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.
by Janice M. Plante
WOODS HOLE, MA - Industry members first found out about the Albatross's uneven trawl wires on Sept. 11, and since then, hardly a day has gone by but what the groundfish fleet hasn't been consumed by unfolding events.
First there was the shock, coupled with anger and reserved gratitude that top personnel from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center came forward with the information almost as soon as the warp mismatch was discovered (see CFN October 2002 for details).
Then came the pledge that fishermen and scientists would work together to understand what happened and gauge the repercussions.
But as the month of October was drawing to a close, the rift between industry and scientists was deepening again, with many fishermen exceedingly concerned that the magnitude of the problem was being downplayed by the center.
According to fishermen, the gear issues went way beyond trawl warps.
"It's all going their direction. It's pure damage control," said Maine fisherman Stephen Lee, who went out on the Albatross with five other highly experienced commercial fishermen during a Sept. 25-28 trawl survey cruise and then participated in a follow-up workshop in Woods Hole.
Meanwhile, members of Congress were weighing in, expressing dismay and calling for a moratorium on new groundfish regulations. US Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) even wrote to the president.
Amid the chaos, the New England Fishery Management Council was prepping for a pivotal Nov. 5-7 meeting in Gloucester where it was scheduled to select measures for the groundfish Amendment 13 public hearing document.
Around the Northeast ports, fishermen were talking about staging a rally - with banners, signs, and babies in tow - to "show the public how many fishing family lives are affected by bad science." This, in Gloucester, timed to coincide with a meeting that already promised to be tense.
And the Albatross was still on the water, delaying a scheduled shipyard period to do more experimental trawl work.
It was a whirlwind time that didn't show a single sign of letting up. Here are the details.
Fishermen 'observe'
The Albatross IV, taking an unscheduled hiatus from its normal fall survey, left the dock in Woods Hole the evening of Sept. 24 to conduct a three-day "trawl observation" cruise, which was pulled together to test how the survey net performed when the trawl warps were deliberately offset.
On board were six commercial fishermen: Stephen Lee, Jim Odlin, and Bud Fernandes of Maine; Sam Novello and Matt Stommel of Massachusetts; and Jim Lovgren of New Jersey.
Along with the scientific crew, these fishermen were able to witness firsthand - both through deck-top observations and through underwater video footage - how the trawl survey gear worked.
As it turned out, each industry member was extremely distressed with what he saw.
"The trawl wires became a secondary issue," said Lee. "It was just so clear that there was so much more that was wrong."
Fishermen reported problems with everything from the doors to the shape of the net to the way the gear was deployed.
In a follow-up summary of the cruise, Stommel wrote, "Upon boarding the Albatross, fishermen immediately noticed that the shine on each of the trawl doors was different.
"During video observations, we thought that the camera always tended to the port side of the net when the trawl wires were even. This led the fishermen to believe that the starboard door was not working correctly," Stommel said.
Bottom contact
The fishermen also observed other problems with the net coming in contact with the bottom.
In his own written report, Fernandes said, "There was consensus among us that the wings were not making contact with the bottom for as far as we could see with the wires even.
"As we offset the wire, the quarter sections of the bosom started lifting up off the bottom and this was obvious at a 6' offset. We also lost bottom contact as we towed into 20 knots of wind with 4'-5' seas."
Lovgren, too, noted that bottom contact during rough weather appeared on the video footage to be "seriously compromised."
"Fish that are swimming in front of the center sweep get leapfrogged over as the net leaves the bottom and comes down many feet ahead of them," Lovgren said. "Much of this problem is caused by the excessive speed at which the trawl survey nets are towed. If they were towed at, say, 3 knots, instead of 3.8, the net would probably always remain on the bottom except in the roughest of weather."
Woods Hole workshop
A few days after the Albatross returned to the dock, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center hosted an Oct. 2-3 workshop to review the cruise results, evaluate worldwide experience with trawl warp offsets, and figure out where to go next. Numerous fishermen, including most who were on the observation cruise, attended.
By the end of the workshop's first day, which was filled with formal presentations and "polite" discussion, industry members were dismayed. They regrouped that night to strategize for day two.
By the end of Oct. 3, the scene had changed dramatically. After some hard give-and-take, scientists and industry reached consensus on several critical points.
"The second day we got down to brass tacks. That was a little more difficult for everyone in the room," said John Boreman, acting director of the science center.
Workshop participants collectively developed a "findings and recommendations" statement in which they concluded that "the trawl warp offset has had an effect on the survey trawl performance."
Although they also stated that "the magnitude or scale of that effect" couldn't be determined "at this time," the basic admission was exactly what industry had been seeking.
Workshop participants further concluded that "the existing survey gear has a number of design and operational problems." They agreed that there's "an immediate need to calibrate survey trawls for the identified problems," update survey protocols, and "integrally" involve fishermen and other stakeholders "in the planning and implementation of further research surveys."
The surveys conducted by the center using the Albatross IV and the Delaware II play a paramount role in the development of stock assessments for all Northeast region species, not just groundfish.
Expo seminar
Many industry members left that workshop and traveled the next day to Fish Expo-Atlanta in Providence, RI, where Boreman and others took part in an Oct. 4 seminar that addressed the trawl survey problem.
At the time, many people, though still guarded, expressed hope that a corner had been turned, that future surveys would be done with input and help from industry, that good could somehow come from all of this. Scientists seemed willing to work with industry to improve survey methodology. Fishermen seemed willing to "stop beating up on the scientists," at least in public.
Boreman, trying to set the stage, told the expo crowd that the science center was established in 1885 and is the oldest lab in the US - the second oldest fisheries lab in the world. It has a solid history of providing world-class science that center personnel are extremely proud of, he said.
"We have no intention of compromising that tradition. We hold ourselves responsible for the information we provide, and the staff at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center is fully committed to providing the best information possible.
"We owe it to the people," Boreman said.
Accountability
Despite the initial good will, the seminar had its share of tension-filled moments. Thousands and thousands of commercial fishermen are seriously affected by the center's trawl surveys, and many still find it unforgivable that such serious gear problems on the Albatross could have gone unchecked for two years.
"We don't see any accountability," said Mathew Thomson of Monhegan Island, ME. "The people who are responsible for the screw-ups on that boat are still working there. We're responsible for what happens on our boat. I think this should really be looked at. Who did it? We want to know."
Seeming to comprehend the depth of industry's anger, Rebecca Lent, NMFS deputy director for regulatory programs, also on hand for the Fish Expo seminar, responded pointedly.
"I can't tell you anybody's going to get fired but we're all taking the heat," she said. "We hope that we are learning from this experience, moving ahead, and making sure this mistake doesn't happen again."
NOAA chief involved
Lent also said the trawl survey problems had captured the attention of people very high up in the Bush administration.
"I want to emphasize that the admiral is making this a very high priority," she said.
The admiral is Vice Adm. Conrad Lautenbacher Jr., head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the parent agency of NMFS, which often calls itself NOAA Fisheries.
Lautenbacher has been hearing a lot from fishermen lately. He attended a Sept. 13 meeting with industry in Boston, which had been scheduled prior to the Albatross announcement. However, given the timing, the trawl survey issue dominated the discussion.
Lautenbacher also has been receiving letters, including ones from Matt Stommel and Maine vessel owner and New England council member Barbara Stevenson, who both told the admiral they were stunned that the Albatross went back out to sea to complete the fall survey despite the numerous gear problems identified during the observation cruise.
"Ignoring known problems with the gear and doing the survey anyway calls into question the scientific validity of any center work," said Stevenson.
Calibration cruise
Stommel also expressed grave concern to the admiral about the center's next planned cruise to calibrate the trawl warp problem. A small group of fishermen met during the Oct. 2-3 workshop and then again on Oct. 10 - on extremely short notice - with the intention of helping design this additional cruise.
Yet according to Stommel, fishermen felt betrayed at the Oct. 10 meeting. They were told that the new cruise would not involve commercial vessels, as industry had hoped, and would not address all the gear problems discovered during the three-day observation cruise. Instead, the focus was back on the trawl warp mismatch.
On Oct. 22, close to CFN's press time, the center was holding another meeting with industry to try to settle what should be accomplished on that next cruise.
The Albatross was wrapping up the fall survey and heading back to Woods Hole. Initially, the research vessel was then supposed to go into the shipyard the week of Oct. 28.
But the center has delayed the shipyard period so that the Albatross can spend the week of Oct. 28 and the week of Nov. 4 conducting additional experimental gear work, whatever it might turn out to be.
Teri Frady, director of research communications for the center, said that even though industry vessels will not be involved in these particular trials, the center still intends to carry out other work with industry boats.
"Funding is being made available to work with commercial vessels to further understand this problem," she said.
Congress
As all of these developments were unfolding, New England's congressional representatives stepped right up to the plate.
On Sept. 18, US Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) introduced legislation to "address failures recently identified in the accuracy of fishing data."
Snowe said she also "received assurances" from NOAA chief Lautenbacher and Commerce Sec. Donald Evans that "these failures would be remedied and fishing data updated."
Sen. Collins quickly co-sponsored the legislation. And, in her own letter to Evans, Collins said, "Fishermen are now questioning the ability of NMFS to provide the 'best available science' needed to properly manage the fisheries.
"They wonder why they are suffering under harsh restrictions if the data may not support the need for those restrictions," Collins said.
The Massachusetts delegation - US Sens. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and US Reps. Bill Delahunt, Barney Frank, and John Tierney, all Democrats - signed a Sept. 17 letter to Evans urging him to establish a "Northeast science task force" to develop "corrective measures." The task force, said the delegation, should include fishermen.
They also wrote, " we encourage you to consult with the New England Fishery Management Council to determine if such analyses will affect the council and NMFS's ability to complete Amendment 13 by the court deadline. If an extension to the deadline is needed, we encourage you to notify the court immediately and request an extension to the deadline."
Judge Kessler's court
Asking the court for a delay in Amendment 13 is a top industry priority. The New England council is supposed to approve Amendment 13 alternatives at the Nov. 5-7 meeting in Gloucester and then bring those alternatives out to public hearing in December and January.
US District Judge Gladys Kessler, who holds jurisdiction over groundfish right now because of the Framework 33 lawsuit, has ordered that Amendment 13 be implemented by Aug. 22, 2003.
In a Sept. 19 declaration, science center Director Mike Sissenwine, who's now at NMFS headquarters in Silver Spring, MD serving as acting senior scientist for NOAA Fisheries, informed Kessler of the trawl warp situation.
He did not ask the court for a delay in implementing Amendment 13, but he did say that "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."
Delay sought
Congressional members, on the other hand, have been far bolder.
On Oct. 7, Delahunt came out ahead of the pack and called for a "suspension on new fisheries restrictions until federal officials resolve problems relating to the collection of scientific data."
Delahunt said, "When restrictions - even harsh restrictions - are necessary to sustain fish stocks, you've got to take that medicine, but only when it's credible policy based on sound science.
"Given the documented shortcomings of the trawling research, the only sensible course for now is to pause for a deep breath and review the methodology so we know how far off course things really may be," said the congressman.
Sen. Collins brought the matter to a whole new level when she introduced legislation on Oct. 11 to "prevent restrictive groundfishing regulations in Amendment 13 from being implemented for two years." This, she said, should be enough time to allow the center and NMFS to "determine the reliability of the data on which to base future regulations."
However, at press time, Congress had recessed for the Nov. 5 elections. Reports indicated that Collins' bill, called "The Fisheries Management Fairness Act," probably wouldn't reach the Senate floor until next year.
Some observers pointed out, however, that Congress would be back for at least one lame duck session following the election to act on an omnibus appropriations bill. Typically such bills become vehicles for other legislation.
Mayors ask, too
The mayors of two major fishing ports - John Bell of Gloucester and Fred Kalisz of New Bedford - submitted their own Oct. 9 plea to Sens. Kennedy and Kerry, asking them to pursue a "legislatively mandated delay in regulatory action until 2005."
The mayors said they appreciated the Massachusetts delegation's support for the task force, but they also encouraged the senators to adopt the Northeast Seafood Coalition recommendations, "which call for both a legislatively mandated delay and comprehensive scientific program to address both 'trawlgate'" (as the Albatross problem is commonly called) "and other scientific issues."
Many fishermen had hoped NMFS would go to the judge first - before industry and before Congress - to seek the delay, especially since Kessler was aware of the problem as a result of Sissenwine's declaration.
But if NMFS doesn't approach the court in a timely fashion, the industry is ready to act.
"From our perspective, if there are real problems, we're not afraid to go back and tell her," said attorney David Frulla, who represents the Associated Fisheries of Maine Groundfish Group and the Trawlers Survival Fund as defendant-intervenors in the lawsuit.
What next?
The New England council meeting in Gloucester seemed destined to be the next major event in this continuing calamity.
According to groundfish plan coordinator Tom Nies, the discussions will take place over two days - Wednesday, Nov. 6 and Thursday, Nov. 7.
On Wednesday, the council will receive a presentation from the science center about the Albatross observation cruise and workshop, and then another center presentation on updated groundfish stock assessments.
On Thursday, the council will focus on Amendment 13, though the morning might involve some debate about lingering issues from the day before.
More information about Amendment 13 is available on the council's web site at www.nefmc.org.
What fishermen saw on the Albatross IV
"While the gear was on deck, we observed the aluminum cans on the head rope had flat spots worn in them. This is caused by these cans getting stuck under the footrope during deployment and being dragged along the bottom.
"Sure enough, on the first station we go to, the gear was deployed with two cans in the wing stuck under the footrope. We waited until they started setting the doors and it was obvious they were going to set it as is. Then we stopped them and had them bring (the gear) back in and fix it.
"This is a serious concern to us because it affects the net's catch rate significantly."
- Bud Fernandes, commercial fisherman, Maine,
New England Fishery Management Council member
"(At a 4' cable offset), you could visibly watch (on the videotape) the wing shift back as the center of the net that normally goes through the water in a U-shape now started to take on the characteristics of an L.
"At a 6' offset, the net's distortion was substantial and we all felt its fishing efficiency was substantially compromised. The slacked back wing was having a hard time making bottom contact, and the twine was creating a half-tunnel effect. On the stable wing, the rollers were dramatically plowing through the bottom, trailing a large cloud of dust, and the twine showed even further folding and distortion.
"At the 12' setback, the results would have to be considered catastrophic."
- Jim Lovgren, commercial fisherman, New Jersey,
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council member
"We thought the trawl to be abnormally light. Door-to-door distance of hardware, including backstraps, legs, and sweep, was established at 152'. We thought that maximum bottom contact throughout this distance was only 10', just on the 19 rollers in the middle of the sweep.
"There was no shine observed on the legs or hardware where shine would normally be found. Because the trawl is so light, we thought it to be unusually prone to distortion caused by wire offsets.
"The lightness of the trawl raised a host of other issues, including its ability to catch various species, size selectivity, etc. The point was raised that the trawl may be so inefficient that it cannot supply large enough samples to make accurate measurements."
- Matt Stommel, commercial fisherman, Massachusetts
