California Code of Regulations › Title 23 - Waters › Division 6 - Delta Stewardship Council › Chapter 2 - Consistency with Regulatory Policies Contained in the Delta Plan › Article 4 - GENERAL PROVISIONS › Appendix 1A - Best Available Science

Current through Register 2024 Notice Reg. No. 28, July 12, 2024
Best Available Science
The Delta Reform Act requires the Council to make use of
					 the best available science in implementing the Delta Plan. Best available
					 science is specific to the decision being made and the time frame available for
					 making that decision. Best available science is developed and presented in a
					 transparent manner consistent with the scientific process (Sullivan et al.
					 2006), including clear statements of assumptions, the use of conceptual models,
					 description of methods used, and presentation of summary conclusions. Sources
					 of data used are cited and analytical tools used in analyses and syntheses are
					 identified. Best available science changes over time, and decisions may need to
					 be revisited as new scientific information becomes available. Ultimately, best
					 available science requires scientists to use the best information and data to
					 assist management and policy decisions. The processes and information used
					 should be clearly documented and effectively communicated to foster improved
					 understanding and decision making.
Steps for Achieving the Best Science
Science consistent with the scientific process includes the
					 following elements:
* Well-stated objectives
* A clear conceptual or mathematical model
* A good experimental design with standardized methods for
					 data collection
* Statistical rigor and sound logic for analysis and
					 interpretation
* Clear documentation of methods, results, and
					 conclusions
The best science is understandable; it clearly outlines
					 assumptions and limitations. The best science is also reputable; it has
					 undergone peer review conducted by active experts in the applicable field(s) of
					 study. Scientific peer review addresses the validity of the methods used, the
					 adequacy of the methods and study design in addressing study objectives, the
					 adequacy of the interpretation of results, whether the conclusions are
					 supported by the results, and whether the findings advance scientific knowledge
					 (Sullivan et al. 2006).
There are several sources of scientific information and
					 tradeoffs associated with each (Sullivan et al. 2006, Ryder et al. 2010). The
					 primary sources of scientific information, in a generalized ranking of most to
					 least scientific credibility for informing management decisions, include the
					 following:
* Independently peer-reviewed publications including
					 scientific journal publications and books (most desirable)
* Other scientific reports and publications
* Science expert opinion
* Traditional knowledge
Each of these sources of scientific information may be the
					 best available at a given time and contain varying levels of understanding and
					 uncertainty. These limitations should be clearly documented when scientific
					 information is used as the basis for decisions.
Guidelines and Criteria
There have been several efforts to develop criteria for
					 defining and assessing best available science. In 2004, the National Research
					 Council Committee on Defining the Best Scientific Information Available for
					 Fisheries Management prepared a report (National Research Council Report) that
					 concluded guidelines and criteria must be defined in order to apply best
					 available science in natural resource management (National Research Council
					 2004). Major findings and recommendations included establishing procedural and
					 implementation guidelines to govern the production and use of scientific
					 information. The guidelines were based on six broad criteria: relevance,
					 inclusiveness, objectivity, transparency and openness, timeliness, and peer
					 review.
Best available science for proposed covered actions and for
					 use in the Delta Plan should be consistent with the guidelines and criteria in
					 Table 1A-1. These criteria were adapted from criteria developed by the National
					 Research Council. Proponents of covered actions should document their
					 scientific rationale for applying the criteria in Table 1A-1 (i.e., the format
					 used in a scientific grant proposal).
Table 1A-1
Criteria for Best Available Science
Criteria
Description
Relevance
Scientific information used should
							 be germane to the Delta ecosystem and/or biological and physical components
							 (and/or process) affected by the proposed decisions. Analogous information from
							 a different region but applicable to the Delta ecosystem and/or biological and
							 physical components may be the most relevant when Delta-specific scientific
							 information is nonexistent or insufficient. The quality and relevance of the
							 data and information used shall be clearly addressed.
Inclusiveness
Scientific information used
							 shall incorporate a thorough review of relevant information and analyses across
							 relevant disciplines. Many analysis tools are available to the scientific
							 community (e.g., search engines and citation
							 indices).a
Objectivity
Data collection and analyses
							 considered shall meet the standards of the scientific method and be void of
							 nonscientific influences and considerations.
Transparency and openness
The sources and
							 methods used for analyzing the science (including scientific and engineering
							 models) used shall be clearly identified. The opportunity for public comment on
							 the use of science in proposed covered actions is recommended. Limitations of
							 research used shall be clearly identified and explained. If a range of
							 uncertainty is associated with the data and information used, a mechanism for
							 communicating uncertainty shall be employed.
Timeliness
Timeliness has two main elements:
							 (1) data collection shall occur in a manner sufficient for adequate analyses
							 before a management decision is needed, and (2) scientific information used
							 shall be applicable to current situations. Timeliness also means that results
							 from scientific studies and monitoring may be brought forward before the study
							 is complete to address management needsc. In these
							 instances, it is necessary that the uncertainties, limitations, and risks
							 associated with preliminary results are clearly documented.
Peer review
The quality of the science used
							 will be measured by the extent and quality of the review process. Independent
							 external scientific review of the science is most important because it ensures
							 scientific objectivity and validity. The following criteria represent a
							 desirable peer review processe.
Coordination of Peer Review. Independent
							 peer review shall be coordinated by entities and/or individuals that (1) are
							 not a member of the independent external review team/panel and (2) have had no
							 direct involvement in the particular actions under review.
Independent External Reviewers. A qualified
							 independent external reviewer embodies the following qualities: (1) has no
							 conflict of interest with the outcome of the decision being made, (2) can
							 perform the review free of persuasion by others, (3) has demonstrable
							 competence in the subject as evidenced by formal training or experience, (4) is
							 willing to utilize his or her scientific expertise to reach objective
							 conclusions that may be incongruent with his or her personal biases, and (5) is
							 willing to identify the costs and benefits of ecological and social alternative
							 decisions.
When to Conduct Peer Review. Independent
							 scientific peer review shall be applied formally to proposed projects and
							 initial draft plans, in writing after official draft plans or policies are
							 released to the public, and to final released plans. Formal peer review should
							 also be applied to outcomes and products of projects as appropriate.
a. McGarvey 2007
b. National Research Council 2004,
							 Sullivan et al. 2006
c. National Research Council 2004
d. Meffe et al. 1998
e. Adapted from Meffe et al. 1998
It is recognized that differences exist among the accepted
					 standards of peer review for various fields of study and professional
					 communities. When applying the criteria for best available science in Table
					 1A-1, the Council recognizes that the level of peer review for supporting
					 materials and technical information (such as scientific studies, model results,
					 and documents) included in the documentation for a proposed covered action is
					 variable and relative to the scale, scope, and nature of the proposed covered
					 action. The Council understands that varying levels of peer review may be
					 commonly accepted in various fields of study and professional
					 communities.
References
McGarvey, D. J. 2007. Merging precaution with sound science
					 under the Endangered Species Act. Bioscience 57: 65-70.
Meffe, G. K., P. R. Boersma, D. D. Murphy, B. R. Noon, H.
					 R. Pulliam, M. E. Soule, and D. M. Waller. 1998. Independent scientific review
					 in natural resource management. Conservation Biology 12: 268-270.
National Research Council, Committee on Defining the Best
					 Scientific Information Available for Fisheries Management. 2004. Improving the
					 use of "Best Scientific Information Available" Standard in Fisheries
					 Management. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. Available from
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_ID=11045#toc
.
					 Accessed June 2011.
Ryder, D. S., M. Tomlinson, B. Gawne, and G. E. Likens.
					 2010. Defining and using "best available science": a policy conundrum for the
					 management of aquatic ecosystems. Marine and Freshwater Research 61:
					 821-828.
Sullivan, P. J., J. M. Acheson, P. L. Angermeier, T. Faast,
					 J. Flemma, C. M. Jones, E. E. Knudsen, T. J. Minello, D. H. Secor, R.
					 Wunderlich, and B. A. Zanetell. 2006. Defining and implementing best available
					 science for fisheries and environmental science, policy, and management.
					 American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, and Estuarine Research
					 Federation, Port Republic, Maryland. Available at
http://www.fisheries.org/afs/docs/policy_science.pdf
.
					 Accessed June 2011.
1. New
					 appendix filed 8-7-2013; operative 9-1-2013 pursuant to Government Code section
					 11343.4(b)(3)
					 (Register 2013, No. 32).