BILL REQ. #:  S-1240.3 

READ FIRST TIME 02/27/03.   

     AN ACT Relating to the use of best available science in developing critical areas policies and regulations; amending RCW 36.70A.172; and creating a new section.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

NEW SECTION.  Sec. 1   The legislature finds that there is a need to clarify its intent in enacting the requirement that best available science be included in developing policies and development regulations to protect critical areas. The legislature intends that best available science be considered by all counties and cities in the procedures by which they develop policies and regulations for each type of critical area. The legislature also intends that counties and cities have discretion in applying scientific information and determining what constitutes best available science within their jurisdictions.

Sec. 2   RCW 36.70A.172 and 1995 c 347 s 105 are each amended to read as follows:
     (1) In designating and protecting critical areas under this chapter, counties and cities shall ((include)) consider the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. In addition, counties and cities shall give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries. The requirements for counties and cities to consider best available science and conservation or protection measures shall be procedural requirements, not substantive requirements for the final adopted plans or regulations.
     (2) In developing policies and development regulations, counties and cities: (a) May not consider approaches to protecting critical areas based on science derived from a different physical context than the one at issue, unless the approach is theoretically sound and specifically applicable to the physical context at issue, as determined by the county or city upon consultation with a qualified scientific expert in the applicable field or fields of science; (b) are not restricted to a precautionary or no-risk approach where there is an absence of adequate science applicable to the physical context at issue; and (c) should consider the cost-effectiveness of each alternative approach to protecting critical areas.
     (3) If it determines that advice from scientific or other experts is necessary or will be of substantial assistance in reaching its decision, a growth management hearings board may retain scientific or other expert advice to assist in reviewing a petition under RCW 36.70A.290 that involves critical areas. In reaching its decision, a board shall give deference to the local government findings and conclusions in the record of developing the plans or regulations under review if the procedure by which the plans or regulations were adopted complies with this chapter.