HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 1883

BYRepresentatives Spanel, Haugen, S. Wilson, Schmidt, Zellinsky, Rust, Leonard, Ferguson and Cole

Requiring the department of ecology to adopt guidelines to be used by local governments in the regulation of aquaculture.

House Committe on Fisheries & Wildlife

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (7)

      Signed by Representatives Morris, Vice Chair; S. Wilson, Ranking Republican Member; Brooks, Haugen, Smith, Spanel and Vekich.

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (2)

      Signed by Representatives R. King, Chair; and Bowman.

House Staff:Robert Butts (786-7841)

Rereferred House Committee on Appropriations

Majority Report:  The substitute bill by Committee on Fisheries & Wildlife be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. (18)

      Signed by Representatives Locke, Chair; Grant, Vice Chair; H. Sommers, Vice Chair; Belcher, Braddock, Brekke, Bristow, Dorn, Ebersole, Hine, May, Rust, Sayan, Spanel, Sprenkle, Valle, Wang and Wineberry.

Minority Report:  Do not pass. (5)

      Signed by Representatives Silver, Ranking Republican Member; Bowman, McLean, Nealey and Padden.

House Staff:      Nancy Stevenson (786-7136)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS MARCH 4, 1989

BACKGROUND:

Aquaculture has long been a component of Washington's marine economy.  Oyster cultivation has been occurring in sheltered bays since before statehood, and since that time, a variety of additional marine species have been cultured, including clams, seaweed, geoducks, and salmon.

While opposition to aquaculture was minimal in its early years, beginning in the 1970's new aquaculture projects in Puget Sound often encountered varying levels of opposition from adjacent landowners, environmentalists, commercial fishermen, and others. Proposals to harvest geoducks, clams, mussels and seaweed were the focus of attention in the early 1980's, and floating salmon net pens have been the center of controversy in the mid to late 1980's.

The salmon net pen controversy has centered on the effect of salmon net pen projects on surrounding marine life; the aesthetic impacts of the net pen facilities; the potential for introducing diseases and competition that might impact resident fish populations; and the market competition created by net pen salmon for commercial fishermen.

The siting of an aquaculture project usually requires a lease from the Department of Natural Resources, a permit from the Department of Fisheries, and a Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit from the affected local government.  The shoreline permit process also involves the Department of Ecology and, as has often been the case, the Shorelines Hearings Board.  In addition, the Department of Agriculture has been instructed by the Legislature to be an advocate for aquaculture.

Several attempts have been made to resolve the controversy swirling around salmon net pens.  After having a study completed on the impacts of fish and shellfish culture on the aquatic environment, in 1986 the state resource agencies and the Department of Agriculture developed interim guidelines for the siting of salmon net pens.  A study on the aesthetic impacts of aquaculture also was prepared in 1986, and the Department of Ecology completed a study of use conflicts in December 1988.  Most recently, the Department of Fisheries published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement entitled Fish Culture in Floating Net Pens, which is currently under public review.

Four counties (San Juan, Island, Jefferson, and Skagit) have placed moratoria on the consideration of floating aquaculture projects, and several counties are currently amending their shoreline master programs to better address aquaculture.  A legal suit has been filed on the legality of the San Juan County moratorium.

To date, 16 commercial net pen facilities have been permitted, and eight facilities have been approved for use by governmental agencies, tribes, and recreational sports groups.  Applications for an additional 28 facilities are pending.

SUMMARY:

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  The Department of Ecology, in cooperation with other state agencies, shall adopt guidelines for regulation of floating aquaculture that will be used by local governments when they consider floating aquaculture permits.  The guidelines shall be adopted by March 1, 1990.

The guidelines shall address the project's aesthetics; effect on navigation; use of chemicals; effects on water quality; impacts on marine organisms, fishing, public access, and recreational uses; methods of harvest; and potential other adverse impacts.

The guidelines shall identify specific areas where local governments may adopt more restrictive standards.

The Department of Ecology shall adopt rules governing site characterization studies and monitoring that must be completed by the applicant.

By July 1, 1991, local governments are directed to amend their shoreline management plans to incorporate the policies and provisions of the act.  The amendments must be consistent with the state guidelines.

All proposed floating aquaculture projects, including experimental projects, are required to comply with the provisions of the act.

When local government decisions on aquaculture projects are appealed, "substantial weight" shall be given by the reviewing body to the local government decision.

The Department of Ecology shall establish state standards applicable to discharges from floating aquaculture operations by March 1, 1990.

The Department of Natural Resources is prohibited from leasing tidelands and bedlands for proposed floating aquaculture projects until local government substantial development permits have been issued.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  The original bill allowed local governments to be more restrictive in protecting the environment than the state guidelines.  The substitute allows local governments to be more restrictive only when the guidelines so specify.

Deadlines for development of the guidelines, rules, and master plan amendments were established.

It was clarified that governmental floating aquaculture projects are subject to the act.

A section that prohibited the Department of Natural Resources from issuing leases in areas where local governments have a moratorium on issuing aquaculture leases was replaced with language that prohibits the department from issuing leases until after local government substantial development permits are issued.

A requirement was removed that the Department of Fisheries conduct a study on the economic impacts of salmon net pen aquaculture on the state's commercial fishing industry.

CHANGES PROPOSED BY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS:  None.

Fiscal Note:      Available.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    (Fisheries & Wildlife) Rod Mack, Department of Ecology; Joe Miller, Marine Environmental Consortium; Margaret Johnston and Carol Ehlers, Save the San Juans; Steve Arbaugh, Puget Sound Gillnetters; Dwain Colby, Island County Commissioner; Randy Scott, Association of Washington Counties; Dale Fisher, Kiket Bay Association; and Ernest Chaffee, citizen.

(Appropriations) Randy Scott, Association of Counties.

House Committee - Testified Against:      (Fisheries & Wildlife) John Woodring, Washington Fish Growers; and Tim Tynon, Swecker Salmon Farms.

(Appropriations) None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony For:    (Fisheries & Wildlife) The aquaculture industry needs to be better monitored and controlled, and the role of local government in salmon net pen siting needs to be strengthened.  The potential impact of salmon net pen aquaculture on native fish stocks is of concern.  This bill will move the aquaculture controversy in the right direction.

(Appropriations) The bill clarifies and continues the state role in aquaculture.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      (Fisheries & Wildlife) The bill contains many sections that are already in existing law, and is therefore not necessary. Local governments should not be allowed to be more restrictive than the state adopted guidelines.

(Appropriations) None Presented.