Legislature(2007 - 2008)BARNES 124
03/09/2007 08:30 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Noaa, U.s. Coast Guard Vessel and Ocean Monitoring Systems | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 9, 2007
8:38 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Lindsey Holmes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: NOAA, U.S. COAST GUARD VESSEL AND OCEAN MONITORING
SYSTEMS
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
MICHAEL GONZALES, Deputy Special Agent
Office of Law Enforcement
Alaska Enforcement Division
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation on the
Vessel Monitoring System (VMS).
GUY HOLT, Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) Program Manager
Enforcement Division
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During presentation, answered questions.
ARTHUR E. "GENE" BROOKS, Rear Admiral, Commander
District 17
Joint Forces Maritime Component Commander, Alaska
United States Coast Guard
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed VMS and the automatic
identification system (AIS).
RACHAEL POTTER
Institute of Marine Sciences
University of Alaska - Fairbanks (UAF)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a presentation regarding the
surface current mapping Alaska using high-frequency radar.
SUSAN SAUPE, Director of Science and Research
Cook Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory Council (CIRCAC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the relationship between surface
current mapping and the mandates of CIRCAC.
STEPHANIE MADSEN, Chairman
North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the committee with a brief
overview regarding NPFMC's position on VMS.
CARTER HUGHES, Commercial Fisherman
Pelican, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with VMS.
MATT DONAHOE, Commercial Fisherman
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with VMS.
JOHN MURRAY
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with VMS.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:38:52 AM. Representatives
Edgmon and Wilson were present at the call to order.
^OVERVIEW: NOAA, U.S. COAST GUARD VESSEL AND OCEAN MONITORING
SYSTEMS
8:39:02 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the only order of business would be
a presentation by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration regarding U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) vessels and
ocean monitoring systems.
8:40:26 AM
MICHAEL GONZALES, Deputy Special Agent, Office of Law
Enforcement, Alaska Enforcement Division, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), began by mentioning that he
has been an employee of NOAA for almost 24 years. He called
attention to the committee packet information, which included a
page from the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC)
February 2007 newsletter and the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) Fisheries Report No. 761 of the United
Nations dated October 25-27, 2004. The FAO Fisheries Report, in
part, provides a global perspective on vessel monitoring and how
it's applied. He noted that all of the aforementioned material,
including the PowerPoint will be on a CD that will be provided
to the committee.
8:44:45 AM
MR. GONZALES turned to his PowerPoint titled, "Vessel Monitoring
System Overview." He informed the committee that in U.S. waters
there are approximately 3.5 million square miles of ocean under
stewardship. The NOAA Office for Law Enforcement handles about
37 statutes related to conservation and ocean stewardship.
Furthermore, the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement employs 260
personnel, in 6 divisional offices and 59 field offices to
accomplish this task.
8:45:56 AM
MR. GONZALES, in response to Chair Seaton, highlighted that
around the coast of the US there are a variety of coastal state
conservation agencies with whom the NOAA Fisheries Office for
Law Enforcement is in formal arrangements that have resulted in
cooperative enforcement agreements with nearly every coastal
state. A cooperative enforcement agreement is the means by
which the Alaska State Troopers, the California Department Fish
& Game wardens, et cetera are deputized and thus are allowed to
enforce federal fishery conservation laws as stipulated under
various acts. In order to accomplish the aforementioned, NOAA
has provided funding in the amount of approximately $15 million
per year for the last 5 years. The NOAA Fisheries Office for
Law Enforcement has had five agreements with Alaska that has
amounted to about $1-$1.7 million to the Department of Public
Safety to fund the public safety technician program, rebuild
aircraft engines, procure patrol boats, and basically for
salaries, equipment, and repair. He noted that the same is in
place in many other states.
8:49:33 AM
MR. GONZALES continued with the slide titled "What is VMS?" He
explained that VMS is a fisheries monitoring system that
predominately utilizes a secure shipboard
navigation/communication hardware and satellites to provide
land-based fishery managers with near real-time position and
activity reports specific to individual vessels. This allows
the persons on shore with real-time position and activity
information on each specific vessel. He noted that VMS is a
secure and reliable system that uses satellites and a land earth
station that receives the satellite data. There is then a
secure transmission from a land earth station to a monitoring
center.
8:51:23 AM
MR. GONZALES then moved on to the slide titled "Where is VMS?"
He pointed out that VMS is in use by fishery management
authorities in nearly every coastal nation in the world. Less
developed countries have formed cooperatives because
individually they don't have the expertise or the funds for
these monitoring centers. The aforementioned is the case in the
Central Pacific. States, nations, subregional, and regional
organizations have adopted the use of VMS to meet their
stewardship responsibilities such that these entities are able
to encourage, develop, and maintain fisheries as well as to have
responsible oversight of the fisheries.
8:55:05 AM
MR. GONZALES, referring to the slides titled "What Does VMS Do?"
pointed out that VMS enhances management and enforcement in a
cost effective manner. Furthermore, VMS provides continual
information about the location and activities of a fishing fleet
at a fraction of the cost. He then highlighted that VMS deters
unauthorized fishing and provides documentation, such that
credible enforcement of a management scheme can be provided.
The VMS data allows certain documentation that assists NOAA
Office of Law Enforcement when investigating and prosecuting a
violator. Moreover, VMS provides a great tool in planning how a
patrol will be prosecuted. Furthermore, VMS assists in
conducting effective dockside inspections.
8:58:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if there is the capability to take a
picture of a vessel fishing in an unauthorized area.
MR. GONZALES replied yes. A vessel with VMS uploads a data
position approximately every hour and it's plotted on a screen
and is saved. Therefore, if a vessel enters a no transit zone,
for example, it will be tracked. The result would be alerts
generated by the software so that follow-up action can be taken.
Returning to his PowerPoint, Mr. Gonzales related that some
vessel owners view VMS as an affordable and secure way to
communicate with the fishery management authority as well as the
vessel owner's home base.
9:00:41 AM
CHAIR SEATON related his understanding that there are several
different [VMS] systems, one of which is a black box while
others are tied into the vessel's computer.
MR. GONZALES replied yes. Continuing with his PowerPoint, Mr.
Gonzales highlighted the slide relating that "VMS can
potentially free certain vessel operators from improper
accusations of wrongdoing." However, he pointed out that VMS
simply documents activity.
9:02:38 AM
MR. GONZALES then turned to the slide titled "What Does VMS
Cost?" He pointed out that the initial acquisition cost amounts
to up to $1,750 and installation ranges up to $500. On average,
there is an approximately $75 per month communication cost. In
response to Chair Seaton, Mr. Gonzales confirmed that there have
been decreases in the costs of hardware and communication since
the program's inception in 1988. Furthermore, the acquisition
costs can be offset by a reimbursement program.
CHAIR SEATON related his understanding that the fleet has been
concerned that once VMS is on board it can't be shut off and the
ongoing monthly cost continues even when the vessel is in port.
He then asked if all of the systems cost in the $75 range or
does it depend on the base equipment.
9:05:30 AM
MR. GONZALES clarified that a vessel using the system only to
provide an hourly position report would result in the lowest
cost. However, those systems used for communication access
between a management authority or the vessel's home base have
greater costs. The $75 is an average cost, he said. He related
that an international view illustrates that there are different
approaches. For example, Australia, as the managing authority,
pays for the communication costs. He mentioned that Australia's
particular approach was arrived at in large part due to its
legal system.
9:07:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired as to whether an old wooden boat
with outdated electronic systems would need to be rewired to
handle VMS.
MR. GONZALES said that although he couldn't speak specifically
to the wiring, he has observed installation of VMS on vessels of
various age, shape, and size and it wasn't difficult. He noted
that VMS has basic requirements for unobscured antennae
placement. Depending upon the management authority under which
a vessel falls, it may require an uninterrupted power supply,
even dockside. He noted that in the U.S. there is VMS in which
there are explicit instructions with regard to scenarios in
which these devices can be powered down.
9:10:34 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that the crux of the question is whether
these devices can operate on a 12 volt battery or require a
generator.
MR. GONZALES responded that he doesn't know.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed out that the annual fee is also a
concern and the $75 monthly cost amounts to $900 per year. She
inquired as to the cost of the system if it's not used for
telephone calls.
9:11:25 AM
GUY HOLT, Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) Program Manager,
Enforcement Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), returned to an earlier question, and
relayed that VMS is basically on the same level electronically
as an onboard color plotter or GPS. He specified that VMS
doesn't take excess power and thus shouldn't be of concern.
With regard to costs, it depends upon the vendors as there are
three different vendors of the equipment. He informed the
committee that the cost estimates Chair Seaton recalled were for
a system that is no longer available for purchase, and therefore
the cost estimates reflect what can currently be purchased. The
cost estimates average $75 per month, depending upon
communication. Most of those systems have a method by which the
system can be turned off resulting in a reduced monthly fee of
say, $10 per month. He mentioned that the range of cost could
go as low as $50 for just positioning activity.
9:13:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired as to who will make repairs and
how repairs will be handled on the fishing grounds.
MR. HOLT stated that enforcement actions are performed on a
case-by-case basis. He opined that no one has been stopped from
fishing, although once in port the system may be required to be
fixed before leaving port. He related that NOAA doesn't become
involved with who makes the repairs, although he noted that the
vendors do have [retailers] in Southeast. Although it's
incumbent upon the fishermen to ensure VMS is working, NOAA
hasn't been Draconian in its approach.
CHAIR SEATON surmised then that these systems are sold by local
radar and electronic shops who could install, repair, and honor
warranties.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired as to how long the equipment is
going to last.
MR. HOLT said that a number of the Argos (ph) units have been in
use since 2000/2001. He mentioned that another brand has lasted
for about five years plus. Depending upon the system, parts
such as the antennae can be replaced and the electronic portion
stays in tact. He noted that Argos, since they are no longer
available for purchase offered a lifetime warranty. In further
response to Representative Wilson, specified that only the first
replacement is provided. He explained that the reimbursement
program is funded year-to-year, although the expectation is for
the program to be fully funded through 2009.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired as to how long between the time
the fisherman puts out his/her money for the initial system and
when he/she is reimbursed.
MR. HOLT said he couldn't answer that. However, he offered that
after activation, the fisherman must purchase it, provide
documentation, and activate it through NOAA. After the
aforementioned, the paperwork is provided to the specific
state's marine fisheries which provides the check for
reimbursement. Mr. Holt related that he hasn't heard any
remarks with regard to how long it takes, but he also hasn't
heard any complaints.
CHAIR SEATON requested that further information be provided to
the committee.
9:17:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON, referring to page 5 of the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), February 2007 document,
highlighted the sentence stating that NPFMC decided to postpone
indefinitely any further work on a comprehensive VMS program.
He noted that he was one of many legislators requesting that
NPFMC discontinue that work due to the concerns with regard to
the impacts on smaller vessels. He related that he is lost with
regard to the overall intent of the program.
MR. GONZALES said that the aforementioned NPFMC document
referred to a comprehensive VMS program, which reflects a
different approach to the implementation of VMS. The approach
in the fisheries in Alaska had been to identify within the
waters of the state, those areas for which vessel monitoring was
a key feature to measure compliance within that fishery. The
program was being applied on a fishery-by-fishery basis, which
he indicated was a formidable task. What was then reviewed was
the approach used throughout the world, which is to apply vessel
monitoring to all participants in commercial fisheries as a
base-line requirement. Under that requirement, there are
exceptions such as those related to tonnage requirements and
certain area operations. The aforementioned is how the
comprehensive plans are put into place and that's the track
NPFMC followed. He noted that there were a large number of
exemptions. As the newsletter describes, NPFMC halted that
practice. However, at no time was there an expectation that a
small vessel would be required to carry VMS as there would be
exemptions specified.
9:23:12 AM
CHAIR SEATON surmised then that the two approaches are:
identifying the fisheries with problems that need monitoring and
requiring VMS; requiring the entire fleet as a general provision
to have VMS with some exemptions.
MR. GONZALES noted his agreement.
9:24:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON opined that enforcement and compliance
would be the overriding feature of VMS with the secondary
purpose of navigation and safety.
MR. GONZALES concurred.
9:24:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON called attention to a letter from [Charles
Piedra], which suggests including exemptions for the following:
all federal fisheries permit holders with less than 5,000 pounds
individual fishery quota (IFQ), all Alaska licensed salmon
gillnet boats, all Alaska licensed salmon seine vessels, all
Alaska licensed small fishing vessels fishing in state waters,
and all Alaska Native small boat fishermen with incomes less
than the national poverty level.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that NPFMC has placed the system on hold.
9:26:12 AM
MR. GONZALES returned to his presentation, and drew attention to
the slides titled "Summary of Benefits" and "Summary of Benefits
to Industry." He highlighted that VMS allows enforcement
related agencies improved surveillance. Furthermore, VMS builds
in efficiency with regard to responding to identified problem
areas. The VMS also increases safety for the Coast Guard as
well as the industry. He noted that there are owners who track
the location of their vessels from their own computer. Mr.
Gonzales emphasized that VMS lengthens and broadens the fishing
opportunity. He then expressed the need for there to be control
mechanisms in place in order to ensure confidence that a
responsible fishing effort is occurring.
9:30:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON surmised then that charter fishermen will
likely not be included in this requirement.
MR. GONZALES answered that it remains to be seen and will be
part of NPFMC's process. He reminded the committee that the
comprehensive VMS program is currently on hold indefinitely.
9:30:57 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that NOAA doesn't set the policy, but
rather enforces the policy. He noted his appreciation of Mr.
Gonzales' insight regarding how the system functions.
CHAIR SEATON announced that the committee would now receive a
presentation regarding the automatic identification system.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:32 a.m. to 9:36 a.m.
9:36:59 AM
ARTHUR E. "GENE" BROOKS, Rear Admiral, Commander, District 17,
Joint Forces Maritime Component Commander, Alaska, United States
Coast Guard, informed the committee that he is responsible for
all of the Coast Guard operations in Alaska. He further
informed the committee that he has been in the Coast Guard for
32.5 years and in Alaska since last May. Rear Admiral Brooks
remarked that most of his adult life has been spent either
regulating or rescuing fishermen. Some time ago, he said he
became tired of pulling the dead from the water. Rear Admiral
Brooks told the committee that he is present today to discuss
the automatic identification system (AIS), which is a completely
different system than VMS. The Coast Guard utilizes both AIS
and VMS. The Coast Guard's primary law enforcement mission in
Alaska is fisheries, unlike in other areas where the Coast
Guard's mission involves drugs and migrants.
9:38:52 AM
CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee that it's reviewing these
applications in relation to fisheries issues only, not security
issues.
9:39:26 AM
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS began his presentation with the slide titled
"What is AIS?" He informed the committee that AIS developed as
a Safety of Life At Sea (SOLAS) requirement by the International
Maritime Organization (IMO) and is internationally imposed on
vessels 300 tons or larger. He explained that AIS is an
autonomous, continuous station-to-station navigation
broadcasting system that essentially provides vessel position,
course, and speed. The standards are imposed to address vessel
safety, collision avoidance, and to aide vessels in avoiding
accidental groundings or collisions. In the Maritime
Transportation & Safety Act of 2002 (MTSA) Congress mandated
that the following vessels must have an AIS: all commercial
self-propelled vessels 65 feet or greater, towing vessels over
26 feet with 600 horse power or more, passenger vessels as
determined by USCG, and those USCG deems necessary for safety.
However, MTSA provided exemptions for commercial fishing vessels
and a number of other [types of vessels].
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS announced that the USCG intends to go
forward with a notice of proposed rule-making to impose the 2005
requirement for AIS on all commercial vessels 65 feet and
greater, including fishing vessels. The AIS requirement will
also be imposed on vessels 26 feet and greater and with more
than 600 horse power, vessels carrying 50 passengers or more,
high-speed vessels carrying 12 passengers or more, as well as
dredges and floating plants. This requirement is being put in
place for safety and security. One of the goals of AIS, he
related, is to provide awareness of who's on the water.
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS explained that essentially AIS is a mobile
identifier that transmits position, course, speed, heading, rate
of turn, the IMO number, and the Convention on the International
Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREG) navigation
data number every two to ten seconds. Every six minutes or so,
the vessel name and call sign, type and dimensions, static
draft, hazardous cargo flag, and destination and estimated time
of arrival is relayed. The current regulation [33 CFR 164.46]
exempts fishing vessels and provides special requirements, and
therefore is the regulation that the USCG will look to change in
the rule-making process. Essentially, the USCG is seeking to
remove an exception that has been in existence since 2005.
9:43:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if data regarding the type of vessel
and such is input into AIS when it is installed on the vessel.
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS replied yes. He highlighted that commercial
vessels always use systems such as AIS because they need to know
the location of their vessels and the cargo on the vessel. He
noted that commercial vessels may change voyage orders in
transit. Therefore, this requirement wasn't difficult for the
commercial vessels.
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS then turned the committee's attention to the
slide of the side-by-side comparison of AIS and VMS. The
primary difference between the two is that VMS is a satellite
system while AIS is a VHF-FM system that's limited to line of
site coverage. Therefore, one's ability to see an AIS
transmission depends on whether he/she has an antennae that can
see the vessel. The reality is that all fishing vessels out on
the 100 fathom bank or slime bank are beyond the range of any
AIS antennae since the antennae only reaches 30 miles or so.
The large difference between the two systems is that AIS
currently doesn't work offshore because there has to be a
receiving antennae to accept the signal. However, VMS works
offshore because it's a satellite-based system. He pointed out
that AIS is an IMO system that the US has implemented while VMS
is a US-based system run by NOAA and NPFMC. He highlighted that
AIS is for SOLAS while VMS is for fisheries management.
Furthermore, AIS has no confidentiality as anyone with an
antennae can accept the signal, but VMS is a closed confidential
system due to the proprietary nature of the fishing information.
He then pointed out that AIS is a self-reporting system while
VMS is an interrogated system.
9:46:11 AM
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS addressed the cost of AIS, which he
estimated to be between $1,700 to $3,500 for the AIS equipment.
He highlighted that for AIS there's no continuous service fee.
The USCG intends to provide a reasonable implementation period
of the new requirement. Rear Admiral Brooks moved on to the
slide titled "Benefits of VMS." He said that VMS allows an
instant focus as to who needs to be monitored versus the
existing 20-mile radar sweep by the cutters that doesn't locate
violators. He characterized VMS as an important enforcement
tool.
9:48:51 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if foreign fleets, say the Russian fleet,
fishing near U.S. waters are required to utilize VMS.
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS answered that the Russians have a very
viable VMS, but the U.S. doesn't have access to Russia's VMS
data and can't share the U.S. VMS data with Russia. Therefore,
[foreign fleets] have to be monitored via aircraft and vessels.
He pointed out that Alaska is one of the last places with a
fishery large enough for people to want to come and steal, and
thus one of the USCG's major missions is to monitor the
boundaries and keep foreigners out of U.S. fishing grounds.
9:50:44 AM
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS, referring to the slide titled "VMS Uses in
Alaska," emphasized that VMS wasn't designed to be a safety
tool. He then discussed search and rescue situations in which
the emergency position indicating radio beacon (EPIRB) is
utilized. Use of the EPIRB is the primary way that vessels are
located. However, the beacon may not deploy or the beacon may
go down with the ship and doesn't work under water/ice.
Furthermore, sometimes the EPIRB is incomplete in that it merely
provides an alert without a position as there wasn't enough data
in the transmission to the satellite and then it takes an hour
to three hours more for the satellite to uplink again and
provide positioning. The other major difficulty is that over 90
percent of alarms emitted from beacons are false. However, VMS
solves all of those problems because it specifies the location
of a vessel and thus provides instant corroborating information.
Rear Admiral Brooks also pointed out that the satellites are
also problematic because they often provide two locations and
only one of which is accurate and thus it requires work to
determine the accurate location. The VMS also solves the
aforementioned. He then recalled the automated merchant vessel
emergency reporting system (AMVER), which was a voluntary system
in which merchant vessels around the world relayed their
location to the USCG. The AMVER system was used exclusively for
a search and rescue system and allows the USCG to contact a
nearby vessel and divert it to the vessel in distress. He
highlighted that most of the rescues in Alaska are performed by
other fishermen and good Samaritans as they can arrive faster
than USCG. The VMS allows the USCG to know the vessels located
near the vessel in distress. Furthermore, in a situation in
which a vessel goes down or is overdue, VMS provides a last
known position and provides a place to start the search that
wouldn't be available with VMS or some like system.
9:55:40 AM
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS related his pleasure in the fact that to
this point there have been no deaths in the crab fleet this
season. He attributed the aforementioned partially to
rationalization, which has resulted in fewer boats over a longer
period of time and thus the vessels don't have to go out in bad
weather. Furthermore, in conjunction with the state, the USCG
performs mandatory safety checks on the crab fleet prior to
leaving and those vessels which left prior to the safety
inspection can be located with the use of VMS. He opined that
the main reason that there have been no deaths in the crab fleet
is due to good decisions by skippers.
9:57:20 AM
CHAIR SEATON surmised that AIS is required in vessel traffic
system areas.
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS specified that AIS is required in all US
waters.
CHAIR SEATON recalled that there were exemptions to the AIS
requirement.
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS explained that currently USCG relies on AIS
for vessels 200 tons or greater. He noted that the USCG knows
the location of all commercial vessels, such as cruise ships,
because they are routinely reporting their location. The
question is in regard to all other vessels. The situation is
similar to what the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has
experienced with small aircraft.
CHAIR SEATON surmised then that the new regulations will apply
to all commercial fishing vessels over 65 feet in length.
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS explained that the proposal USCG is going
forward with will, among other things, remove the exception for
commercial fishing vessels 65 feet in length or greater. He
said that he couldn't answer whether a VMS equipped vessel would
be compliant, although he assumed so.
10:00:06 AM
CHAIR SEATON related his understanding that a commercial fishing
vessel 65 feet in length or over operating in a vessel transient
area, such as the eastern half of the Prince William Sound, was
required to have AIS.
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS indicated his agreement, noting that Prince
William Sound has a vessel tracking systems (VTS). In places in
which there are historic problems with close traffic, such as in
Valdez, Prince William Sound, and Puget Sound, there are shore-
based radar vessel traffic systems that physically monitor and
manage the movement of large vessels to prevent collisions.
CHAIR SEATON surmised, "If that exemption would be limited, then
the same requirements would be for all vessels, commercial
fishing vessels 65 [feet in length] and over, whether they're
inside or outside of a vessel's traffic."
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS responded, "I think so."
10:01:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired as to why the decision was made
to keep AIS rather than have new entrants install VMS.
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS pointed out that VMS is not a universal
requirement. On the other hand, the USCG believes it has a
universal requirement, which is what he speculated to be the
reason to go forward with [AIS].
CHAIR SEATON admitted to confining his fishing to the western
side of Prince William Sound to avoid having to install an AIS.
10:03:43 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there is a reimbursement possibility under
AIS.
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS said that he didn't know and that he's
present to relay that he would expect notice soon that the USCG
is going forward with notice of proposed rule-making to
essentially move the requirement down to 65 feet for AIS.
CHAIR SEATON expressed his gratitude to the USCG for providing
this clarity.
10:05:47 AM
RACHAEL POTTER, Institute of Marine Sciences, University of
Alaska - Fairbanks (UAF), explained that UAF is utilizing a
high-frequency radar system to map surface currents around the
state. The surface currents are the top layers of the ocean
waters. The technology allows the production of maps in real
time that relate the direction in which the surface waters are
moving and how quickly the waters are moving. She likened the
technology to that used by policemen when tracking vehicles.
MS. POTTER, referring to the slide titled "Why Measure Ocean
Currents?" pointed out that knowing where surface water is
moving and the rate at which it's moving has implications with
regard to spill response planning, search and rescue, marine
navigation, marine ecosystem/fisheries issues, currents
transport heat, nutrients, fish larvae, current affect climate
and weather. All these issues require measurements in near
real-time over a large area. Moving to the slide titled
"Measuring Ocean Currents," Ms. Potter explained that the moored
current meter is placed on the bottom of the ocean and it looks
up through the water column to relay how fast water is moving at
that point. She noted that ocean currents have also been
measured by satellite-tracked drifters, which provides only a
snapshot in time and is very dependent upon the current weather
conditions. Therefore, it may not be indicative of a long-term
average. The high frequency radar allows the measurement of
currents in a broad spatial area and returns data via satellite
hourly and the university posts an image on the Internet hourly.
She mentioned that this is a shore-based operation in which a
transmit antenna sends a signal across the ocean at a certain
frequency that is returned to the receive antenna. Although the
system needs to be calibrated on board a ship, it can be setup
within a day, she related. Ms. Potter drew attention to the
slide titled "HF Radar Theory," which illustrates how the
technology works.
MS. POTTER, moving on to the slide titled "Upper Cook Inlet,"
which illustrates that a monitoring system was set up in the
Upper Cook Inlet in 2002-2003. The [mapping] illustrates that
the waters are mainly moving southward and that there's a
stronger current through the middle of Cook Inlet. Ms. Potter
noted that this system was funded by the Coastal Marine
Institute. The next slide shows the mapping done in Prince
William Sound in 2004-2006. The largest challenge in Prince
William Sound was that the system was remotely powered by wind,
and other methods. She noted that they had to adhere to U.S.
Forest Service regulations since it was located on their land.
Ms. Potter highlighted that the system in Prince William Sound
was the beginning of an ocean observing system for Alaska, as it
was one of the first components to provide operational real-time
data. In 2005 a long range system monitored the Gulf of Alaska,
funded by the Tsunami Warning and Environmental Observatory.
That system illustrates the range of currents that can be
obtained offshore. The slide titled "Beaufort Sea" illustrates
the findings of the system in Prudhoe Bay. The Minerals
Management Service funded the 2005-2006 Beaufort Sea monitor as
it was interested in improving its oil spill risk analysis
models. She then pointed out that in 2006-2007 a system was
located in the Lower Cook Inlet. The system spans the entire
inlet, but is dependent on the stage of the tide cycle. This
system was also funded by the Minerals Management Service. She
moved on to the slide titled "Overlay Currents and
Temperatures," which relates the surface currents and sea
surface temperatures. The counter clockwise motion in the
middle of Prince William Sound causes an upwelling of the cooler
waters from the subsurface. Therefore, the current data
provides information regarding temperature gradients.
10:15:45 AM
MS. POTTER moved on to the slide titled "Overlay Currents and
Sea Ice," which highlights that measurements can be taken in
ice. She noted that [UAF] is currently coordinating with CODAR
Ocean Sensors who manufactures this instrument in order to
develop algorithms to also obtain ice velocities, which should
help with marine navigation in icy waters as the movement of the
ice could also be known. Referring to the slide titled "Why
Measure Ocean Currents?" Ms. Potter reminded the committee that
these instruments are in use worldwide. She noted that these
instruments can measure wave properties, such as wave height and
length. Ms. Potter concluded her presentation by thanking
everyone for their interest and inviting everyone to log onto
www.cookinletcurrents.com to see information on the Cook Inlet
currents.
MS. POTTER, in response to Chair Seaton, stated that for the
Lower Cook Inlet this information has been available since
November 2006 and will be in place until November 2007. She
noted that it's the only operational system as the systems in
other locations have run out of funding.
10:17:47 AM
MS. POTTER, in continued response to Chair Seaton, confirmed
that the information is updated hourly. Furthermore, every
hours worth of data since November 2006 is housed on the
Internet. Much of the data analysis is continuing. At this
point there are average maps for the seasons, although they
haven't been placed on line. The models are being created by
the Minerals Management Service and the university doesn't take
part in that. In further response to Chair Seaton, Ms. Potter
specified that the overlay with the temperature and currents can
be accessed through the Alaska Ocean Observing System (AOOS)
website, www.aoos.org. She related her understanding that
currently AOOS displays the surface currents as well as the
temperatures and is working on technology to overlay the two.
10:20:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked whether there are any forthcoming
efforts to apply this technology in Southwest Alaska, near the
Bering Sea.
MS. POTTER replied no.
10:20:32 AM
CHAIR SEATON inquired as to the cost of this program for a year.
MS. POTTER specified that the hardware itself costs about
$300,000 and she estimated that the operational costs are about
$150,000 per year. In further response to Chair Seaton, Ms.
Potter clarified that the [university] owns the equipment and
thus basically the operational costs are what need to be
covered.
10:21:58 AM
SUSAN SAUPE, Director of Science and Research, Cook Inlet
Regional Citizens Advisory Council (CIRCAC), provided the
following testimony:
You might be familiar with Cook Inlet RCAC ... formed
under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and we were given
a list of mandated tasks that relate directly to crude
oil operations in Cook Inlet. Our board of directors
is represented by 13 entities, one of which is
commercial fisheries in Cook Inlet as well we are
represented by aquaculture on one of our seats, and
that is retained by the Cook Inlet Aquaculture
Association, right now. So, we do have definite
interest in the work that we do and how it ties with
fisheries issues. One specific mandate that relates
to what you're talking about today, surface current
mapping, is in ... Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) to
study wind and water currents and other environmental
variables that affect our ability to prevent, respond
to, or cleanup oil spills. And this was the big
mandate as well as our task to conduct a comprehensive
environmental monitoring program in Cook Inlet and
surrounding areas [which] has led us to identify
physical oceanography as ... a very high priority in
our strategic plan. And the projects under this
program include data collections or observations as
well as the development of better forecast or
trajectory models, preferable assimilation models that
can incorporate real-time observations. And that's
what really ties in with what we're talking about
here, is very few instruments out there can provide
you with real-time measurements over a large area. As
with many of our programs, we work closely with
federal and state agencies and other organizations to
leverage funds and build more robust programs and
projects. So, we are currently working with several
organizations to develop an ocean observing system for
Cook Inlet and surrounding areas that fits into a
larger Gulf of Alaska plan. As we are working very
closely with the Alaska observing system.
10:25:07 AM
MS. SAUPE continued:
I'm going to try to address some of the needs that
they've [AOOS] identified for surface current
measurements. The Alaska Ocean Observing System, or
AOOS, has provided needs assessments for ocean
observation throughout coastal Alaska, including
separate needs assessments for Prince William Sound,
Cook Inlet, Kodiak, Southeast Alaska, the Bering Sea,
and the Arctic. They've separated out their strategic
plan into regional areas: the Arctic, the Bering and
Aleutians, and the Gulf of Alaska. And then within
each of these, for example within the Gulf of Alaska
there will be smaller areas that have observing
systems, such as a Cook Inlet, or Kodiak, or Prince
William Sound, or Southeast Plan. And then all of
those integrate into a larger Gulf plan. But, through
this assessment, AOOS prioritize the development of
high frequency radars for surface current measurements
in the Gulf of Alaska that can track the Alaska
coastal current in its counter clockwise path around
the Gulf, that can provide circulation detail for
Central Prince William Sound gyros to monitor the
seasonal influence of the Alaska coastal current and
the western boundary current on Cook Inlet, and even
be able to resolve Cook Inlet rip zones that could
vastly improve our understanding of those complex
circulation patterns. From the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Island areas, AOOS identified a need for
deploying several long-range high frequency radar
mappers at post points. For example, the Bering
Strait, the Aleutians Strait in circulations and major
fishing grounds. This information will enhance
fisheries and ecosystem information collection and
data presentations by expanding the area covered by
surveys .... The benefit of the ... radar systems for
measuring surface currents is that they provide real-
time measurements of circulation patterns over large
areas and they can be deployed to measure at a range
of resolutions. ... In relation to fisheries issues,
the improved knowledge of coastal circulation will
improve our ability to understand, model, and forecast
future circulation patterns. We all know that near-
shore coastal areas are extremely important to certain
life stages of many commercially harvested finfish and
shellfish species. These coastal currents carry
larvae, eggs, dissolve them, ... food from one area to
areas downstream. High frequency radars can help us
monitor, in basically real-time, the physical movement
of surface layer that is so important to many
biological processes. And finally, given our OPA '90
mandates, I can't stop without touching on the fact
that by improving our ability to track or predict oil
movement in the event of a large oil spill in Alaska,
we can better protect near-shore habitats that are
essential for future healthy fisheries. We believe
that high frequency radar surface current mappers can
provide us with information that can vastly improve
our understanding of Alaska's complex coastal currents
and that can help to improve our ability to model and
predict oil spill trajectories, which will thus
improve our ability to pre-plan and respond to spill
oil.
10:29:52 AM
STEPHANIE MADSEN, Chairman, North Pacific Fishery Management
Council (NPFMC), informed the committee that the topic of VMS
was discussed at the February 2007 meeting of NPFMC. The
council was concerned about the number of exemptions being
crafted in response to public comment and asked the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) enforcement and the USCG to
readdress the issue to minimize the need for these exemptions.
She indicated that such action may result in NPFMC taking up VMS
again. Ms. Madsen explained that a comprehensive VMS document
arose when closure areas were passed for essential fish habitat
issues several years ago, VMS was required in the Aleutians, but
not elsewhere. She related that it was surprising that VMS was
going to be required in the Gulf of Alaska, and the council was
concerned. "We felt that we may not have required some of those
closures or maybe not as many of those closures had we
understood that the enforcement agencies believed that the only
way they can enforce those closures were through VMS," she
opined. Therefore, NPFMC commented on the proposed rule and
requested that the VMS requirements not be enforced. During the
discussion, there was discussion regarding the need for a
comprehensive approach.
10:32:46 AM
CARTER HUGHES, Commercial Fisherman, began by clarifying that
although he is a member of the Alaska Trollers' Association, he
is speaking on his own behalf today. Mr. Hughes opined that
NMFS and the Coast Guard don't seem to understand the small boat
perspective. He further opined that he isn't receiving any
acceptable answers with regard to cost and down time due to
repairs. He noted that many fisherman live on their vessels.
The suggested benefits don't apply to many of the fishing
vessels. Mr. Hughes said that [VMS] doesn't work for a small
private business. In fact, he said that he couldn't agree to it
unless it was fully paid for and if he could keep fishing when
it was sent for repairs. He opined that in small villages such
as Pelican there will be no way to repair VMS in a cost-
effective manner.
CHAIR SEATON related his belief that NPFMC will listen to Mr.
Hughes' concerns, many of which have been expressed by the
legislature.
10:36:29 AM
MATT DONAHOE, Commercial Fisherman, relayed that he has recently
come to understand that he will possibly be required to utilize
VMS for his small single bar fishery, which grosses less than
$10,000 on average. Contrary to earlier testimony, these
devices aren't available locally, he noted. Furthermore,
there's no one in the region who knows about repairing VMS.
Most would consider this VMS requirement as an obnoxious federal
intrusion. He expressed resentment for categorizing fishermen
as cheaters because most don't. He characterized the VMS
requirement as an Orwellian nightmare.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that the testimony wasn't that all
fishermen cheat, but that there are some cheaters.
MR. DONAHOE pointed out that the testimony was that "People
invariably cheat." He disagreed with that statement, and
specified that although some individuals may cheat, people as a
whole don't.
10:40:24 AM
JOHN MURRAY expressed the need for USCG, NOAA, and NMFS to work
with the effected fishing fleets to identify alternatives to VMS
coverage. The different gear groups in Southeast Alaska,
Eastern Gulf of Alaska are willing to develop solutions that
address the safety, scientific, and enforcement needs. He
opined that the groups could reach some common ground without
the use of VMS, which many view as intrusive, expensive, and
unnecessary. Furthermore, VMS doesn't work in the spirit of
cooperation and seems to be a sign of big government going
astray. Mr. Murray echoed Mr. Hughes' concerns with regard to
the expense of VMS for a small boat. With regard to safety, he
noted that most who fish outside the boundary lines already
carry a lot of safety gear. He then turned to enforcement and
reminded the committee that when IFQs first occurred, there was
a tremendous amount of enforcement, which doesn't seem to be the
case now. He opined that it's incumbent upon enforcement to
obtain the data necessary. He related that he will write these
agencies regarding alternatives to VMS.
10:44:32 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 10:44
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|