1 catchabil ity. So, what that means to the fish--I mean, if you ever beat 



2 on an aquarium-- 



3 DR. HECKER: They didn't get any? 



4 DR. AURAND: Not if you were trying to prove to the fishermen we 



5 weren't causing a big problem, but in any case, there was no significant 



6 difference in aggregation of the rock fish plumes after whatever period 



7 of time they tested it for, I don't remember, but there was a 



8 significant impact on catchabil ity. 



9 We are now trying to figure out how to study that, which is 



10 turning out to be a real treat. It wasn't so much on aggregation as it 



11 was a continuous-- 



12 DR. TEAL: As I remember it, the way they did that study, they 



13 steamed around rock fish aggregation with this seismic thing. 



14 DR. AURAND: Continually beating at them. 



15 DR. TEAL: Yes. It wasn't as though they were doing a seismic 

 15 line. They really beat on them. 



17 DR. AURAND: It was sort of a worst case trial. 



18 DR. TEAL: It was much worse than the worst case. 



19 DR. AURAND: We did. 



20 MS. HUGHES: The other part of that was that there was some 



21 measure of scattering. 



22 DR. AURAND: Yes, but they recovered. 



23 MS. HUGHES: But they ran out of money and didn't get back to 



24 actually take a look. After a period of time had gone by, did they 



25 actually come back to aggregate? As I remember the presentation- - 



26 DR. AURAND: I'm not sure that's right. The part we couldn't 



27 follow up on was whether they would recover from being able to catch 



28 them, because there was no significant difference on the aggregation, if 



29 I remember it correctly, and I haven't read all of the report. 



30 DR. TEAL: It wasn't a very well -designed study. 



31 MS. HUGHES 



32 DR. AURAND 



33 MS. HUGHES 



Right. I guess the gist of it is, it's not-- 



Well, we never expected to see an impact. 



We shouldn't reference it as necessarily something 



34 that provides us with a-- 



273 



