HOUSE BILL REPORT

ESSB 5122

BYSenate Committee on Natural Resources (originally sponsored by Senators Owen, DeJarnatt and Stratton)

Providing for a demonstration and study of salmon pen aquaculture.

House Committe on Natural Resources

Majority Report:  Do pass with amendments. (14)

      Signed by Representatives Sutherland, Chair; K. Wilson, Vice Chair; Amondson, Ballard, Basich, Beck, Bumgarner, Fuhrman, Hargrove, R. King, Meyers, Sayan, C. Smith and S. Wilson.

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (5)

      Signed by Representatives Belcher, Cole, Haugen, Schmidt and Spanel.

House Staff:Bill Koss (786-7129)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES MARCH 31, 1987

BACKGROUND:

Pen culture of salmon in marine waters is a new industry for Washington state.  The siting of pens raises concerns over environmental degradation and loss of aesthetic values.  More information is needed to properly assess environmental effects of salmon pen culture and to determine if there are suitable sites that do not offend shoreline residents and other persons interested in the marine environment.

The establishment of salmon pen aquaculture demonstration and study projects will allow the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Ecology, and the aquaculture industry to assess the feasibility and potential problems of salmon pen aquaculture.

SUMMARY:

BILL AS AMENDED:  The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is required to identify sites that are environmentally and aesthetically acceptable for salmon pen culture, and they may make the sites available for lease to aquaculturists.  In the identification process, DNR shall coordinate with other natural resource agencies and the aquaculture industry.

The department is authorized to lease up to ten salmon aquaculture demonstration and study leases for the purpose of studying the effects of salmon pen culture.  The study sites shall represent a wide range of natural conditions and shall be closely monitored by state agencies.  Existing net pen sites may be used to acquire needed data and shall be considered in determining the need for any additional sites.

The requirement that a lessee obtain all necessary permits and comply with all laws is not changed.

Operators of salmon net pens and state agencies regulating them shall comply with the Interim Guidelines for the Management of Salmon Net Pen Culture in Puget Sound.  The Guidelines were prepared by the Department of Ecology in conjunction with the departments of Fisheries and Natural Resources.

An agency or local government may only use the guidelines to condition the appropriate portion of any permit.

AMENDED BILL COMPARED TO ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE:  Amendments make it mandatory that (1) DNR coordinate site investigations with other natural resource agencies; (2) lessees gather all necessary permits and comply with applicable laws; and (3) salmon net pen operators and state agencies regulating salmon net pens must both comply with the Interim Guidelines for the Management of Salmon Net Pen Culture in Puget Sound.  Existing net pen sites may count towards the ten demonstration/study sites.

Fiscal Note:      Not Requested.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Cleve Pinnix, Department of Natural Resources; John Woodring, Washington Fish Growers Association; Lee Bonacker, Washington Aquaculture Council.

House Committee - Testified Against:      Dr. Arthur Whiteley, Griffin Bay Preservation Committee, Marine Environmental Consortium.

House Committee - Testimony For:    Studies need to be initiated to help gather information about the impact of salmon net pens.  To obtain information across a breadth of environmental conditions, sites in addition to existing locations need to be studied.  If the industry is to grow in the state, it requires additional sites.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      The bill proposes studies, but does not provide any funding; sets no objectives; does not identify who should perform the studies.  Adequate data are needed to properly site each net pen and this proposal will not generate any reliable information.  The process should provide for citizen input.  Then new sites are needed to develop more data; studies of existing sites is needed.