HB 2261

HOUSE BILL 2261
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 63rd Legislature 2014 Regular Session
By Representatives Short, Fagan, and Magendanz
Read first time 01/15/14. Referred to Committee on Agriculture &
Natural Resources.
1 AN ACT Relating to the use of science to support significant agency
2 actions; and amending RCW 34.05.271.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4 Sec. 1. RCW 34.05.271 and 2013 c 68 s 2 are each amended to read
5 as follows:
6 (1)(a) Before taking a significant agency action, the department of
7 fish and wildlife must identify the sources of information reviewed and
8 relied upon by the agency in the course of preparing to take
9 significant agency action. Peer-reviewed literature, if applicable,
10 must be identified, as well as any scientific literature or other
11 sources of information used. The department of fish and wildlife shall
12 make available on the agency's web site the index of records required
13 under RCW 42.56.070(((6))) that are relied upon, or invoked, in support
14 of a proposal for significant agency action.
15 (b) On the agency's web site, the department of fish and wildlife
16 must identify and categorize each source of information that is relied
17 upon in the form of a bibliography, citation list, or similar list of
18 sources. The categories in (c) of this subsection do not imply or
19 infer any hierarchy or level of quality.
p. 1 HB 2261
1 (c) The bibliography, citation list, or similar list of sources
2 must categorize the sources of information as belonging to one or more
3 of the following categories:
4 (i) Independent peer review: Review is overseen by an independent
5 third party;
6 (ii) Internal peer review: Review by staff internal to the
7 department of fish and wildlife;
8 (iii) External peer review: Review by persons that are external to
9 and selected by the department of fish and wildlife;
10 (iv) Open review: Documented open public review process that is
11 not limited to invited organizations or individuals;
12 (v) Legal and policy document: Documents related to the legal
13 framework for the significant agency action including but not limited
14 to:
15 (A) Federal and state statutes;
16 (B) Court and hearings board decisions;
17 (C) Federal and state administrative rules and regulations; and
18 (D) Policy and regulatory documents adopted by local governments;
19 (vi) Data from primary research, monitoring activities, or other
20 sources, but that has not been incorporated as part of documents
21 reviewed under the processes described in (c)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv)
22 of this subsection;
23 (vii) Records of the professional opinion of department of fish and
24 wildlife employees or other individuals; or
25 (viii) Other: Sources of information that do not fit into one of
26 the categories identified in this subsection (1)(c).
27 (2)(a) For the purposes of this section, "significant agency
28 action" means an act of the department of fish and wildlife that:
29 (i) Results in the development of a significant legislative rule as
30 defined in RCW 34.05.328;
31 (ii) Results in the development of technical guidance, technical
32 assessments, or technical documents that are used to directly support
33 implementation of a state rule or state statute; or
34 (iii) Results in the development of fish and wildlife recovery
35 plans.
36 (b) "Significant agency action" does not include rule making by the
37 department of fish and wildlife associated with fishing and hunting
38 rules.
HB 2261 p. 2
1 (3) This section is not intended to affect agency action regarding
2 individual permitting, compliance and enforcement decisions, or
3 guidance provided by an agency to a local government on a case-by-case
4 basis.
--- END ---
p. 3 HB 2261

Fishing and hunting rules are not "significant agency actions." Nice.

I can't really tell if the sponsors are trying to encourage the use of science or inhibit it.

I have a friend in the House.
I'll ask him.

Rep. Blake from Aberdeen will never let this bill make it through the house natural resources committee ( which he is the chairman of) anyway. It will never come to the floor and be voted on. He will only let pro commercial legislation go through. As long as people keep voting him into office no pro sport or pro resource legislation will make it.

"Significant agency action" is defined as an act of the WDFW that:

(1) results in substantive requirements for a non-state actor with penalties for noncompliance;

(2) establishes, alters, or revokes any qualification or standard for the issuance, suspension, or revocation of a license or permit;

(3) results in significant amendments to an existing policy or program;

(4) results in the development of technical guidance, assessments, or documents used to implement a state rule or statute; or

(5) results in the development of fish and wildlife recovery plans.

"Significant agency action" does not include rulemaking by the WDFW associated with
fishing and hunting rules.

I suspect that the targets are #s 3,4, and 5...and I suspect that they are not intended to be something we will like as sportfishermen.

Fish on...

Todd

Spoke with my friend in the house. The background d behind the bill is based on the case Lamire vs WA State Dept of Ecology.

Farmer had cows in a field. Dept of Ecology was hassling the gentleman because they found evidence of animal waste in the stream, but not specific evidence that it was coming from his cows. DOE wanted him to control cow crossing, which would have been a significant expense, he told them to pound sand and it went downhill from there. Apparently this bill is part of an effort to increase transparency in the enactment and enforcement of regulations or something to that effect. Basically prove that pollution is coming from cows before taking action.

Why it is specifically discussing wdfw is unknown to me but streams involve wdfw and DOE, along with other agencies.

There is a separate bill HB 2262 for Ecology.


HOUSE BILL 2262
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 63rd Legislature 2014 Regular Session
By Representatives Short, Fagan, and Magendanz
Read first time 01/15/14. Referred to Committee on Environment.
1 AN ACT Relating to the use of science to support significant agency
2 actions; and amending RCW 34.05.272.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4 Sec. 1. RCW 34.05.272 and 2013 c 69 s 2 are each amended to read
5 as follows:
6 (1) This section applies only to the water quality and shorelands
7 and environmental assistance programs within the department of ecology.
8 (2)(a) Before taking a significant agency action, the department of
9 ecology must identify the sources of information reviewed and relied
10 upon by the agency in the course of preparing to take significant
11 agency action. Peer-reviewed literature, if applicable, must be
12 identified, as well as any scientific literature or other sources of
13 information used. The department of ecology shall make available on
14 the agency's web site the index of records required under RCW
15 42.56.070(((6))) that are relied upon, or invoked, in support of a
16 proposal for significant agency action.
17 (b) On the agency's web site, the department of ecology must
18 identify and categorize each source of information that is relied upon
p. 1 HB 2262
1 in the form of a bibliography, citation list, or similar list of
2 sources. The categories in (c) of this subsection do not imply or
3 infer any hierarchy or level of quality.
4 (c) The bibliography, citation list, or similar list of sources
5 must categorize the sources of information as belonging to one or more
6 of the following categories:
7 (i) Independent peer review: Review is overseen by an independent
8 third party;
9 (ii) Internal peer review: Review by staff internal to the
10 department of ecology;
11 (iii) External peer review: Review by persons that are external to
12 and selected by the department of ecology;
13 (iv) Open review: Documented open public review process that is
14 not limited to invited organizations or individuals;
15 (v) Legal and policy document: Documents related to the legal
16 framework for the significant agency action including but not limited
17 to:
18 (A) Federal and state statutes;
19 (B) Court and hearings board decisions;
20 (C) Federal and state administrative rules and regulations; and
21 (D) Policy and regulatory documents adopted by local governments;
22 (vi) Data from primary research, monitoring activities, or other
23 sources, but that has not been incorporated as part of documents
24 reviewed under the processes described in (c)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv)
25 of this subsection;
26 (vii) Records of the professional opinion of department of ecology
27 employees or other individuals; or
28 (viii) Other: Sources of information that do not fit into one of
29 the categories identified in this subsection (1)(c).
30 (3) For the purposes of this section, "significant agency action"
31 means an act of the department of ecology that:
32 (a) Results in the development of a significant legislative rule as
33 defined in RCW 34.05.328; or
34 (b) Results in the development of technical guidance, technical
35 assessments, or technical documents that are used to directly support
36 implementation of a state rule or state statute.
37 (4) This section is not intended to affect agency action regarding
HB 2262 p. 2
1 individual permitting, compliance and enforcement decisions, or
2 guidance provided by an agency to a local government on a case-by-case
3 basis.
--- END ---
p. 3 HB 2262

Makes more sense now.

It makes so much sense, because only extensive scientific research can show us that cattle should be kept out of streams. (sarcasm intended)

Sg

Should a new independent study of cattle-caused water pollution be required in each and every new case, or can regulatory agencies rely on the foundation of existing science regarding water quality, pollution, and its causes and effects?

Not sure if it applies, but I have questioned a few rules before and were told they were adopted as part of a larger regulation change, such as the international building code. What happens is that a national organization make a recommendation of changes and the county or state adopts the recommendations in whole, without checking to see if they all apply or how they relate to the local conditions. Often they will tweek it after the fact, but in between people are caught paying money or changing their procedures to meet a code change that really doesn't apply. I know of at least one regulation that requires an environmental study, but when I asked how it applied to residential homes I was told that it didn't, but that it was required of all development so we had to do it. The county here has been requiring it for close to 20 years. I simply fill out all the forms, pay the fee, wait a month, and get back a stamped approval. I don't think there is anything that they could require, other than the fee and their approval.

From what I gathered, the farmer wanted them to test upstream and downstream from his property prior to him having to spend a boatload of money. Cause and effect proven.

Instead, DOE was saying you have cattle, and there is a stream, so you are the problem, now build a fence. No cause and effect proven.

Kind of like saying there was a rape, you have a penis, so now we get to punish you. (Huge stretch noted)

Which world would you want to live in?

If memory serves there was a lot of fecal pollution in the Willapa River. Enough to lead to a 303(d) listing. Blamed on cows and DNA said it was from elk. Depending on the situation and location the farmer might have a point.

It seems interesting, how a little ranch in Columbia County from the SE corner of the state, could then have eight tribes from the NW corner of the state along with a commercial shellfish Co. file amicus briefs when the case went and was then decided by our State Supreme Ct. This culminating with a handful of Bills in the legislature this year and last, that could have a detrimental effect.

Fecals are a big problem for shellfish growers. Much of the Samish, and probably other watersheds, has a problem that is directly affecting the shellfish growers and harvesters.

Cows are known to be a big problem, in general. As noted above, specifics may vary. There are a lot of sources of fecals that lead to closures; all warm-blooded. There were elk, dogs, cats, seal and sealions, cattle, and septics. Probably also large concentrations of waterfowl.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2013/dec/27/puget-sound-divers-feeling-pain-of-chinas-shellfis/


If the Tribes and Shellfish are involved I'm guessing it has something to do with this incident that took place right before XMas.

This thread turning to the cause of HB 2261 instead of the language of Bill 2261 is somewhat perplexing.