WSR 26-02-029

PROPOSED RULES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Filed December 30, 2025, 10:12 a.m.]

Original Notice.

Preproposal statement of inquiry was filed as WSR 24-19-044.

Title of Rule and Other Identifying Information: Chapter 16-350 WAC, Registration and certification of fruit tree planting stock. The department of agriculture (department) is proposing updates to this chapter that:

The department is also proposing additional safeguards to the Washington tree fruit industry, aimed at reducing harmful pest introductions into the state.

Hearing Location(s): On February 24, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., via Microsoft Teams. Join on your computer, mobile app, or room device at https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/ap/t-59584e83/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fteams.microsoft.com%2Fl%2Fmeetup-join%2F19%253ameeting_OWUzOWNkZGMtZGNiNC00MGQ2LTg4MjUtMWVmNzlhZjY2MzY3%2540thread.v2%2F0%3Fcontext%3D%257b%2522Tid%2522%253a%252211d0e217-264e-400a-8ba0-57dcc127d72d%2522%252c%2522Oid%2522%253a%2522838c55c7-c187-44ae-8de0-2be684ce5d4a%2522%257d&data=05%7C02%7CAClow%40agr.wa.gov%7Cf8b1452f11384d80294808de3746482f%7C11d0e217264e400a8ba057dcc127d72d%7C0%7C0%7C639008972153832219%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kMRyYxYRjenV1iEsxUvfqQUoyveXBYxrGVZndYxzm%2B0%3D&reserved=0, Meeting ID 261 353 358 425 29, Passcode m9xW6QT6; or dial in by phone +1 564-999-2000,,765143147#, Conference ID 765 143 147#.

Date of Intended Adoption: March 3, 2026.

Submit Written Comments to: Gloriann Robinson, Rules Coordinator, P.O. Box 42560, Olympia, WA 98504-2560, email wsdarulescomments@agr.wa.gov, fax 360-902-2092, by 5:00 p.m. on February 24, 2026.

Assistance for Persons with Disabilities: Contact Amy Clow, plant protection division rules coordinator, phone 360-902-2041, TTY 800-833-6388, email aclow@agr.wa.gov, by 5:00 p.m. on February 17, 2026.

Purpose of the Proposal and Its Anticipated Effects, Including Any Changes in Existing Rules: Through a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) funded grant, the department hired a facilitator to lead a working group of industry stakeholders aimed at increasing use of certified virus-tested stock, improving communication with growers on best practices, and harmonizing the certification rule with national and NAPPO standards. The working group has recommended a number of changes to the rule that would safeguard nursery production in the state by developing management strategies for the mitigation of pests and pathogens in nursery settings, as well as harmonize standards to support audit-based nursery certification initiatives.

Updating this rule to reflect updated practices and certification standards would result in:

(1) Supporting the continued export of certified planting stock by harmonizing the department fruit tree certification program rules with the recently published national model standard and the recently revised NAPPO RSPM 35 standard, utilizing recommendations from a stakeholder driven working group to conduct rule making.

(2) Demonstrating model best practices to educate orchard growers and nurseries on how certification works to safeguard planting stock through comprehensive pest management.

(3) A reliable supply of pathogen tested nursery trees for replanting orchards affected by X disease phytoplasma (Western X) and little cherry virus 2 (LChV2), by safeguarding registered mother trees from field vectors for these regionally occurring threats.

(4) Increased utilization of certified planting stock by orchardists in the Pacific Northwest, through building confidence in the department's certified fruit tree program and improved communication with stakeholders.

Reasons Supporting Proposal: Washington's cherry orchards are experiencing high levels of LChV2 and Western X, resulting in an increased demand for virus-tested certified planting stock as the basis of an effective disease management strategy. This places the department's fruit tree certification program at the center of the solution, with an unprecedented number of requests for certification of budwood mother trees, certified seed trees, and rootstock stoolbeds.

Statutory Authority for Adoption: RCW 15.14.015.

Statute Being Implemented: Chapter 15.14 RCW.

Rule is not necessitated by federal law, federal or state court decision.

Name of Proponent: The working group consisted of industry stakeholders and department staff, private.

Name of Agency Personnel Responsible for Drafting, Implementation, and Enforcement: Scott Brooks, 1111 Washington Street S.E., Olympia, WA 98504, 360-485-1235.

A school district fiscal impact statement is not required under RCW 28A.305.135.

A cost-benefit analysis is not required under RCW 34.05.328. The department not a listed agency under RCW 34.05.328 (5)(a)(i).

The proposed rule does impose more-than-minor costs on businesses.

SECTION 1:Describe the proposed rule, including: A brief history of the issue; an explanation of why the proposed rule is needed; and a brief description of the probable compliance requirements and the kinds of professional services that a small business is likely to need in order to comply with the proposed rule: The department's fruit tree certification program (program) is a voluntary program designed to ensure the production and distribution of high-quality, disease-free fruit tree nursery stock. Its primary goal is to promote the health and vigor of the fruit tree industry in Washington by preventing the spread of harmful viruses, diseases, and other conditions that can significantly impact both commercial fruit production and ornamental fruit trees.

1. Virus and Disease Control: The program ensures that fruit tree planting stock is free from economically significant viruses and virus-like diseases. This is particularly important as viruses can severely reduce crop yields, affect fruit quality, and in some cases, kill the tree itself. The program uses rigorous inspection, testing, and certification processes to detect and manage these viruses.

2. Improvement of Nursery Stock: By certifying fruit tree stock that is free of disease and true-to-type, the program helps nurseries provide high-quality planting material. This improves the overall health and yield of fruit trees grown from certified stock, benefiting both growers and consumers.

3. Compliance with National Standards: The certification program aligns with national standards, such as those set by the National Clean Plant Network for Fruit Trees (NCPN-FT), and provides material that meets the needs of local, national, and international markets. It also enables nurseries to access international markets that require certified, virus-free stock.

1. Established to Protect Agriculture: The department's program was established in response to the increasing risk posed by viruses and other plant diseases. As Washington's fruit industry, particularly apples, cherries, and pears, grew into a major agricultural sector, the need for clean planting material became more pronounced. The program was developed to help protect the state's fruit tree nurseries and orchards from devastating losses caused by plant pathogens.

2. Evolution with Science and Technology: Over time, the certification program has evolved to incorporate the latest scientific knowledge and testing methods. With advances in plant virology, molecular diagnostics, and tissue culture techniques, the program has become more effective at detecting diseases early and ensuring that nursery stock remains free from pathogens. The addition of clean propagation material from the NCPN-FT ensures the highest levels of quality.

3. Program Procedures and Voluntary Participation: While participation in the program is voluntary, many nurseries choose to join because certification enhances the marketability of their products. Certified nurseries must meet strict standards, including testing for specific viruses, maintaining isolation from nonregistered plants, and adhering to detailed recordkeeping requirements. The certification process includes multiple inspections, virus indexing, and testing to confirm that the planting stock meets program standards.

4. Supporting a Major Agricultural Sector: Washington state is one of the top fruit-producing states in the United States, particularly for apples, pears, and cherries. The program plays a key role in supporting the state's fruit industry by helping growers establish orchards with healthy, disease-free trees, thus ensuring robust production and protecting the state's agricultural economy.

1. New Definitions: Updates to the definitions include the introduction of terms like G1, G2, G3, and G4, which describe different levels of propagation material based on their viral cleanliness and origin (e.g., G1 being original virus-free material, G2 propagated from G1, etc.).

2. Virus Testing and Indexing: New requirements for virus testing and indexing. Registered G2 and G3 trees must now undergo diagnostic assays to detect the presence of targeted viruses. Prunus trees, for example, will be tested on a three-year rotation for specific viruses like little cherry virus 1 and 2.

3. Isolation Requirements: Stricter isolation distances have been added, particularly for different genera such as prunus, amelanchier, and malus. Nonregistered plants need to be kept at a certain distance from registered plants, with allowances for physical barriers or sterile conditions to reduce virus transmission risk.

4. Scion and Seed Block Requirements: New and existing scion blocks and seed blocks must now follow enhanced protocols, and stricter management of surrounding areas (e.g., keeping a 20-foot area free from broadleaf weeds).

5. Stool Bed Management: Changes in the management of stool beds, including more rigorous monitoring of plant cleanliness. New stool beds must originate from G2 or G3 stock, and virus-free tests are required before harvesting.

6. Recordkeeping: Nurseries must now maintain detailed records of all plant material for at least 10 years, tracking Latin names, propagation dates, field locations, and sales records. These records will be subject to department audits.

7. Containerized Plants and Tissue Culture: New sections have been added specifically addressing the requirements for scion blocks grown in containers and for tissue culture material, including specifications for growing media and isolation of tissue culture plants to prevent contamination.

8. Additional Inspections and Certification Refusals: The department will refuse certification for planting stock propagated from virus-infected trees or if the required conditions are not met. All inspections will be performed at times deemed appropriate by the department.

These amendments primarily aim to tighten virus control measures, enhance isolation protocols, and ensure robust recordkeeping to maintain the integrity of certified fruit tree nursery stock and are intended to safeguard the state's fruit tree nurseries and orchards from destructive plant diseases, promoting long-term sustainability and economic viability for Washington's fruit industry.

SECTION 3:Analyze the probable cost of compliance. Identify the probable costs to comply with the proposed rule, including: Cost of equipment, supplies, labor, professional services, and increased administrative costs; and whether compliance with the proposed rule will cause businesses to lose sales or revenue: (1) To comply with the requirement that registered G2 and G3 trees undergo diagnostic assays on a three-year rotation to detect targeted viruses, a business may expect the following types of expenses:

Tree Removal and Replacement: If infected trees are identified, they will need to be removed to prevent the spread of the disease. This may involve costs associated with tree removal and potentially replacing the infected trees with virus-free stock.

Costs related to tree removal and replacement are inherently variable, dependent on the incidence and extent of infection detected within nursery stock. Nurseries with proactive plant health programs may already conduct routine removal and replacement of infected or off-type trees as standard operational practice, mitigating additional cost burdens. Conversely, those encountering new or widespread infections might be required to make substantial investments in tree removal, labor, disposal, and purchasing certified replacement stock. Factors such as nursery size, labor availability, established supplier relationships, and operational agility will influence expenses. Moreover, the scale of tree replacement required and timing relative to production cycles can materially affect cost impact.

Nursery and Orchard Management:Implementing strict nursery and orchard management practices, such as controlling root sprouts, eliminating fruit cull piles, and maintaining a weed-free environment, to reduce the risk of disease transmission may bring about additional costs to Washington state's fruit tree certification participants.

Enhanced nursery and orchard management initiatives, like controlling root sprouts, eliminating fruit cull piles, and maintaining weed-free environments, may be part of existing integrated management plans for many nurseries, potentially minimizing incremental costs. Nurseries that currently employ strategic crop and site hygiene measures, supported by seasoned staff or contracted services, may find compliance costs moderate. However, operations lacking these practices or expanding scale may face notable increases due to equipment purchases, increased labor or contracted services, and training programs. Site-specific conditions such as soil type, topography, and local pest or weed pressure also contribute to cost variability.

Monitoring and Surveillance: Ongoing monitoring of aphid and leafhopper populations, which are vectors for some of these viruses, to identify potential risks and take preventative measures may become needed and/or an added expense to Washington state's fruit tree certification participants.

Monitoring expenses to track aphid and leafhopper populations or other viral vectors vary with nursery size, pest biology, and management sophistication. Many nurseries may have existing surveillance systems, staff expertise, or partnerships with academic or extension services, allowing them to absorb these costs within ongoing programs. Facilities without integrated pest monitoring may incur new labor, equipment, or consulting fees. Furthermore, the frequency, technological sophistication (e.g., traps), and geographic scale of monitoring efforts dictate the range of potential expenditures. Operational efficiencies and data-sharing arrangements may also moderate cost impacts.

Research and Development:Staying updated with the latest research and developments in both virus detection and management. For businesses, this may include associated costs with attending workshops, subscribing to scientific publications, or collaborating with research institutions.

Potential infrastructure and physical barrier costs pivot on site-specific landscape features, existing natural or man-made barriers, and operational goals. Nurseries with natural separations (roads, vegetation, terrain, etc.) or preexisting fencing and screening structures may incur no new expenses. Conversely, installations of fences, screens, or buffer zones could introduce substantial site-specific capital and maintenance costs where barriers are absent or insufficient. Terrain challenges, material costs, labor availability, and compliance timing influence expenditure variability. Many operations incorporate such barriers as routine biosecurity measures, potentially lowering incremental cost exposure.

(2) In the context of complying with stricter isolation distances and other measures to reduce virus transmission risk, a business may come to expect the following expense categories:

Physical Barriers and Infrastructure:The proposed rule does not explicitly require the installation of human-made physical barriers or infrastructure that would involve cost investments. Separation between registered and nonregistered plants can be accomplished through natural means, such as a road or a buffer strip of grass.

While costs may be associated with setting up physical barriers like fencing or screens, these are not mandatory, and natural separations through existing landscape features or vegetation are acceptable methods to maintain the required distances. Thus, the potential costs for these human-made barriers are contingent upon each individual businesses' specific circumstances, including their operational goals, site access, landscape topography, and other relevant factors.

Recordkeeping and Compliance: Expenses related to maintaining detailed records of plant locations, distances, and any other measures taken to prevent virus transmission. These efforts may include documentation required for audits and/or showing regulatory compliance.

Recordkeeping costs pivot on the sophistication of nursery documentation systems. Nurseries with established digital record management, traceability programs, or compliance-focused administrative capacity may face only marginal or no additional expenses. Smaller or less technologically advanced operations may need to invest in labor, software licensing, training, and data security measures to align with multi-year documentation requirements. The complexity of plant inventories, sales volume, and audit frequency further moderate the magnitude of recordkeeping costs. Partnerships, shared compliance resources, or service providers may also impact the scope and cost burden.

(3) To comply with enhanced protocols for scion and seed blocks, businesses may come to expect the following expense categories:

Weed Management:Potential expenses related to maintaining the required 20-foot area free from broadleaf weeds. This may include, but is not limited to, regular landscaping services, purchasing of herbicides, etc.

The associated costs for these activities can vary widely depending on nursery size, weed species, and labor rates. Landscaping services for weed control typically cost between $600 and $1,200 per acre annually, as reported in regional agricultural service provider price lists and commercial landscaping estimates (Pacific NW Nursery Services, 2024; Green Thumb Landscaping, 2025).

Herbicide application costs, including product purchase and labor, likely range between $25 to $50 per acre per application, with routine schedules requiring multiple treatments annually (WSU Extension, 2023). Equipment amortization for sprayers or other mechanized mowers, estimated at $10 to $20 per acre per year, further adds to ongoing expenses for compliance.

In sum, weed management expenses are strongly influenced by nursery size, weed pressure, and existing vegetation control protocols. Many nurseries conduct routine weed control through landscaping, mowing, and selective herbicide applications, potentially covering the regulatory requirements with minimal, if any, costs. Others, however, may face increased costs from enhanced treatment schedules, new equipment procurement, or staff training. The choice between mechanical versus chemical weed control, labor wages, and environmental conditions influence cost variability. Access to cooperative services or shared equipment arrangements can also reduce per-nursery expenses.

Employee Training and Equipment: Maintaining compliance with enhanced virus control and isolation protocols may require additional employee training programs:

Consistent with industry reports, average costs for small business training sessions typically range from $300 to $1,500 per employee annually, depending on program length and/or complexity (AgriSkills, 2025; WSU Extension, 2023). Should additional employees be needed, the initial investment in training materials, certifications, and potentially a department-issued pesticide applicator license may be needed.

Workforce training obligations fluctuate based on nursery composition, existing programs, equipment inventory, and operational expertise. Nurseries actively engaged in ongoing compliance training may offset new regulations with minor, if any, costs. On the other hand, those starting from less developed compliance may experience higher costs due to new training, certifications, or personal protective equipment. Training frequency, employee turnover, and general scope of regulatory knowledge also contribute to cost differentials.

Further, while likely already on site for program participants, and thus not an expense likely to be incurred and in order to support compliance, driven weed management and virus control protocols, common equipment purchases or upgrades may include:

(4) To comply with changes in the management of stool beds, businesses may come to expect the following expense areas:

Stock Sourcing: Expenses related to sourcing new stool beds from G2 or G3 stock, which might involve purchasing certified plant material.

Monitoring and Maintenance: Potential increase in costs for rigorous monitoring of plant cleanliness and maintaining records to ensure compliance with new protocols.

Weed Management: Costs associated with weed management are largely continent [contingent] on a nursery's scale of operations. Additional factors sch as weed pressure and existing vegetation control protocols also play a large part in determining the range of costs a nursery may come to expect to meet compliance requirements.

(5) To comply with the requirement for nurseries to maintain detailed records of all plant material for at least 10 years, businesses may come to expect the following expense categories:

Administrative Labor: Potential for increased labor costs for staff responsible for maintaining and updating these records regularly.

Training: Costs associated with training employees on new recordkeeping procedures and/or software. These expenses may cover instruction on regulatory changes, record management, and/or best practices for traceability and data integrity.

(6) In the context of complying with the new requirements for scion blocks grown in containers and tissue culture material, businesses may come to expect the following expenses:

Containerized Scion Blocks: Acquisition of clean, uncontaminated, and unused container media (e.g., expanded clay, coconut husks, peat, perlite, etc.) to meet the nonsoil requirement.

• Estimated Additional Cost: Sourcing certified inert media may increase costs by $150-$400, depending on the blend and supplier, as compared to conventional field soil or recycled back (GrowerTalks Media Price Index, 2024; Pacific Northwest Suppliers, 2025).

Purchase and installation of barriers (plastic sheeting, pavement, gravel, etc.) to prevent root-soil contact and potential contamination. As previously stated, the installation of additional human-made physical barriers or infrastructure is not explicitly mandated by the proposed rule. These costs are only a potential if a nursery does not already have them functioning/in place at their site(s).

• Estimated Additional Cost: Site modification for container blocks, including sanitation of barriers or benching, plus annual media testing, may create one-time infrastructure costs of $2,000-$10,000 for a moderate-scale container block, plus $200-$600 annually for testing and ongoing maintenance (Facility Upfit Reports, 2025).

Investments in site design and infrastructure to ensure water runoff does not cause soil contamination, potentially requiring drainage system upgrades, if not already present/in operation at a nursery site.

• Estimated Additional Cost: Modifying or upgrading nursery drainage to certification-grade standards may range from $4,000-$25,000 depending on size and site slope (Northwest Engineering Advisors, 2025).

Investments in site design and infrastructure to ensure proper water runoff and prevention of soil contamination can vary widely in cost depending on the specific measures implemented. While installing a comprehensive drainage system upgrade may involve significant capital expenditure, it's important to recognize that nurseries can also meet regulatory and certification goals through more cost-effective alternatives.

One such alternative is elevating nursery stock by placing containerized plants on pallets on top of a protective tarp layer, which itself rests on a gravel base. This method effectively creates a physical barrier between the plants and the underlying soil, minimizing direct contact with potentially contaminated ground and reducing the risk of pathogen transfer through water runoff or soil splash. Gravel beneath the tarp facilitates drainage, preventing water pooling and aiding in maintaining a clean, dry environment.

This approach is less resource-intensive and more flexible than installing a new drainage system, particularly for nurseries aiming to achieve compliance without significant site overhaul.

Tissue Culture Materials: The process of tissue culture propagation, widely regarded as a modern, science-backed method for producing high-quality, disease-free fruit tree nursery stock, is already extensively adopted within the nursery industry. It is very likely that many nurseries participating in the certification program currently utilize tissue culture techniques as a standard operational practice, given its critical role in ensuring pathogen-free, genetically uniform plant material. These practices often include sourcing and preparing of pathogen-free tissue samples, employing culture media, and performing ongoing sanitation and environmental controls to prevent contamination. As such, many nurseries have already made capital investments that align with the rule's requirements.

The costs detailed within this section, ranging from infrastructure upgrades like insect-proof greenhouses and HEPA filtration systems to ongoing expenses for media, vector monitoring, and recordkeeping, are best construed as illustrative guidance rather than prescriptive financial impact applicable uniformly across the industry. These amounts serve to inform nurseries, particularly those that may be contemplating future entry into the fruit tree certification program, about the potential scale and nature of investments necessary to align with certification standards involving tissue culture materials.

For incumbent nurseries already employing these modern propagation techniques, many of these costs are likely absorbed within existing operations and maintenance budgets, resulting in minimal incremental expenditures. Each nursery's actual experience will depend on its current operations, prior experience with tissue culture, and strategic development path.

These potential costs, as related to tissue culture materials, are outlined below:

(a) Infrastructure upgrades for greenhouses or growth chambers to guarantee vector exclusion (e.g., installing insect-proofing, HEPA filtration, or airlocks), if not already present/in operation at a nursery site.

(i) Estimated One-Time Cost: Greenhouse or growth chamber upgrades can cost from $10,000 up to $50,000 depending on both scale and technology level (WSU Clean Plant Center data, 2024).

(b) Ongoing vector monitoring and pest management measures for controlled environment cultivation, including regular inspection and preventative treatments.

(i) Estimated Annual Maintenance: Ongoing vector monitoring, sanitation, and pest control measures may require $2,000 to $6,000 annually for labor, pest management materials, and environmental monitoring equipment.

(c) Recordkeeping systems to comply with multi-year documentation requirements for lineage, sales, phytosanitary certifications, and inventory mapping.

(i) Estimated Costs: While not explicitly mandated, digital recordkeeping systems and/or data storage typically range from $500 to $1,500 annually, while additional employee labor for record management may also add $2,000 to $6,000 per year depending on nursery size.

In sum, costs for maintaining containerized plant blocks and tissue culture infrastructure depend on the extent of existing controlled environment operations and infrastructure sophistication. Nurseries operating greenhouse or lab facilities with established vector exclusion and media standards may incur only operational maintenance expenses. Facilities needing infrastructure upgrades, such as barriers, sanitation systems, drainage improvement, or air filtration, face potentially significant capital investments. Scale of operations, technological sophistication, and environmental control requirements further influence cost variability. Preexisting practices may substantially reduce incremental compliance expenses.

(7) Should the department conduct inspections and/or issue certification refusals, businesses may become subject to the following associated expenses:

Remediation Expenses if Issues Identified: If inspections reveal virus infections, infestations of nematode vectors, or contaminated stools, participants will potentially incur expenses related to:

(i) Targeted chemical fumigation or nematode control treatment to sanitize growing areas;

(ii) Application of specific pesticides or deterrents against insect vectors like leafhoppers and aphids;

(iii) Physical removal and destruction of infested or off-type trees, causing direct stock replacement and labor costs;

(iv) Potential for lost opportunity costs from delays in propagation, sale, or shipment due to decertification, which can impact revenue cycles and/or business-customer relationships.

(v) Additional fees may be levied for inspection document processing, audit verification, and report generation, amounting to the potential of hundreds of dollars annually [in] department service fee schedules.

Estimates for fumigation and chemical treatment alone range from $1,000 to $5,000 per treated acre depending on method and scale (department pesticide program, 2023). Remediation-related costs and expenses tied to certification refusal events are inherently contingent on nursery compliance history, operational robustness, and corrective action timeliness. Nurseries with rigorous preventative protocols and lineage traceability may rarely experience such costs. Conversely, nurseries encountering infections, vector outbreaks, or certification challenges may face variable expenses including fumigation, replanting, lost revenue, and administrative overhead. Timeliness of response, access to technical assistance, and operational flexibility are critical cost determinants.

Certification Refusal Costs: Nurseries found noncompliant under the proposed rule may face certification refusal consequences with associated economic impacts, which may potentially include some or all of the following:

(1) Loss of Marketable Value: Planting stock that fails to meet certification standards (especially G3/G4 levels) cannot be sold as "Washington certified." This restriction can significantly lower stock value and sales opportunities, leading to reduced revenue.

For example, should a nursery lose its G4 certification loss, it would no longer be permitted to sell its products in certain markets. However, despite the loss of certification, these products may still be sold in other markets where such certification is not required.

(2) Replanting Costs: Should a nursery have G3 material that is infected, it is likely that they would start over with G1 material from the Clean Plant Center. This situation would result in lost revenue while the G3 mother-block is reestablished. Required replanting with certified clean stock entails substantial costs and potentially multiplicative if multiple infections are found within a block.

(3) Compliance Administrative Costs: Additional recordkeeping, documentation, and audit compliance burdens may potentially increase labor costs by $1,000 to $3,000 annually until "full compliance" is reestablished.

(4) Opportunity and Business Interruption Costs: Certification refusal may delay propagation, sale, or shipment of nursery stock, disrupting customer contracts and supply chains. This may lead to lost sales or damaged customer relationships, the indirect costs of which are difficult to quantify but potentially significant.

In sum, the proposed rule brings higher standards for both physical and phytosanitary integrity of propagation material, reflecting the department's priorities for disease control and genetic fidelity. These standards aim to require more rigorous site hygiene, media management, pest and disease monitoring, and comprehensive documentation, all of which incur tangible costs for compliance and risk mitigation.

The expenses associated with compliance may differ from one business to another. Actual costs will be influenced by a range of factors, including their existing operational procedures, infrastructure, flexibility to implement new protocols, and previous experience with adhering to new regulations. Businesses that are already operating in accordance with new requirements or whose practices closely mirror the proposed rule may experience minimal additional costs. On the other hand, those requiring more substantial adjustment or new investments to achieve compliance should anticipate higher expenses.

SECTION 4:Analyze whether the proposed rule may impose more-than-minor costs on businesses in the industry: While it cannot be stated with absolute certainty that all businesses will exceed minor cost thresholds due to compliance with the proposed rule, the data and cost analyses strongly indicate a high likelihood that many participants will do so. Industry publications and reports, including GrowerTalks and AGVISE Laboratories data, document outgoing inflationary pressures on input costs and specifically note that certification and testing-related expenses are significant contributors to rising operational budgets. Given the size and operational scale of many certified orchard and nursery businesses, these incremental cost increases, even if seemingly modest per unit, aggregate quickly to surpass the minor cost thresholds. This is especially true for smaller enterprises within noncitrus fruit farming that have a threshold of $2,941.04, where compliance costs may represent a substantial proportion of annual operating expenses.

Should viruses be detected, additional costs are incurred from the mandated removal and destruction of infected trees and the purchase and planting of replacement certified virus-free nursery stock, often representing thousands of dollars per tree.

Additionally, physical infrastructure requirements mandated by the rule may add additional expense(s), entirely dependent on the nursery's current operational structure. Businesses must establish isolation distances between registered and nonregistered plants, sometimes necessitating the construction of fences, screens, or physical barriers which can cost thousands of dollars, depending on nursery size and terrain. Containerized scion blocks require root barriers or impermeable bases such as plastic sheeting or gravel layers to prevent soil contact, translating to further material and installation costs. Site modifications ensuring proper drainage and runoff management to avoid contamination, such as landscaping, small-scale construction, or irrigation adjustments, also lead to the potential for significant capital needed.

Moreover, these biological and physical compliance needs are accompanied with likely increased administrative and labor costs. Employees must be trained to implement and maintain new nursery practices, biosecurity protocols, and recordkeeping systems consistent with the updated 10-year documentation retention requirements. Depending on business size, these activities may require hiring additional administrative personnel or leveraging external consultants with expertise in both regulatory compliance and plant pathology. Investments in other solutions, such as digital recordkeeping, secure data storage, and internal audits may also add ongoing operational costs estimated to span from several hundred to thousands of dollars annually.

Lastly, routine monitoring and management of pests, particularly aphids and leafhoppers that serve as viral vectors, is another potentially recurrent expense. Preventative measures like insecticide application, use of deterrents, and vector population surveys are labor-intensive and require consistent financial input. Weed management to maintain broadleaf-free buffer zones around scion and seed blocks entails further landscaping and chemical control costs.

Moreover, the rule's enforcement mechanisms imply potential noncompliance expenses, including additional departmental inspections and the possibility of certification refusals. These outcomes may force costly corrective actions such as fumigation, replanting of entire blocks, or significant loss of marketable stock. Lost opportunity costs from delayed certification, propagation interruptions, or loss of buyer confidence likewise translate indirectly into revenue reductions.

In conclusion, while definite conclusions cannot be drawn for every individual operation, the cumulative evidence strongly supports the conclusion that many businesses subject to this rule will more than likely see their compliance costs exceed their sector-specific minor cost thresholds.

SECTION 5:Determine whether the proposed rule may have a disproportionate impact on small businesses as compared to the 10 percent of businesses that are the largest businesses required to comply with the proposed rule: RCW 19.85.040(1) requires the department to compare the cost of compliance for small businesses with the cost of compliance for the 10 percent of businesses that are the largest businesses required to comply with the proposed rules using one or more of the following as a basis for comparing costs: (a) Cost per employee; (b) cost per hour of labor; or (c) cost per one hundred dollars of sales. The proposed rule is expected to have a disproportionate impact on small businesses relative to the largest 10 percent of businesses required to comply, primarily due to differences in scale, resources, and operational flexibility.

Small businesses in the fruit tree nursery and propagation industry typically operate with more limited capital reserves, fewer specialized staff, and less sophisticated infrastructure compared to larger enterprises. While larger operations benefit from economies of scale, spreading fixed compliance costs, such as diagnostic testing fees, physical infrastructure upgrades, and administrative expenses, across higher volumes of plant material and revenue, small businesses must absorb these costs on a relatively smaller base, making them proportionally more burdensome.

Capital investments, if needed to meet the required isolation distance mandates and containerized plant requirements (such as installing root barriers physical fencing, or upgrading drainage systems), entail fixed upfront expenditures that scale less favorably for small businesses. A larger facility distributing these costs over many plants will see less impact per plant than a smaller nursery.

Administrative burdens also weigh more heavily on smaller businesses. The rule's requirement for detailed recordkeeping over a 10-year period imposes ongoing labor expenses. While larger businesses may assign dedicated staff or invest in digital record management software with scalable pricing, small businesses often must reallocate limited personnel time, increasing opportunity costs and reducing operational efficiency.

Business licensing fees, such as nursery plant seller/installer endorsements, scale with gross sales and can range from approximately $80 for very small retailers to over $350 for businesses with substantial sales. Regardless, for small businesses at lower sales thresholds, these fees can still represent nontrivial fixed costs relative to revenue.

In summary, while all businesses in the affected industry will face new costs from the proposed rule, the proportional impact on small businesses will be significantly greater due to less ability to spread fixed costs, fewer internal resources, and comparatively more limited capacity to absorb compliance-related expenditures. This disproportionate impact highlights the need for targeted support strategies or phased compliance options to mitigate economic strain on small operators while achieving the rule's important disease control and quality assurance objectives.

SECTION 6:If the proposed rule has a disproportionate impact on small businesses, identify the steps taken to reduce the costs of the rule on small businesses. If the costs cannot be reduced, provide a clear explanation of why: The proposed chapter 16-350 WAC rule, while vital to protecting the integrity of Washington's fruit tree nursery industry, does impose disproportionate impacts on small businesses primarily due to differences in scale, resources, and capacity to absorb compliance costs.

Small nurseries face proportionally higher expenses for diagnostic virus testing, advanced virus-cleaning methods (in vitro culture, thermotherapy), and infrastructure upgrades compared to larger operations who benefit from economies of scale, established vendor contracts, and specialized staff. Larger businesses spread fixed costs over greater production volumes, reducing per-unit costs.

However, the rule's emphasis on certified virus-free stock is critical for the entire industry, benefitting growers, packers, and consumers alike. Washington's fruit industry, valued in the billions and employing tens of thousands, depends on maintaining plant health to ensure high yields, fruit quality, market access, and export competitiveness (Washington State Tree Fruit Association, 2025). Clean stock mitigates devastating virus outbreaks, protects long-term orchard productivity, and upholds consumer trust domestically and internationally.

Steps taken to reduce impacts on small businesses include voluntary participation in certification, phased testing schedules, and allowing the use of cost-effective virus-cleaning techniques such as in vitro meristem culture, which require less upfront capital than other methods. The rule also recognizes that nursery operations vary widely and encourages cooperative approaches like shared testing resources and technical assistance programs.

Despite these measures, some costs, such as temperature-controlled thermotherapy chambers or advanced sequencing diagnostics, may be unavoidable due to the biological realities of virus elimination and pathogen detection. Virus transmission risks necessitate advanced scientific methods to preserve the state's reputation as a leading fruit producer. The high value of Washington's fruit crops, including the globally recognized apple industry with an estimated value over $2 billion and an economic impact exceeding $7 billion annually, justifies investments in robust certification and disease prevention, even if costs disproportionately affect smaller operators.

State law requires that, when a proposed rule is anticipated to have a disproportionate impact on small businesses, the department must specifically evaluate and consider possible ways to reduce those impacts. In accordance with RCW 19.85.030(2), the department is obligated to analyze the following types of potential mitigation measures:

(a) Reducing, modifying, or eliminating substantive regulatory requirements: The substantive requirements of this proposed rule cannot be reduced or eliminated without compromising the integrity and market value of Washington's fruit tree nursery certification system. The standards established under chapter 16-350 WAC and aligned with NCPN-FT ensure the production of planting stock that is demonstrably free of economically significant plant viruses and virus-like agents.

Reducing these requirements, such as fewer diagnostic tests, wider isolation allowances, or more lenient vector management, would directly undermine internationally recognized phytosanitary standards necessary for interstate and global trade in certified nursery stock. Washington's clean plant material provides competitive access to foreign markets and domestic orchards that require virus-tested fruit tree cultivars (WSDA, 2022; Clean Plant Center Northwest, 2025). Lowering these standards would jeopardize grower confidence and could close export markets that demand virus-free status, particularly in the European Union, Canada, and Asia, where clean stock certification is a prerequisite for market entry (Oregon State Plant Health Program, 2004).

(b) Simplifying, reducing, or eliminating recordkeeping and reporting requirements: The recordkeeping and data retention provisions are required to maintain chain-of-custody integrity and traceability of genetic material, ensuring trueness to type and verifiability of virus testing status across multiple generations (G1-G4). These records, such as block maps, variety logs, and sale documentation, enable the department's inspectors to confirm the authenticity of clean sources and prevent reintroduction of harmful pathogens into the propagation chain.

Simplifying or shortening record retention beyond the current 10-year period would conflict with both NCPN-FT's model standards and internationally accepted best practices for traceability. Because fruit trees are perennial crops with productive lifespans exceeding 20 years, long-term documentation is important in determining epidemiological patterns and in ensuring rapid corrective response when infections occur. The Clean Plant Center Northwest emphasizes that such documentation not only ensures biosecurity but also underpins the global trust and reputation of Washington-grown planting stock as "clean, traceable, and verifiable" (CPCNW, 2025).

(c) Reducing the frequency of inspections: Decreasing inspection frequency, whether for registered scion blocks, stool beds, or certified nursery stock, would risk undetected viral spread and severely compromise the purpose of the entire certification program. Continuous monitoring and frequent inspections are critical in identifying vector activity (such as aphids, nematodes, and leafhoppers) before transmission occurs.

In perennial crops, early detection prevents multiplicative higher costs of eradication, replanting, and lost productivity in the near and long term. As demonstrated by Clean Plant Network laboratories in Prosser and similar programs in Oregon (Oregon Department of Agriculture, 2004), regular annual or biannual inspections maintain virus incidence at negligible rates. Reducing inspection frequencies would eliminate these gains and be inconsistent with the NCPN model regulatory standard adopted nationally in 2010 for key specialty crops. Thus, maintaining current inspection rigor is the minimum scientifically defensible standard.

(d) Delaying compliance timetables: Delaying compliance would introduce prolonged risk windows during which virus spread could go undetected. Pathogen latency in woody hosts often exceeds one growing season, meaning that even modest delays allow for possible vertical transmission of cryptic infections, particularly within scion and stool bed material.

Additionally, phased or delayed compliance would put Washington nurseries out of alignment with national certification standards maintained by other clean plant programs (including California, Oregon, and Idaho), harming competitive parity and interstate movement permissions. Timely compliance maintains continuity of supply chain integrity for orchard operations across the Pacific Northwest and supports Washington's export readiness, reaffirming the state's leadership in biosecurity and plant health (WSDA Plant Certification Program, 2022).

(e) Reducing or modifying fine schedules for noncompliance: The existing enforcement structure, which includes decertification, destruction, or removal of virus-infected material, represents a preventive deterrent necessary to uphold high health standards. Modifying sanction thresholds or reducing associated corrective obligations would disincentivize stringent sanitation and testing among the program's participants.

Because certification under chapter 16-350 WAC remains voluntary, enforcement measures are a core quality guarantee mechanism rather than punitive enforcement. Nurseries choosing to participate do so to demonstrate adherence to globally respected phytosanitary standards. Accordingly, maintaining proportional corrective actions is not only justified but essential to the economic credibility and branding of "Washington Certified Fruit Tree Stock" (USDA—ARS Fruit Tree Certification Lab, 2021).

(f) Any other mitigation techniques including those suggested by small businesses or small business advocates: Stakeholder consultations, including input from nursery operators, Washington State University (WSU) researchers, and the department's fruit tree advisory committee (RCW 15.13.320), have identified potential mitigations such as shared diagnostic facilities, cooperative indexing, and periodic fee waivers. While these strategies can modestly reduce operational friction, they do not replace the scientific rigor of virus testing and block isolation requirements integral to maintaining clean genetic lines.

The intrinsic cost of producing virus-free material arises from the biology of virus-vector systems, the extended lifecycle of host plants, and the infrastructure demand of maintaining multiple plant generations under controlled conditions. These costs cannot be materially mitigated without lessening the program's credibility or disqualifying equivalency with national and international certification systems. Washington's fruit crops represent a $7 billion annual sector dependent on clean propagation sources (Washington State Tree Fruit Association, 2025). The measures adopted here uphold global excellence in plant health management, ensuring Washington's long-term trade competitiveness and preventing sizeable reintroduction events seen in other regions where standards were relaxed.

In sum, the mitigation alternatives listed above, while typically evaluated to reduce small business impacts, are not feasible without undermining the scientific and regulatory framework that gives Washington's fruit tree certification program its nationally recognized credibility. The program embodies the principle that clean, virus-free tested germplasm is the foundation of a sustainable, profitable, and export-ready fruit tree industry. Maintaining these standards ensures that Washington continues to set the benchmark for biological integrity and consumer assurance in the global fruit market.

Stakeholder Meetings for Rule Development: The fruit tree advisory committee (committee), including WSU, Oregon department of agriculture (ODA), and industry stakeholders, met with the department numerous times throughout the rule-making process, both in formal and informal capacities, to provide invaluable guidance and expertise. These meetings were paramount in assisting with the development of the proposed chapter 16-350 WAC rule language.

Committee members offered detailed input on technical and operational aspects, ensuring that the language reflected current nursery practices, emerging scientific knowledge, and practical considerations from the field. Throughout these discussions, the committee voiced concerns about compliance impacts and suggested clarifications to enhance the feasibility and effectiveness of the certification program.

Below is a table documenting meetings with academia, industry, and other regulatory agencies showcasing the breadth of participation for the proposed rule:

Department-Issued Economic Impact Survey: The department issued a detailed financial impact survey to program participants as part of the ongoing stakeholder engagement process related to the proposed updates for the fruit tree certification program. The survey aimed to collect invaluable feedback directly from the department's fruit tree certification program's participants to better understand potential economic impacts and any other concerns stemming from the proposed rule change(s).

Survey Distribution and Process: The survey was distributed electronically to all active participants and provided an opportunity for nurseries to report anticipated costs, operational impacts, or other concerns related to compliance with the proposed rule. The department emphasized confidentiality, assuring participants that the results received would be aggregated for both analysis and decision-making support.

Summary of Survey Content: The survey consisted of 20 to 30 questions, tailored to respondents' input as they progressed, addressing the breadth of potential cost and operational areas affected by the proposed changes. The main discussion points included: (1) Demographics and baseline data; (2) cost anticipation related to tree health; (3) vector monitoring and control costs; (4) nursery management and infrastructure; (5) weed management expenses; (6) recordkeeping practices; (7) training and equipment needs; (8) small business impact perception; and (9) an open field for feedback.

SECTION 8:Identify the estimated number of jobs that will be created or lost as the result of compliance with the proposed rule: Any possible job creation linked to implementation of these requirements, such as additional roles in recordkeeping, compliance, inspections, pest monitoring, equipment maintenance, or expanded cultivation, should be understood as a potential rather than a certainty. Whether and to what extent new jobs are actually created will vary extensively, contingent on several factors.

Potential Job Creation Factors: Nurseries required to comply with the proposed rule may experience job growth in several specialized and operational areas driven by increased compliance complexity and enhanced certification demands:

(i) On-Site Monitoring and Inspection: The expanded requirements for monitoring virus vectors (aphids, leafhoppers), routine plant health assessments, and environmental compliance will drive demand for field technicians and pest management specialists.

(ii) Administrative and Compliance Roles: Enhanced recordkeeping, multi-year documentation, audit preparation, and data management may require hiring or reallocating administrative staff focused on ensuring regulatory compliance and traceability.

(iii) Infrastructure Management and/or Equipment: Capital investments in greenhouses, screening, containment, and irrigation may lead to roles in facility maintenance, upgrades, and operational oversight.

For example, nurseries that lack current capacity in compliance management, pest surveillance, or documentation may find it necessary to hire new administrative staff, field technicians, or seasonal laborers to meet the requirements. In addition, increased focus on quality control and disease prevention may encourage some nurseries to expand internal teams or form new partnerships, which in turn could generate direct and indirect employment opportunities, especially in nurseries experiencing growth or accessing new markets as a result of certification.

Yet, it is equally possible that some nurseries already have robust staffing and systems in place for many or all of these functions. In such cases, the regulatory changes may largely be absorbed using existing personnel, processes, and infrastructure, resulting in little or no incremental job creation. Furthermore, the decision to hire is influenced by economies of scale, internal cross-training capacity, strategic partnerships, and the ability to automate or outsource new compliance needs. Accordingly, any job creation projections should be seen as possibilities, highly dependent upon each nursery's initial position, flexibility, and market circumstances, not as inevitable or uniform outcomes for all participants.

Potential Job Loss Factors: Conversely, increased compliance costs and operational demands may cause labor reductions or challenges in some nurseries, especially smaller or resource-constrained businesses:

(i) Consolidation and Downsizing: Smaller nurseries facing disproportionate compliance expenses may reduce workforce sizes, consolidate functions, or exit the certification program altogether.

(ii) Automation and Efficiency Gains: To offset higher labor and operational costs, nurseries might adopt technologies reducing dependence on manual labor, especially in vector monitoring, recordkeeping, and propagation.

(iii) Restricted Growth: Marginal profit erosion due to certification compliance could constrain nurseries from expanding employment, investing in new roles, or retaining high-skilled personnel.

Net Impact and Contingencies: The net effect of jobs based on the proposed rule will vary based on:

(i) Economies of Scale: Larger nurseries have the ability to distribute fixed compliance cost increases over more units, supporting stable or growing workforces, while smaller nurseries bear higher per-unit expenses.

(ii) Market Positioning: Nurseries that successfully leverage certified stock in premium or export markets may sustain or increase jobs through higher revenues.

(iii) Partnerships and Resource Sharing: Cooperative models or shared testing infrastructure may mitigate workforce constraints and enhance employment resilience.

In sum, while the rule does not impose direct job mandates, compliance-related operational shifts have the potential to create specialized and technical roles on one hand and impose cost-driven workforce reductions on the other. The overall employment outcome is highly circumstantial, reflecting the diverse capacities and strategies of nurseries required to comply.

1. National Clean Plant Network. (2015, December 31). State Certification—Fruit Trees. Retrieved November 7, 2025, from https://nationalcleanplantnetwork.org/fruit-trees/.

2. Martin, R. R., Polashock, J. J., & Tzanetakis, I. E. (2012, November 5). New and Emerging Viruses of Blueberry and Cranberry | MDPI.

3. Johnson, R. (2014, November 6). Fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops: Selected Farm Bill and federal programs. Congressional Research Service. Fruits, Vegetables, and Other Specialty Crops: Selected Farm Bill and Federal Programs.

4. Gergerich, R. C., Welliver, R. A., Gettys, S., Osterbauer, N. K., Kamenidou, S., Martin, R. R., Golino, D. A., Eastwell, K., Fuchs, M., Vidalakis, G., & Tzanetakis, I. E. (2015). Safeguarding fruit crops in the age of agricultural globalization. Plant Disease 99(2), 176-187. https://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/epdf/10.1094/PDIS-07-14-0762-FE.

5. Bruning, M. (2025, April 22). The 2024 index of prices paid by growers: It's not easy being green. Greenhouse Grower. https://www.greenhousegrower.com/management/the-2024-index-of-prices-paid-by-growers-its-not-easy-being-green/.

6. AGVISE Laboratories. (2021, March 3). Soil testing and 4R nutrient stewardship. Retrieved November 10, 2025, from https://agvise.com/resources/educational-articles/soil-testing-and-4r-nutrient-stewardship.

7. Becerra-Alvarez, A., (Editor) (2025). Pacific Northwest Weed Management Handbook [online]. Oregon State University Extension Communications. Accessed March 31, 2025, from https://pnwhandbooks.org/weed.

8. Pscheidt, J.W., and Ocamb, C.M., senior editors. 2025. Pacific Northwest Plant Disease Management Handbook [online]. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. https://pnwhandbooks.org/plantdisease (accessed 31 March 2025).

9. Mellott, J. (2022). Tree Fruit Crops [PDF]. Pacific Northwest Pest Management Handbooks. https://pnwhandbooks.org/sites/pnwhandbooks/files/insect/chapterpdf/tree-fruit.pdf.

A copy of the statement may be obtained by contacting Gloriann Robinson, Rules Coordinator, P.O. Box 42560, Olympia, WA 98504-2560, phone 360-902-1802, fax 360-902-2092, TTY 800-833-6388, email wsdarulescomments@agr.wa.gov.

December 29, 2025

Alison Halpern

Acting Assistant Director

RDS-6908.1