SENATE BILL REPORT

SB 6072

This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent.

Background: Role of the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW). DFW serves as manager of the state's fish and wildlife resources. Among other duties, DFW must protect and manage fish and wildlife including establishing the time, place, manner, and methods used to harvest or enjoy fish and wildlife.

Forage Fish Generally. Information from DFW describes forage fish as a variety of small schooling fish that serve as food for many species of fish, birds, and marine mammals. Several forage fish species are fished recreationally and commercially in Washington. Forage fish species present in state waters include the following:

northern anchovy;
Pacific sand lance, also known as candlefish;
Pacific herring;
Pacific sardine; and
a variety of smelt species.

Fish and Wildlife Commission (Commission) Forage Fish Management Policy. In 1998 the Commission adopted a policy on forage fish management that establishes:

a desire to maintain healthy populations of forage fish species;
a conservative approach to fisheries if insufficient information is available or the condition of the resource is poor; and
that fishery management plans will consider the need to supply forage fish for ecosystem needs.

Summary of Bill: DFW must provide a biennial forage fish report to the Legislature. The report must be developed within existing resources, and be delivered by June 30 of each odd-numbered year.

The forage fish report must contain information to include the following:

a forage fish population assessment;
a profile of relevant recreational and commercial fisheries;
economic impact and employment data for the relevant fisheries, including significant markets and potential risks; and
marine ecosystem impacts of forage fish removal, including on endangered species.

The first forage fish report is due by June 30, 2015. If DFW does not submit the report by January 1, 2016, it may not spend any State Wildlife Account funds until the report is submitted.

Staff Summary of Public Testimony: PRO: This bill would provide valuable insight into a crucial part of the ecosystem that is often overlooked. Moreover, this bill would deliver important current information to decision makers at all levels of government on the up-to-date status of all forage fish. This bill would also provide an important contribution to the science necessary to monitor healthy levels of fish and to restore the Puget Sound ecosystem to full health. One of the chief gaps in monitoring the Puget Sound’s ecosystem is in forage fish ecology and contribution.

CON: The cost of this bill is prohibitive, especially until sound science can be established proving its necessity. The implementation aspect of the bill is unclear. Forage fish populations are shared across the West Coast, and it would be impossible for Washington State to manage these populations alone. If the bill were to be redesigned as a progress report and take advantage of existing state and federal programs, then the cost would be far less prohibitive.

OTHER: The cost of the bill is prohibitive. Furthermore, there is no scientific evidence to support that a problem exists. It is simply too difficult to monitor wild fish populations, especially with the limited budget and resources at the state’s disposal. The bill also has the potential to negatively impact thousands of jobs. This bill should be tabled during this short session and instead members should convene a workshop on forage fish resources in Washington.