|
|
|
Feature Articles
|
Industry stunned, angry over trawl survey warp error
|
This article is reprinted with permission of Commercial Fisheries News, the Northeast's fishing newspaper for over 30 years, ©2003 Compass Publications Inc. Commercial Fisheries News is published monthly; annual subscriptions are $21.95. To subscribe or request a sample issue: call (877) 263-4496; fax (207) 367-2490; e-mail (cfoster@fish-news.com); or click on the hot link.
| |
|
|
|
|
"The net that's been used in the survey has been towed sideways for two years. Two years!"
- Bud Fernandes (Peter K. Prybot Photo)
|
WOODS HOLE, MA - By now, the news has spread everywhere and many people are focused on gauging the repercussions and fixing the problem.
But when the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) first announced that the wire cables, commonly called "warps," used to tow the trawl survey net on the Albatross IV had been miscalibrated for the past two years, the admission hit the industry like a bombshell.
At times, one tow wire was up to six feet longer than the other, a condition that experienced fishermen said could dramatically reduce the catching ability of the gear.
As Commercial Fisheries News was going to press in late September, the Albatross IV was out on the water - with commercial fishermen as part of the "trawl observation" crew - conducting tests using video equipment and electronic sensors to officially determine how mismatched cables can affect the performance of the research vessel's standardized trawl net.
Industry members observing the work and advising the scientific crew were: Bud Fernandes, Stephen Lee, and Jim Odlin of Maine; Sam Novello and Matt Stommel of Massachusetts; and Jim Lovgren of New Jersey.
The information collected from this Sept. 25-28 trip was to be used during an Oct. 2-3 workshop in Woods Hole. Those who were on the Albatross, plus many others, will attend the meeting where they will:
- Evaluate worldwide experience on trawl warp offsets and their effects on trawl performance;
- Review results from the experimental manipulation of trawl warp lengths conducted during the three-day experimental cruise; and
- Consider the likely impacts of the Albatross IV's trawl warp offsets in terms of trawl geometry and implications for survey catches.
Workshop participants will generate a report, which will be used to figure out what the next step should be.
Mike Sissenwine, director of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, said, "We're trying to maintain the flexibility to do whatever the collective wisdom says is necessary."
The report also will be passed along to scientists who will update groundfish stock assessments during the week of Oct. 8-11.
Observation cruise
Russell Brown, NMFS's chief scientist on the trawl observation cruise, emphasized the importance of industry's involvement in the gear trials.
Just before the Albatross IV left the dock, he said, "We want the industry experts who participate in this to have as much input as possible. It will be extremely important to capitalize on (their) expertise."
According to Brown, the survey crew will be measuring the net's wingspread, headrope height, and distance between doors to get quantitative information about the trawl net's performance.
"Capturing video images of different angles of the net will be crucial for next week's workshop," he said.
National attention
The Albatross IV episode has triggered a national review of NMFS trawl survey protocol. Government officials, all the way up to Commerce Sec. Donald Evans, are engaged in the problem.
US Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) has introduced legislation to provide resources for some fixes, and many congressional representatives have stepped in to ask hard questions of Evans and Vice Adm. Conrad Lautenbacher, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
US District Judge Gladys Kessler, who still has jurisdiction over groundfish because of the ongoing Framework 33 lawsuit, was informed of the situation on Sept. 19 through an official court declaration by Sissenwine.
Trawling 101
It's an understatement to say that commercial fishermen have found this all hard to believe.
While many have challenged NMFS's trawl surveys in the past and have long believed that the gear on the agency's research boats hasn't "fished right," hardly anyone questioned what is now being referred to as the fundamentals of "Trawling 101."
"It never even crossed my mind that something as basic as checking the gear before each survey wasn't done," said vessel owner Barbara Stevenson of Maine, a member of the New England Fishery Management Council.
The New England council was officially informed of the problem on Sept. 11 during the middle of its three-day meeting in Providence.
Terry Smith of the Woods Hole-based science center explained the details to the council.
Yet before he began, Sissenwine took the microphone to say, "We are absolutely committed to addressing the problem head-on and in a very transparent manner. We want to lay all the cards on the table."
Cable miscalibration
Smith explained that the center had hired a contractor to replace the cables in February of 2000. The center, following up on an industry observation that the warps weren't installed properly, inspected the cables on Sept. 3, 2002 and discovered the 50-meter marks on the warps weren't evenly spaced.
The problem of differential cables was more pronounced at greater lengths, said Smith. At 100 meters of tow wire, the difference was only about one inch, while at 300 meters, it was more like six feet.
The mismatched cables were used during eight bottom trawl surveys between the winter of 2000 and the spring of 2002.
According to Sissenwine, only one of those surveys was used to produce the "Final Report of the Working Group on Reevaluation of Biological Reference Points for New England Groundfish," which came out in March. This report is being used as the foundation for Amendment 13.
In his declaration to Judge Kessler, Sissenwine said, "It is unlikely that any effects in this single survey would have an important effect on the accuracy of the scientific information since many other surveys and other sources of data contribute to the scientific information."
But even if the 2000-2002 survey information really didn't have much of an impact on the revised biological reference points, scientists were scheduled to use the information this October to update groundfish assessments.
Sissenwine said all attempts are being made to re-analyze the data sets and correct any erroneous information prior to its use.
Isolated problem?
| |
|
|
"There are other problems in the survey methodology.
If we're going to fix the wire problem, then we should look at
the weight of the trawl and the speed of the tow. I would like
to see a complete overview of the survey methodology."
- Sima Freierman
|
Numerous people in attendance at the Sept. 11 council meeting went out of their way to thank NMFS officials for being so forthright with such damaging information.
And while many people sincerely seemed to believe that NMFS was bending over backwards to be honest about the problem and correct deficiencies, most commercial fishermen didn't think the information could ever be "fixed."
"I don't want to be argumentative, but the net that's been used in the survey has been towed sideways for two years. Two years!" said council member Bud Fernandes of Maine, who subsequently went out on the late-September observation cruise.
Fernandes clearly articulated what almost every commercial fisherman in the audience was mumbling during the NMFS presentation: This couldn't have been an isolated problem. What else went wrong?
"The (tow wire mismatch) doesn't bother me as much as what we don't know," he said. "There's obviously not good protocol for calibrating this equipment. For a mistake to go on for two years is not a mistake. It's a problem with the system.
"How do we know that those other measurements and pieces of gear were properly calibrated?" questioned Fernandes. "This is very serious for this industry that relies on that data."
While Sissenwine and Smith explained the different tests and analyses the center would be running to correct and compensate for the trawl wire problem, industry members remained convinced this was the "tip of the iceberg."
Sima Freierman of Montauk Inlet Seafood, who has been involved in side-by-side cooperative research between industry boats and NMFS research vessels, said, "There are other problems in the survey methodology. If we're going to fix the wire problem, then we should look at the weight of the trawl and the speed of the tow. I would like to see a complete overview of the survey methodology."
Moratorium
| |
|
|
|
|
"We have to send a clear signal as to how serious this is.
... I'm trying to be constructive, but as an industry member, it's very hard."
- Barbara Stevenson (Peter K. Prybot Photo)
|
The New England council, in front of a packed audience, spent the better part of the day trying to address the situation.
Fernandes first attempted to get the council to support a moratorium on all new regulations until an independent investigation - with a full analysis and identified solution - was completed and brought before the council.
But NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator Pat Kurkul argued against such extreme action.
"I think we need to be responsive in a responsible way," she said. "The council simply doesn't have the authority to do this. NMFS doesn't have the authority to do this."
Several other council members agreed, wanting to wait for more information from the experiments before drawing any firm conclusions.
But Fernandes wouldn't budge.
"Acting on information that obviously wasn't gathered under the right protocol wouldn't be responsible on my part," he said.
Massachusetts council member Jim Kendall added, "All we're asking to do is pause until we understand what some of the implications and consequences are."
While the council didn't act on the moratorium proposal, Barbara Stevenson said, "We have to send a clear signal as to how serious this is. A moratorium sends a clear signal that we think we can't do our job until we know the magnitude of this. I'm trying to be constructive, but as an industry member, it's very hard."
Council action
The New England council did pass two other motions, though both votes only came after long and hard discussions.
The council first voted to request that NMFS notify the court about the trawl wire problem and acknowledge that "this may affect the ability of the council to meet the time lines of groundfish Amendment 13."
Several council members argued against this idea as well, saying they first wanted more information.
But other council members and numerous industry representatives countered that NMFS was obligated to inform the court.
"The court is a senior partner in this management plan," said Kendall.
Attorney David Frulla, representing the Trawlers Survival Fund and Associated Fisheries of Maine Groundfish Group, both defendant-intervenors in the lawsuit, said, "I understand the reluctance to disturb a judge. But I'm not sure that applies to Judge Kessler, who has said she wants to get a lot of information about a case she has spend a lot of time on."
Independent review
| |
|
|
I just want to point out that the Mid-Atlantic council makes an awful lot of its decisions based on these surveys. I want to be sure the Mid-Atlantic council will be included in this process.
- Dennis Spitsbergen
|
After passing that motion by an 11-6 margin, the council then discussed forming an ad hoc committee to oversee an investigation of the protocol.
But here, too, the deliberations got complicated as members weighed whether the council or NMFS should form the committee.
Fernandes could hardly believe what was happening.
"How can we be so sensitive to (allowing the center to set up the committee instead of the council) and so insensitive to the fact that the results will be so extreme on industry and their families?" he asked. "It's kind of hard to have the science center investigate the science center."
The center's Terry Smith, however, told the council, "We are committed to bringing in industry and having a peer review of our process whether this motion passes or not."
In the end, the council voted that the science center should form an ad hoc committee of gear experts, skilled fishermen, and other persons with appropriate expertise to:
- "Oversee an independent review of current survey protocol;
- "Oversee an independent analysis of the significance of found errors on existing data and to review the center's proposed fixes; and
- "Have the committee review the appropriateness of current gear for purposes of repeatability and catchability, plus recommend any improvement and a time line for changes in gear use."
Dennis Spitsbergen, the Mid-Atlantic council's liaison to the New England council, said, "I just want to point out that the Mid-Atlantic council makes an awful lot of its decisions based on these surveys. I want to be sure the Mid-Atlantic council will be included in this process."
Confidence
| |
|
|
|
| |
"Keeping industry at arm's length has to end at this point."
- John Williamson (Peter K. Prybot Photo)
|
Almost every industry member at the council meeting and since has voiced despair, disbelief, and deep anger over the trawl warp problem - all of which hasn't gone unnoticed by scientists and government officials.
"I'm convinced that the science center is aware of how bad an error this is and is prepared to do whatever is necessary to rectify the situation," said Maine council member John Williamson.
"The question is: Will it take years to repair industry confidence? We hear repeatedly about concerns from industry about the gear not fishing right."
Williamson suggested that NMFS assemble a team of fishermen to serve as a board of directors in the survey process.
"Keeping industry at arms length has to end at this point," he said.
Sissenwine supported the idea.
"There has been a tremendous amount of damage done to confidence and we need to address that," he said. "I'm extremely concerned about it."
NMFS is not prepared yet to take a stab at saying how this problem will affect Amendment 13, which is paramount on industry's mind.
However, Sissenwine in his declaration to Judge Kessler said, "Š it may not be possible to conduct all worthwhile investigations of the problem of uneven trawl warps in a manner that will permit consideration of the results prior to the November council meeting."
The November meeting is when the council is supposed to sign off on the draft supplemental environmental impact statement for Amendment 13 so that it can be released for public comment.
|
"There has been a tremendous amount of damage done to confidence and we need to address that."
- Mike Sissenwine (CFN file photo)
|
Industry pays price
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Just once, I'd like to hear someone say, 'It's too early to say how
significant this mistake is, but I really hope our mistake has not
caused undue harm to the fishing industry.' I want to hear
someone from NMFS express compassion for the victims of this
careless error."
- Maggie Raymond (Peter K. Prybot photo)
|
One of industry's biggest worries is that NMFS may try to minimize the impacts of the problem.
Agency officials have said that, based on very quick comparisons of New England groundfish surveys with Massachusetts and Canadian surveys, the trawl warp mismatch probably hasn't led to a totally inaccurate picture of what's going on with New England groundfish stocks, though much more investigation is needed.
Industry members, however, strongly believe otherwise and want NMFS to acknowledge the seriousness and magnitude of the situation.
"I'm very concerned that the service will come back and whitewash this and say it's not a very big problem," said Maggie Raymond of the Associated Fisheries of Maine Groundfish Group.
"Just once, I'd like to hear someone say, 'It's too early to say how significant this mistake is, but I really hope our mistake has not caused undue harm to the fishing industry.'
"I want to hear someone from NMFS express compassion for the victims of this careless error."
|
|
