Scientific Panel Formed For Disputes Studies To Be Weighed Before Setting Environmental Policy

When there’s a doubt, Spokane County will let a committee decide which scientific studies to use for setting policies regarding wetlands and other sensitive areas.

That decision stems from a case last year in which a state panel decided county commissioners ignored scientific evidence in setting buffer zones to protect rivers and creeks.

Some biologists had said 250 feet should be the minimum distance between large waterways and new development. But commissioners noted that those recommendations were based on Western Washington studies, and they questioned whether they are valid east of the Cascades.

Meanwhile, a wetlands expert hired by the National Association of Home Builders told county officials that smaller buffers were adequate to prevent riverbank erosion and water pollution.

The state’s Growth Management Act requires that the county establish buffers based on “best-available science.”

In 1996, commissioners set the minimum buffer at 200 feet for the Spokane River, Little Spokane River, Hangman Creek and other streams.

Environmentalists successfully appealed the decision to the Growth Management Act hearings board for Eastern Washington. The board didn’t say how large the buffers must be, but concluded that the county must have a method of determining which scientific advice is most accurate.

Commissioners last year widened the buffer to 250 feet. The change was recommended by the county planning commission, which decided that the state biologists’ report was the best science available.

Under the county’s new policy, commissioners will assemble a team of three to five scientists whenever there is a need to resolve conflicting studies. The team would not be used to judge the merits of individual developments, only on countywide policies for protecting “critical areas,” such as rivers, wetlands and forests.

In a ruling last week, the Eastern Washington hearings board said it likes the plan. But the board rejected a portion that gave commissioners wide latitude to modify the team’s recommendations.

, DataTimes