem to see if we’re seeing cascading effects.”

At the Federation of Independent Sea Harvesters of Newfoundland and Labrador (FISH-NL), President Ryan Cleary says his members don’t need another study to confirm what they experience every day on the water.

“Whenever a seismic boat goes past and we drop our gear, the fish aren’t there,” he says. “Any fisherman, or fisherman worth their salt, will tell you there’s an impact. They’ve seen it first-hand.”

On Twitter, fisherman Paul Reddy said when seismic vessels pass through an area, “crab seem to disappear and ones left seems to be dormant, like in shock.”

“It’s like a snowplow; it clears out everything in its wake.”

Seismic surveys produce the loudest human-made sounds in the ocean aside from explosions. The process involves towing air guns behind ships and shooting loud blasts of compressed air through the water and into the seabed to find oil and gas deposits that may be buried there. The guns release at high pressure and can go off every 10 seconds around the clock for months at a time.

In the waters around Newfoundland and Labrador, seismic testing has increased dramatically in recent years. Cleary says the amount of money spent by Nalco Oil and Gas for its seismic data program more than doubled in 2015 to $28.6 million, from $13.9 million the year previous — and has remained consistently high since then.

In the summer of 2017, the province’s Natural Resources Minister Siobhan Coady described the 3D seismic program in the province as one of the largest in the world, and said the 2D program was “unrivalled in the modern exploration era.”

2D seismic data shows a single slice of the seabed, while 3D data shows a volume of it.

With plankton stocks plunging while seismic testing goes through the roof — the term “supersized” has been coined in recent years — Cleary says it’s “just too coincidental.”

“I don’t believe in coincidences. From my perspective, when there’s smoke, there’s fire.”

For that reason, FISH-NL is once again calling on the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB), which regulates the offshore industry, to suspend seismic work.

Cleary points to an Australian study published in 2017 in the journal Nature, which found that seismic testing can destroy plankton populations.

The research by the University of Tasmania and Curtin University found that within the 1.2-kilometre range sampled, air-gun signals that are commonly used in marine petroleum exploration can cause a two- to threefold increase in mortality of adult and larval zooplankton.

“There is a significant and unacknowledged potential for ocean ecosystem function and productivity to be negatively impacted by present seismic technology,” the authors found.

Cleary says that research — combined with the fact that most commercial fish stocks, which rely on plankton, are at critical levels — is a red flag.

“If there is no plankton, there are no fish. That’s how serious this is,” Cleary says. “Our commercial fisheries (are) all on their knees. Anything that has a potential impact on their health has to be looked at immediately.”

DFO has moved to adopt a precautionary approach to fisheries management, which it notes on its website consists of “being cautious when scientific knowledge is uncertain, and not using the absence of adequate scientific information as a reason to postpone action, or failure to take action, to avoid serious harm to fish stocks or their ecosystem.”

A former NDP MP, Cleary wonders why the department would take a different approach with something as critical as plankton.

“There’s nothing precautionary about supersized seismic activity, when there are so many questions about it, and fisherman are so adamant about its impact,” Cleary said. “It’s just the opposite.”

At Dalhousie University, Lindy Weilgart has been studying underwater noise for 25 years. Given all the stressors on the ocean, from pollution to absorbing most of the carbon dioxide we’re putting in the atmosphere, we no longer have the luxury of not being precautionary, she says.

Temperatures are rising and water is acidifying as a result. When noise is thrown into the mix, whether it’s from shipping, military sonar or seismic testing, the effects can multiply, and “be greater than the sum of the parts,” so it’s little wonder species’ composition is changing, Weilgart says.

“Yes, you can always make an argument that there’s a natural mortality rate among plankton. They aren’t exactly elephants, so their death rate is fairly high. But (this decline) is definitely a concern,” she says.

“We do this all the time. We underestimate the impact we’re causing and, particularly, we take each impact separately, and we don’t consider that there is a limit. You can’t keep throwing things at nature and not expect there will be some repercussions and nasty surprises.”

Last year, Weilgart produced a report that reviewed 115 primary studies on human-produced underwater noise sources affecting 66 species of fish, 40 species of marine mammals and 36 species of invertebrates. It showed zooplankton suffer high mortality in the presence of noise.

“You’ve got 140 species that are affected by noise. This has to qualify as an ecosystem-wide impact. It’s not going to affect all species in the same way, but most stressors do not.”

She says she used to think plankton weren’t affected by sound.

“I would not have put plankton in one of the categories that I’d initially have been worried about, but here we are. Plankton supports all life in the ocean. That’s why (what’s happening) is particularly worrisome.”

Pepin, however, isn’t overly alarmed. He says while the parts of the Australian paper that link seismic testing and plankton declines are very compelling, he has concerns about the methodology. Specifically, he says the researchers found an impact from a short-term sampling on a very small scale, which doesn’t illustrate long-term effects on the system.

“In the study, they found more elevated rates of loss. But is this an impact that’s persistent? Is the gun going through the area going to impact the entire area? It’s a situation where I would like to see the evidence over the long term. That hasn’t been brought to my attention and hasn’t been clearly demonstrated.”

He says the good and the bad thing about scientists is that they’re trained to be conservative in their interpretations. That means when a conclusion is reached, it’s robust and there can be confidence in it.

The downside is people don’t see change coming quickly enough.

“That’s perfectly understandable, but I’d rather have information that is sound rather than making a decision that can have implications for a large number of people based on iffy evidence,” Pepin says.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

While she’s all for more research, Weilgart insists things have to run in parallel. Remedial action can’t be put off until every “t” is crossed and every “i” is dotted.

“This is so typical of scientists in their ivory tower,” she says. “The ocean is not a controlled laboratory. This is life, this is biology. We cannot have policy stall in its tracks waiting for this research, when we know there is a problem. If you want to wait until you have airtight evidence, you’re not going to get anywhere. That’s why we need to err on the side of caution. It’s not like we know nothing. We know so much already.

“Let’s just solve the problem now with the tiny, tiny risk that we might do more than we have to — but with the overwhelming chance it won’t be enough.”

Around the world, so many seismic surveys are underway, she can’t keep up with them. While they’re being done off the coast of Nova Scotia, they’re done more often in Newfoundland and Labrador.

“The sound can travel 3,000 kilometres. This is a very long-range effect. When you’ve got something that covers that amount of area very quickly — five times the speed in air — you have to consider that this is an ecosystem-wide impact over these large scales of space,” she says.

“We consistently think it will be fine, when it won’t.”

She points out no doctor would be allowed to practice that way: “‘I have no evidence this surgery will work, but I think it will be fine.’ It’s not how most businesses make decisions, either. But if it’s something irreversible, that affects the climate and the Earth you’re living on. Where there’s no plan B, we forge ahead. It’s amazing to me.

“And why is it on the public, or the environmentally minded segment of society, to have to prove that you will be doing damage? The burden of proof should be on the other side: You’re changing our environment, you prove it’s safe.”

What’s more, fixing the problem of ocean noise is not at all impossible.

Noise created by ships can be lessened through maintenance and technological modifications, as well as incentives such as lower port charges for ships that make less noise.

As it turns out, Canada has been leading on these fronts.

“I’m proud of the country for that,” Weilgart says.

“Transport Canada has gotten behind this, spurred by the plight of killer whales on the West Coast.”

Fisheries and Oceans could do the same for seismic testing, since there are technological alternatives to the air guns that are quieter and safer, and may glean better geophysical information to find deposits under the ocean. A technology known as marine vibroseis releases the same amount of energy as an air gun, but it’s spread over a longer wavelength — so it’s less like a shot and more like a hum.

“The seismic industry is extremely resistant to change. Surprisingly, the oil and gas industry is less resistant,” she says.

“What’s encouraging is that some of the oil companies are looking seriously at alternatives. Their interest wanes when the price of oil drops; then, it’s considered a frill. But all it takes is for them to get sued in the U.S. by environmental groups — and then you have their attention again.”

iPolitics requested comment from DFO about its departmental data and whether anyone is looking at new survey technologies, and was referred to Natural Resources Canada, which said the request should go to the C-NLOPB.

A spokeswoman for the board said there are no plans to stray from the current course.

“There is no conclusive scientific evidence that would change the approach to our authorizations of seismic activity,” Lesley Rideout said in an emailed statement.

“If scientific evidence were to warrant regulatory changes in the future, that would be the responsibility of governments. The board’s role in regulatory development is advisory, and we then provide regulatory oversight of relevant industry activities.”

She says the board works closely with DFO and other regulators from around the world, and “monitors and supports research into the effects of seismic activity on marine life.” The board relies on the department’s advice “to ensure our decisions are scientifically sound and evidence-based.”

Weilgart isn’t surprised the board is sticking to the status quo.

“The will is not there. If there are no restrictions, you just shoot away as loud as your heart desires, because no one is telling you otherwise,” she says. “Certainly, the government could do more. If they created the pressure, it would happen tomorrow. It’s all a matter of political will, but it’s not an engineering hurdle. It’s doable.”

What really impressed upon her the need for change was speaking to Stephen Chelminski, the man who invented the airgun in the 1960s.

“He found me and said, ‘I’m a whale lover and I think the airgun I invented is outdated and environmentally harmful. We should be moving to marine vibroseis instead,’ ’’ Weilgart recalls.

“He thought it was highly unnecessary, the noise they put into the ocean. When the inventor tells you that, it should say something.”