Legislature(2023 - 2024)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/07/2024 01:30 PM Senate LABOR & COMMERCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB191 | |
| SB209 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 191 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 209 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 209-ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF FISHING VESSELS
1:53:12 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G), Juneau, Alaska, introduced SB 209 on behalf of the
Governor, paraphrasing from the following statement:
[Original punctuation provided.]
SB209: ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF FISHING VESSELS
Senate Labor and Commerce Committee
February 7, 2024
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Commissioner Doug Vincent-Lang
Introduction
This bill authorizes the Board of Fisheries to require
electronic monitoring in a fishery and grants the
Commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game the
authority to implement the program as authorized by
the Board. This would include equipment such as video
cameras and gear sensors that capture information on
fishing location and catch. While Alaska Statutes
already provide authority for an onboard observer
program, there is no current provision in law to allow
for electronic monitoring on fishing vessels.
Electronic monitoring systems, also known as EM, offer
the potential to reduce costs while improving accuracy
and providing data in near real time when compared to
human observers. For those applicable fisheries, more
accurate and timely data will benefit our fishery
stock assessments by improving the information we use
to manage them sustainably. EM can also be used as an
enforcement tool in fisheries where mandatory
retention regulations are in place, often referred to
as bycatch.
This is a permissive statutory change. Any proposal to
require EM in one of Alaska's fisheries would have to
go through the very involved board process, including
public notice, review by the Department and local
Advisory Committees, and public comment.
Sustainable management of Alaska fisheries is required
by Alaska's constitution, and effective decision
making about Alaska's shared aquatic resources
requires accurate, timely, and cost-effective data
collection. The department supports this bill because
having the option for an electronic monitoring program
in statute adds another important tool into the
toolbox for us to use in managing Alaska's fisheries.
1:55:48 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG added that currently, the only option
the Board of Fisheries has is to put an observer aboard a boat.
He explained that this can be difficult, because many of the
boats are quite small and have limited bunk space. Electronic
monitoring would alleviate some of these concerns. He continued
to paraphrase from the following statement:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Why is this needed?
For decades, accounting for what fishermen keep and
what they discard has been accomplished by combining
information from logbooks, interviews, fish tickets,
and observers. While onboard observers are the
traditional way to collect independent information on
a vessel's activities and catch, placing observers on
vessels can be more intrusive and create challenges
due to the additional cost and space required onboard.
Electronic monitoring offers an efficient and cost-
effective alternative.
In recent years, electronic monitoring has been
increasingly adopted to collect catch data in federal
fisheries. Today, both observers and EM play important
roles in fisheries management. Electronic monitoring
is used in federal fisheries primarily to document the
presence or absence of prohibited species such as
crab, halibut, or salmon.
Current technology is not able to differentiate
species or record size or sex of bycatch, but new
technologies are being developed for processing
imagery to identify species and fishing gear; estimate
weight and length; or simply determine if a vessel is
in transit or fishing to determine if catch is on
board. Current technology will still expand the
ability to collect and share data, especially for
monitoring bycatch.
Establishing the Board and Department's ability to
require and implement an electronic monitoring program
now would allow use of current technology and position
the State to use new technologies once they are widely
available.
1:58:10 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG continued to paraphrase from the
following statement:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Potential Fiscal Impact on Vessel Operators & the
Department
Installing and using electronic monitoring systems
that cover all fishing activities has been
demonstrated to be cheaper than placing observers on
vessels. Savings estimates vary based on fishery size
and type, and the largest costs of most programs are
manual video review, data transmission, and storage.
There are no direct costs associated with this bill.
Again, this is a permissive change, the bill does not
direct the Board to require electronic monitoring in a
specific fishery that will be determined at the
Board level with input from local communities and the
general public. Just like the onboard observer
program, the Board would need to meet and establish by
regulation the fisheries that will require EM, and the
Department would be responsible for managing the
program.
The Department already does this for the shellfish
observer program. State costs associated with the
shellfish observer program are primarily funded
through test fish revenue, federal funds, and direct
payments by vessels required to carry observers. EM
could potentially be funded similarly along with the
possibility of being industry-funded in part for
equipment as operators currently bear the costs
associated with an onboard observer.
While there are no direct costs associated with this
legislation, future funding will likely be needed to
stand up a new EM program as it may require hiring and
training new staff depending on the fishery. The
number of new staff is contingent on the number and
type of fisheries that are required by the Board to
use EM. If the board adopted EM for larger fisheries
across the state, the number of vessels that require
monitoring and the associated costs to the Department
would increase over the current program.
1:59:49 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG continued to paraphrase from the
following statement:
[Original punctuation provided.]
This is not something that will happen overnight. Once
authorized by the Board, it could take nearly two
years before the department could implement a new
electronic monitoring program. Initial implementation
would require considerable regulation development to
establish standards for equipment, deployment and
inspection, and privacy and data handling.
Finally, it is important to note the Board does not
have fiscal, administrative, or budgeting authority,
meaning the Board cannot compel the Department to
implement a program if there is a cost unless there is
agreement a data gap exists.
Assuming there is agreement, the Department would
request additional funding through the budget process
if needed to implement the program, thereby providing
for legislative review of the funding request.
2:00:42 PM
JOE FELKL, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Juneau, Alaska, presented
the sectional analysis for SB 209 on behalf of the Governor:
[Original punctuation provided.]
SB209: ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF FISHING VESSELS
SECTIONAL ANALYSIS
VERSION A
Section 1: adds new language to the powers and duties
statutes for the Commissioner of the Department
of Fish and Game, providing the commissioner authority
to implement an electronic monitoring
program.
Section 2: adds new language to the statutory
authority for the Board of Fisheries to adopt
regulations, providing the board authority to require
electronic monitoring in a fishery.
Section 3: defines electronic monitoring for the
purposes of Fish and Game statutes.
Section 4: transition section to allow the Board of
Fisheries and Department of Fish and Game to adopt
regulations necessary to implement the bill.
Section 5: immediate effective date for section 4.
Section 6: effective date of January 1, 2025, for all
other provisions of the bill.
2:01:34 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG clarified that SB 209 allows the board
to require monitoring for an individual fishery - it does not
require electronic monitoring for the entire fishing industry.
2:01:59 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR noted that fishermen are concerned about costs
and offered his understanding that, while some federal funds are
available, fisherman would also be required to pay a portion of
the costs. He asked if SB 209 would put electronic observers on
smaller - and therefore less profitable - boats than those that
currently have them.
2:02:43 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that it is a combination of
both large and small boats. He pointed out that, for larger
vessels, electronic monitoring is a cheaper option that allows
monitoring when the observer is not available. He reiterated
that electronic monitoring would be less cumbersome and more
convenient for smaller vessels that do not have the space for an
observer.
2:03:26 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR agreed that for small boats, having an additional
person on board can be inconvenient. However, he pointed out
that this is not a common practice and therefore, switching to
electronic monitoring is a potential increase in costs. He asked
if there have been discussions in the department or the Board of
Fisheries about the impact on small boats and ways to defray the
cost of the electronic monitoring.
2:04:11 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that many of the programs are
eligible for federal and state funding. Currently, the Board's
only tool is to put an observer onboard a boat. He said that
adding this tool gives the board another option; however,
whether they use it will depend on several factors, including
public testimony and associated costs. He pointed out that one
of the reasons observers are not on all fishing vessels is the
associated costs; the board balances the tradeoff of the cost of
placing an observer versus the benefit. The same would be true
for electronic monitoring.
2:05:04 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON asked how the board determines which boats
have an observer on board.
2:05:16 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that it is usually a boat that
has a "prohibited species catch" and offered an example of a
scallop boat that catches halibut. To limit the number of
halibut being discarded, the observer would be on board to see
what is coming up in the trawl net and what is being discarded
over the side of the boat. He said that this gives an accurate
count of the prohibited species. He also said that there may be
required retention of all salmon caught in seine gear. In some
instances, one species may have a cap on how many can be caught
and the observer would note how many of these fish are being
discarded.
2:06:04 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked what would happen if the electronic monitor
were to break while out fishing.
2:06:34 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that there are typically
several cameras on board. If all cameras break, there would be
an obligation to stop fishing the federal fishery; however, when
a camera breaks there is usually a backup to cover the deck
space.
2:07:11 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN opened public testimony on SB 209.
2:07:33 PM
DYLAN HAYES, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified with
concerns on SB 209. He said he is a deckhand on the F/V Osprey.
He commented that, because he is a deckhand and not a captain,
he cannot speak to the issue of funding. However, as a deckhand,
he would be responsible for transporting, installing, and
maintaining the camera system. Referring to the National Marine
Fisheries Service Procedure 04-115-02, he pointed out that all
funds are fully dedicated. He expressed concern that he would
take the time to install the system but there may not be anyone
on the other end to monitor the system. He shared his belief
that the monitoring requirements are beyond the current
capabilities of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) at this time. He said that he would like to see the
review for the National Marine Fisheries Service Procedures on
May 1, 2024 to see if there is anyone on the other end of the
systems that he would be maintaining.
2:10:12 PM
TRACY WELCH, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska,
Petersburg, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 209 in its
current form. She said that United Fisherman of Alaska (UFA) is
a statewide commercial fishing trade association that represents
37 different fishing groups in both state fisheries and federal
fisheries operating off Alaska's coast. UFA has approximately
500 individual members and a host of business members. She said
that UFA opposes SB 209 as written and has submitted preliminary
comments online. She indicated that additional comments are
forthcoming. She pointed out that currently, the board must
consider criteria such as: feasibility, necessity, and impact to
a fishery before placing an observer onboard a vessel. She said
that, while SB 209 adds electronic monitoring, it does not
appear to require this same level of board consideration prior
to placement of electronic monitoring systems.
2:11:18 PM
MS. WELCH expressed concern with the zero fiscal note and
pointed out that that the addition of electronic monitoring
systems would come at a cost. She said that many small boat
fisheries and fisherman are suffering due to the state of the
industry. She shared her understanding that electronic
monitoring systems cost around $17 thousand. In addition, she
said that the yearly cost of operating one of these systems is
over $5 thousand. This includes setting up the system and
addressing any issues that arise. She noted that this does not
include any additional positions that may be required to review
the footage and monitor the programs. She expressed concern that
boats would be required to stand down in the event of equipment
failure and would be unable to resume fishing until the
equipment could be fixed. She questioned whether, if the issue
is enforcement, additional money could be put into enforcement
rather than into electronic monitoring. She clarified that UFA
is not against accountability or electronic monitoring and
pointed out that many UFA members have been involved in the
development of these programs. However, UFA would like to see
the aforementioned concerns addressed.
2:13:56 PM
CHARLOTTE LEVY, representing self, Aleutians East Borough,
Anchorage, Alaska, testified with concerns on SB 209. She said
she is the fisherman analyst for the Aleutians East Borough,
working in both the state and federal fisheries arenas. She has
spent the last six years working with local fisherman to develop
a compliance monitoring electronic monitoring (EM) program in
the federal fisheries. She said that, while SB 209 does not
create or propose a specific EM program, it does allow for a
future program which could have significant implications for
stakeholders and the state. She offered context for the use of
EM as well as some considerations. First, NOAA fisheries and the
industry have spent millions of dollars over the past decade
developing two major EM programs in Alaska - one for catch
accounting and one for compliance monitoring. She explained that
these programs have very specific objectives and that years of
research were required to ensure the programs were functional
and cost effective. She said that she is unaware of a comparable
process for research within the department. She added that both
programs were advocated for and developed by fishermen - and
participation is voluntary. Additionally, she explained that the
programs were developed within established monitoring frameworks
at the federal level and have been used in conjunction with - or
supplementary to - observer coverage. She commented that the
state does not currently have this type of infrastructure and
opined that it is worth considering what resources and funding
the state has to develop a new monitoring program.
2:15:57 PM
MS. LEVY said that while EM has the potential for long-term
benefits, it also has significant upfront costs - and these
costs can vary a great deal. She stated that EM equipment can
cost upwards of $17 thousand and around $55 hundred per year per
vessel for upkeep. She noted that this does not include the cost
to develop the program, which would include data analysts,
outreach, etc. She opined that it is worth considering what the
same funds could accomplish if applied to current programs. In
addition, she said that there are constitutional concerns
regarding privacy rights, data confidentiality and sharing. She
stated that the federal programs have avoided these issues by
opting for voluntary participation and explicit data-use
limitations. She opined that it is worth considering how these
would factor into a mandated program. She said that her primary
concern is that it is unclear whether SB 209 mandates EMs in
conjunction with an observer program or as an alternative to the
observer program. She reiterated her concern that SB 209 does
not include language holding an independent EM program to the
same criteria and standards of determination as the observer
program. She emphasized that EM programs are very complicated,
resource intensive, and just as burdensome as observer programs
and therefore should be given the same amount of rigorous study
prior to considering a new program.
2:18:36 PM
Jerry McCune, representing self, Cordova, Alaska, testified with
concerns on SB 209. He said he is a gillnetter out of Prince
William Sound. He commented that many of the fisheries in
question are small. With respect to the $17 thousand cost to
purchase the EM equipment, he said that he did not make this
amount during his fishing season in 2023. He explained that fish
prices have plummeted, insurance costs $4 thousand, fuel is $5
per gallon - these costs add up and can put fishermen out of
business. He pointed out that SB 209 would allow EM to be
applied to all the fisheries in the state - even the very small
fisheries. He expressed doubt that the EM equipment would be
easy to use on small boats. He said that, while he understands
that the Board of Fisheries needs tools to be able to monitor
fisheries, he does not want to see EM misused on small fisheries
that are struggling.
2:20:43 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN held public testimony on SB 209 open.
2:20:53 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked what size boats are in area M fisheries and
whether the department considered limiting SB 209 to certain
boat sizes.
2:21:29 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that the department did not
consider limiting boat sizes. He said that the area M fishery
contains two classes of boats: gillnetter boats, which are
relatively small, and seine boats, which are around 60 to 70
feet. He said it would be difficult to put an observer or EM on
some of the smaller gillnetter boats. He stated that
considerations around whether it is feasible to put an observer
or EM equipment on a particular boat would be left to the board
and would be incorporated into the decision-making process. He
said that the federal government runs an observer program to
monitor marine mammal interactions and is currently considering
placing observers on gillnet boats in Southeast Alaska to
address issues with harbor porpoises. He opined that many
gillnet operators would prefer the opportunity to have EM as an
alternative to having an observer on their boats.
2:22:48 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN held SB 209 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB191 ver A.pdf |
SL&C 2/7/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 191 |
| SB191 Transmittal Letter 01.16.24.pdf |
SL&C 2/7/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 191 |
| SB191 Sectional Analysis 01.23.24.pdf |
SL&C 2/7/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 191 |
| SB191 Fiscal Note-DOR-AHFC-12.11.23.pdf |
SL&C 2/7/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 191 |
| SB191 Public Testimony-AKBA 02.05.24.pdf |
SL&C 2/7/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 191 |
| SB209 ver A.pdf |
SL&C 2/7/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 209 |
| SB209 Transmittal Letter ver A 01.24.24.pdf |
SL&C 2/7/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 209 |
| SB209 Sectional Analysis ver A 01.31.24.pdf |
SL&C 2/7/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 209 |
| SB209 Fiscal Note-DFG-DCF-01.23.24.pdf |
SL&C 2/7/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 209 |
| SB209 Public Testimony-Received as of 02.06.24.pdf |
SL&C 2/7/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 209 |
| SB209 Supporting Document-NOAA Observers and EM at-a-Glance.pdf |
SL&C 2/7/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 209 |
| SB191 Supporting Documents-AHFC Handout 02.07.24.pdf |
SL&C 2/7/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 191 |