Washington Administrative Code › Title 365 - Commerce, Department of (Community Development) › Chapter 365-195 - Growth Management Act-Best available science › Part NINE - BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE › Section 365-195-905 - Criteria for determining which information is the "best available science."

Current through Register Vol. 24-14, July 15, 2024
(1)
						This section provides assessment criteria to assist counties and cities in
						determining whether information obtained during development of critical areas
						policies and regulations constitutes the "best available science."
(2) Counties and cities may use information
						that local, state or federal natural resource agencies have determined
						represents the best available science consistent with criteria set out in WAC
						365-195-900 through
						365-195-925. The department will
						make available a list of resources that state agencies have identified as
						meeting the criteria for best available science pursuant to this chapter. Such
						information should be reviewed for local applicability.
(3) The responsibility for including the best
						available science in the development and implementation of critical areas
						policies or regulations rests with the legislative authority of the county or
						city. However, when feasible, counties and cities should consult with a
						qualified scientific expert or team of qualified scientific experts to identify
						scientific information, determine the best available science, and assess its
						applicability to the relevant critical areas. The scientific expert or experts
						may rely on their professional judgment based on experience and training, but
						they should use the criteria set out in WAC
						365-195-900 through
						365-195-925 and any technical
						guidance provided by the department. Use of these criteria also should guide
						counties and cities that lack the assistance of a qualified expert or experts,
						but these criteria are not intended to be a substitute for an assessment and
						recommendation by a qualified scientific expert or team of experts.
(4) Whether a person is a qualified
						scientific expert with expertise appropriate to the relevant critical areas is
						determined by the person's professional credentials and/or certification, any
						advanced degrees earned in the pertinent scientific discipline from a
						recognized university, the number of years of experience in the pertinent
						scientific discipline, recognized leadership in the discipline of interest,
						formal training in the specific area of expertise, and field and/or laboratory
						experience with evidence of the ability to produce peer-reviewed publications
						or other professional literature. No one factor is determinative in deciding
						whether a person is a qualified scientific expert. Where pertinent scientific
						information implicates multiple scientific disciplines, counties and cities are
						encouraged to consult a team of qualified scientific experts representing the
						various disciplines to ensure the identification and inclusion of the best
						available science.
(5) Scientific
						information can be produced only through a valid scientific process. To ensure
						that the best available science is being included, a county or city should
						consider the following:
(a)
Characteristics of a valid scientific process.
In the context of
						critical areas protection, a valid scientific process is one that produces
						reliable information useful in understanding the consequences of a local
						government's regulatory decisions and in developing critical areas policies and
						development regulations that will be effective in protecting the functions and
						values of critical areas. To determine whether information received during the
						public participation process is reliable scientific information, a county or
						city should determine whether the source of the information displays the
						characteristics of a valid scientific process. The characteristics generally to
						be expected in a valid scientific process are as follows:
1.
Peer review.
The information
						has been critically reviewed by other persons who are qualified scientific
						experts in that scientific discipline. The criticism of the peer reviewers has
						been addressed by the proponents of the information. Publication in a refereed
						scientific journal usually indicates that the information has been
						appropriately peer-reviewed.
2.
Methods.
The methods that were
						used to obtain the information are clearly stated and able to be replicated.
						The methods are standardized in the pertinent scientific discipline or, if not,
						the methods have been appropriately peer-reviewed to assure their reliability
						and validity.
3.
Logical
						conclusions and reasonable inferences.
The conclusions presented are
						based on reasonable assumptions supported by other studies and consistent with
						the general theory underlying the assumptions. The conclusions are logically
						and reasonably derived from the assumptions and supported by the data
						presented. Any gaps in information and inconsistencies with other pertinent
						scientific information are adequately explained.
4.
Quantitative analysis.
The
						data have been analyzed using appropriate statistical or quantitative
						methods.
5.
Context.
The information is placed in proper context. The assumptions, analytical
						techniques, data, and conclusions are appropriately framed with respect to the
						prevailing body of pertinent scientific knowledge.
6.
References.
The assumptions,
						analytical techniques, and conclusions are well referenced with citations to
						relevant, credible literature and other pertinent existing
						information.