This is probably the most important bill before the Senate as it relates to our county directly. As stated, this is not about banning net pens that exist, but allowing the counties to decide if they want them or not. As to the DOE statement that the SMP does not allow counties to ban water dependent businesses, they need to reread their own documents. Jefferson County has the right to prohibit mining on the shoreline, for example, and to determine whether a business is ‘water dependent’. Ecology has been squarely in the pocket of the Net Pen industry in this state, despite a growing body of evidence, just to the north of us in BC, that this industry is creating more problems than it solves. Anyone wishing to hear another side of this story, should watch or listen to the Dr. Lawrence Dill presentation that I documented a few months ago. The links to it are on the left side of the Blog, look left, and find Dr. Lawrence Dill in the Links catagories. Help make up your own mind with facts.
A bill that would allow coastal counties to ban marine aquaculture net pen facilities has an “uphill battle” ahead of it after a hearing in a state House of Representative committee in Olympia last week, said the North Olympic Legislator who is sponsoring it. State Rep. Kevin Van De Wege, D-Sequim, is sponsoring HB 1599, which would allow county governments to include outright bans of net pen fish-farming facilities proposed for shoreline areas in their state-required shoreline management plan updates. Jeremy Schwartz reports.
Filed under: Government, legislation | Tagged: HB1599, Net Pens Aquaculture |
There are plenty of counties around the Sound that are not “anti-net pen” out of hand. So it’s not a ‘sure thing’ that the SMP prohibition would happen everywhere. The process of the SMP is so long, and has so many inputs that it’s not sure what the future SMPs will look like. They have changed over the decades.
I think that the people supporting this change to the SMPs would prefer you to support showing a demonstration farm up off the shore, such as in BC. We don’t need any “test” farms of existing technology as anyone can go to Bainbridge Island or the other facilities you talk about and see a fully functional farm.
There is no doubt that *any* industry produces jobs and benefits. The issue facing our counties is that there is too much concern for the health of our wild stocks and too much news from BC and elsewhere that challenges the long held industry belief that there is no harm being done to wild stocks. Because of the ESA and it’s ramifications, we have to be doubly cautious before we act.
Please point us to where you are getting your numbers from. Would like to see the actual underlying data that supports these.
We are far more than doubly cautious when permitting sites. Did you know that it has been more than 20 years in this state since a new marine net pen site has been approved? Many protections for ESA listed species and the environment already exist with current legislation. For example permits required for a fish farm include:
County Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
County Critical Areas Compliance Certificate
State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) Compliance
Dept. of Ecology NPDES Discharge Permit
Dept. of Ecology Coastal Zone Management Determination
WDFW Fin Fish Aquaculture Permit/Farm Registration
WDNR Aquatic Lands Lease
Section 10 Corps Permit with ESA, EFH, MSFCMA Review
Studies required for a permit application are numerous. These include:
Sediment and Water Quality Studies
Operational Plan
Best Management Practices
Expanded SEPA Checklist
Accidental Fish Release Prevention and Response Plans
Critical Areas Mitigation Plan
Critical Areas Habitat Management Plan
Biological Evaluation for ESA Effects Determination
It woud take more than 2 years to complete an application costing more than $300,000. Even if the proponent was successful and showed limited if any impact the application would be challenged by environmental groups costing even more in time and money. This is why companies go off shore and send back the finished product into the USA.
Check out:
ftp://www.ecy.wa.gov/sea/NET%20PEN%20FORUM%20JAN%2010%202013/
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/aquaculture_in_us.html
House Bill 1599 will significantly reduce economic development opportunities in Washington State by stifling investment, stopping high paying jobs from being developed, and exasperating the growing seafood trade deficit which is estimated to be more than $10 billion per year in this country.
British Columbia salmon farms employ over 6,000 direct and indirect jobs. They grow approximately 160 million lbs per year of salmon most of which are shipped and sold into the USA. It is BC’s largest agricultural export amounting and valued at over $800 million/yr. Why not create the jobs here too instead of just Canada or Chile?
Learn more about aquaculture on: http://www.salmonfarmers.org or at http://www.wfga.net
John, this is making quite a leap of faith on your part, and reflects much of the kind of scare tactics that the industry puts out.
First of all, the bill, a two line bill, does not ban or prohibit net pen aquaculture, at all. It simply gives counties, as they write their Shoreline Master Plans, the ability to do so if they choose. There is nothing in the bill that shuts down existing farms, simply that new farms could be prohibeted if the county commissioners and the huge staff that is implemented to help write the SMP, a staff (many unpaid) that comes from a cross section of the county, could actually put in a prohibition. This prohibition might only last a single cycle of the SMP, which is somewhere between 8 to 10 years. If a county did prohibit a new net pen, and in the ensuing 10 years the reasons for that prohibition went away, they could remove the prohibition. Additionally, there is no prohibition, to my knowledge, of net pens situated “off the shoreline”, which is known to exist in places around the world. There is a pilot program in BC exploring that very possibility. Our commissioners have argued that net pens are no longer exclusively “water dependent” meaning dependent on being in or on the water.
As to the ‘seafood trade deficit’ you speak of, it will do little to change that. Much of the seafood that is imported is coming from shrimp, and ‘white’ fish. The reality of fish farming, which has been legal in our county as well as others since the 1970s, is that it is not economically viable. That’s why the one farm that was in business back in the 70s went out of business. Not because of environmental issues.
And while we are talking about jobs, there are millions being spent to put in place recovery of native stocks. When the native stocks are returned to traditional numbers, the amount of jobs created will dwarf the net pen industry. Just look at the number of jobs in Alaska as an example.
You have also ignored the whole reason for prohibiting them, which is the scientific concern of disease and sea lice. The BC Government has been proven in last year, to have been working together with the industry there for well over a decade to hide the fact that disease exists and to stifle any independent scientific enquiry into the issue. So until the industry becomes more transparent about their problems, it appears to be untrustworthy to the population.
But thanks for your input.
HB 1599 would certainly kill new salmon farming operations. It would be virtually impossible to change the SMP after a prohbition is implemented.
Net pen operations have existed in Washington State for more than 30 years. They add millions of dollars to the State’s economy and employ hard working people in rural parts of this state. The technology for net pens has improved significantly throughout the years making this a viable and sustainable industry.
Did you know that 340 acres of net pens (one agricultural pivot) could replace $500 million worth of salmon imports. This represents less than 0.03% of the 1.16 million acres of Washington State waters. It would also help the environment by reducing the carbon foot print. Fish would no longer have to be flown in all the way from Chile to the USA.
Did you know that the average wage for a fish farmer in Washington state is $57,000 per year? If we produced the same volumes of salmon as BC we would add $159 million dollars in direct jobs to the economy, and even more when you consider the indirect benefits. Processing jobs would increase employment revenue by $160 million/yr, goods and service would add another $68 million/yr. Other industries would be created such as feed plants.
Net Pen operations are transparent providing all sorts of data to the governmental agencies which become public for anyone that is interested in acquiring it. Let’s work together and put up a test farm so everyone can visit the site and judge for themselves.
Learn more about net pens at: http://www.bcsalmonfacts.ca/