HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 2892

BYRepresentatives R. King, Bowman, Sayan and Basich

Providing for the siting of floating finfish aquaculture facilities.

House Committe on Fisheries & Wildlife

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (11)

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

House Staff:Robert Butts (786-7841)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES & WILDLIFE

FEBRUARY 2, 1990

BACKGROUND:

Aquaculture has long been a component of Washington's marine economy.  Oyster cultivation has occurred in sheltered bays since before statehood, and 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 1970s 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 1980s, and floating salmon net pens have been the center of controversy in the mid to late 1980s.

The salmon net pen controversy has centered on: the effect of salmon net pen projects on surrounding marine life; the aesthetic impacts of net pen facilities; the potential for introducing diseases and competition that might impact resident fish populations; and the increased 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, a discharge permit from the Department of Ecology, 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 promote aquaculture products.

Several attempts have been made to resolve the controversy swirling around salmon net pens.  After completing a study on the impacts of fish and shellfish culture on the aquatic environment, in 1986 state resource agencies and the Department of Agriculture developed interim guidelines for the siting of salmon net pens.  These guidelines were never formally adopted.  In addition, a study on the aesthetic impacts of aquaculture was prepared in 1986, the Department of Ecology completed a study of use conflicts in December 1988, and the Department of Fisheries plans to release an Environmental Impact Statement on finfish culture in early February 1990.  Lastly, the Department of Natural Resources recently indicated that it plans to bring together interested parties in an attempt to resolve outstanding aquaculture siting issues.

SUMMARY:

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  The floating marine finfish task force is created.  The task force shall provide the Legislature, state agencies, and local jurisdictions with recommendations on siting net pen projects in marine waters of the state, while minimizing or eliminating adverse biological effects and conflicts with other uses and activities.

The task force shall include one member from the following entities: Departments of Natural Resources, Ecology, Fisheries, and Agriculture; University of Washington; counties; marine finfish growers; environmentalists; shoreline property owners; Indian tribes; marine sport anglers; and the commercial fishing industry.  Procedures for selecting representatives are provided.

The task force shall be coordinated and chaired by the Department of Natural Resources.  The department is required to use a collaborative process that is fair to all interests, and shall attempt to reach outcomes supported by all parties.

The task force is directed to prepare an action plan that includes recommended changes in law, regulation, policy, and procedures.  In preparing the action plan, opportunities for public participation must be provided.

The action plan is to be presented to the Legislature, governor, state agency directors, and local governments by November 15, 1990.  The task force shall expire on June 30, 1991.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  The original bill directed the Department of Natural Resources and state agencies to adopt guidelines for the regulation of floating finfish aquaculture projects, and directed local governments to incorporate the guidelines into their shoreline master programs by a specified date.

Instead of having only state agencies develop the guidelines, the substitute creates a multi-party task force, which includes governmental and non-governmental interests.  The task force is directed to develop a comprehensive action plan to make recommendations to both state and local governments with regard to marine finfish net pen siting.

The original bill awarded attorney fees to the prevailing parties in appeals, and directed a portion of revenue generated by net pen aquatic leases to local governments.  These provisions were removed in the substitute bill.

Fiscal Note:      Requested February 2, 1990.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Note:  The original bill was discussed in the public hearing, not the substitute.  However, the following individuals expressed conceptual support for a task force:  Judith Freeman, Department of Fisheries; Carol Jolly, Department of Ecology;  Ann Morgan, Department of Natural Resources; Mike Schwisow, Department of Agriculture; John Woodring, WA Fish Growers Association; Dan Swecker, Swecker Salmon Farm.

House Committee - Testified Against:      No one (against the concept of a task force).

House Committee - Testimony For:    Efforts need to be made to resolve the controversy caused by the siting of salmon net pens. The current siting process takes too long, guidelines among counties are inconsistent, and agency roles are undefined.  The preferred approach in resolving these problems is to develop a process that includes state agencies, counties, local shoreline owners, tribes, and fish growers.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      None.