BILL REQ. #:  H-4327.2 

Read first time 01/23/2004.   Referred to Committee on Local Government.

     AN ACT Relating to modifying provisions for best available science by clarifying that the requirement to include best available science in designating and protecting critical areas is procedural rather than substantive and including criteria for the application of scientific information; and amending RCW 36.70A.172.

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

Sec. 1   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 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.
     (2) ((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)) (a) The requirement to include the best available science is procedural, rather than substantive, and means consideration of scientific information, as defined in (b) of this subsection, which most applies to the physical and biological setting under consideration.
     (b) For the purposes of this section, "scientific information" means information derived from a process utilizing recognized methods and principles to test hypotheses and reach greater understanding about the workings of the physical world. The characteristics of a sound scientific process include, as applicable: (i) Findings that have been critically reviewed by qualified scientific experts in the field; (ii) methods that are standard in the field or peer-reviewed; (iii) conclusions that are logical and the inferences drawn from those conclusions reasonable given the data and methods; (iv) data that has been analyzed using standard or peer-reviewed quantitative or statistical methods; (v) data and findings that are placed in their proper context; and (vi) assumptions, analytical techniques, and conclusions that are shown to be supported by reference to relevant, credible scientific literature.
     (3) Not all sources of sound scientific information incorporate all of the generally accepted characteristics of science, as defined in subsection (2)(b) of this section. However, the more characteristics that are incorporated into the process, the more sound and reliable the conclusions are likely to be.
     (4) If scientific information that directly applies to a given physical context is not available, a county or city need not conduct or commission new scientific studies to fill gaps in the existing scientific record in order to have complied with the requirements of this section. Rather, a county or city may employ experimental approaches to designate and protect critical areas: PROVIDED, That if a county or city develops a policy or regulation regarding a critical area on information that does not satisfy all of the characteristics of science, or on conflicting scientific information, the county or city shall employ monitoring and adaptive management techniques to learn whether the approach used is adequately protecting the functions and values of that critical area, and adjust the approach as necessary to achieve adequate protection.
     (5) 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.