�ݺ�ߣ

Allan Bakalian is a partner with Zeno Drake Bakalian P.S. in Kirkland, WA. He has practiced environmental law in Washington and Oregon for over twenty years. He began his career as an Assistant Regional Counsel for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Seattle, where he represented the U.S. in Superfund and hazardous waste matters. He served as Senior Environmental Counsel for Univar Corp. for 9 years, and has been in private practice since 2001. Allan represents companies and individuals in environmental and land use matters in Washington and Oregon, specializing in hazardous waste investigations and cleanups, regulatory compliance and enforcement actions, SEPA proceedings, stormwater permitting and compliance, natural resource protection and real estate due diligence and transactions. He diligently defends his clients and has obtained successful results for them in federal, state and administrative proceedings. Allan earned his J.D. degree, with honors, from Lewis and Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon.

Introduction and Summary 1969 NEPA 1971 Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) 1983 SEPA Amendments Chapter 43.21C RCW Ecology Regulations at WAC 197-11

SEPA Declaration State goal to “fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations” “ Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources” “ Each person has a fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environment and . . .”

SEPA Declaration, con’t. “ each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment .”

SEPA POLICY WAC 197–11–030 All state agencies shall to the fullest extent possible: Interpret and administer the policies, regulations, and laws of the state of Washington in accordance with the policies set forth in SEPA and these rules. Find ways to make the SEPA process more useful to decision makers and the public; promote certainty regarding the requirements of the act; reduce paperwork and the accumulation of extraneous background data; and emphasize important environmental impacts and alternatives.

SEPA POLICY, con’t Prepare environmental documents that are concise, clear, and to the point, and are supported by evidence that the necessary environmental analyses have been made. Initiate the SEPA process early in conjunction with other agency operations to avoid delay and duplication. Integrate the requirements of SEPA with existing agency planning and licensing procedures and practices, so that such procedures run concurrently rather than consecutively.

SEPA POLICY, con’t Encourage public involvement in decisions that significantly affect environmental quality. Identify, evaluate, and require or implement, where required by the act and these rules, reasonable alternatives that would mitigate adverse effects of proposed actions on the environment.

Environmental Review for any activity that constitutes an “Action” Affecting Quality of the environment Including regulatory approvals May vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (city, county, state)

SEPA WRAPS AROUND ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS For agencies, counties, cities, municipal and public corporations Overlays Existing Laws and Regulations Intertwined with local land use decision making Environmental review process Far-reaching scope

SEPA Actions Land Air Water Wetlands Shorelines Carbon Emissions (NEW) Transportation Hazardous waste cleanups Mining

Integration of SEPA and Land Use and Development Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A Land Use Procedure Act, RCW 36.70C Comprehensive Plans Zoning Ordinances

SEPA “ACTIONS” “ Action” or proposal, broadly defined, is a project or activity that modifies the environment. The SEPA process starts when an application for an action or a proposal is submitted to the appropriate agency or agencies for review and approval; or at the point when the environmental effects can be meaningfully evaluated as an agency is preparing to make a decision on alternative ways of accomplishing a goal .

SEPA NOTICE OF ACTON A “Notice of Action” is issued by the lead agency when there is no underlying government action, such as a permit or use authorization, that provides for approval of the proposed action under SEPA review to proceed and for an appeals process. The notice of action provides an opportunity for the public to be notified of the decision to proceed, and provides for an appeal process of the decision and SEPA procedures.

LEAD AGENCY The lead agency for a government proposal is the agency initiating the action, or if two or more agencies share in the implementation, the agencies shall decide which is lead by agreement The lead agency for private projects is the agency with permitting jurisdiction The lead agency for private projects requiring permits or approval from more than one agency, when at least one agency is a city/county, is the county or city with jurisdiction where the project is located The lead agency for private projects requiring licenses from a local agency, other than a county or city, and more than one state agencies, is the local agency .

LEAD AGENCY, con’t. The lead agency for private projects requiring licenses from several state agencies is determined based on the priorities in WAS 197-11-936: Department of Ecology �� Department of social and health services �� Department of natural resources �� Department of fisheries �� Department of game �� Utilities and transportation commission �� Department of motor vehicles �� Department of labor and industries When none of the state agencies requiring a license is on the above list, the lead agency shall be the licensing agency that has the largest biennial appropriation.

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAC 197-11-960 Completed by the applicant or project proponent Not required when there will be an EIS Site specific or ‘expanded’ SEPA checklists

THRESHOLD DETERMINATION By the responsible official Decision whether significant environmental impacts are likely to occur Whether an EIS is required for action Documented in either a determination of non-significance (DNS) Or determination of significance (DS) Environmental impact statement (EIS).

AGENCY DETERMINATIONS A “Determination of Nonsignificance” (DNS) is a written decision by the SEPA “responsible official” that an action or proposal is not likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact. A DNS usually requires that an agency provide notice to the public regarding the determination and receive public comments for 14 days. A “Determination of Significance” (DS) is a written decision by the SEPA responsible official that an action or proposal is likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact and therefore an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required.

AGENCY DETERMINATIONS, con’t. A “Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance” (MDNS) is a determination that includes specific measures to mitigate or avoid potential impacts Mitigation measures are incorporated throughout the development of the proposal and documented in the MDNS An MDNS requires notice and a 14 day public comment period Mitigation measures can be negotiated with the agency, included as an addendum to the checklist, or written into the permit as conditions

Mitigated Determinations of Nonsignificance Mitigation measures may also be imposed by the lead agency as a condition of the DNS provided the mitigation measures are reasonable and capable of being accomplished; related to specific, adverse environmental impacts identified in the proposal and be project specific (not based on cumulative impacts of development)

Bargmann v. City of Ephrata , WA Court of Appeals, Div. 3, July 8, 2004 (unpublished opinion) Acreage Phases Timing

Bargmann v. City of Ephrata WAC 197-11-600 requires a new checklist or EIS "if there are substantial changes to a proposal so that the proposal is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts.“ RCW 4.84.37 (attorney fee award)

Mitigated Determination of NonSignigance For Addition of Gas Station at Shopping Center

Boehm v. City of Vancouver , 111 Wash.App. 711, 47��P.3d 137 (2002) Fred Meyer Gas Station, Vancouver, WA Existing Shopping Center and Store Voluntary traffic study to address public comments Environmental Review Report LUPA Standard of Review No evidence of site specific or cumulative impacts No collateral challenge to Certificate of Concurrency (re traffic impacts)

Determination of Probable Significant Adverse Impact Threshold determination requiring an EIS Based on review of environmental checklist and other information Involves consideration of mitigation measures “ Significant” adverse impacts are those that are more than marginally detrimental to environmental quality.

SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT “ Significant” is defined as "a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality.” WAC 197-11-794(1) What is considered significant will vary from one site to another, and from one jurisdiction to another, both because of the conditions surrounding the proposal at a particular location, and because of the judgment of the responsible official. There is no standard formula.

‘ Significant Impact’ Factors Context of action – varies based on physical setting Intensity of action – depends on magnitude and duration of impacts The severity of the impact must be weighed with the likelihood of its occurrence (e.g., nuclear meltdown) Determination must be made separate from the proposal’s benefits

Irrigation Pond or Water Ski Lake

Foster v. King County , 83 Wash.App. 339, 921 P.2d 553 (1996) Appeal of threshold Determination of Significance by K.C. requiring EIS for irrigation/water skiing pond in Carnation. Application withdrawn but pond constructed Stop Work Order New application for Critter Pond approved Excessive Grading at night Injunction Issued

Foster v. King County , 83 Wash.App. 339, 921 P.2d 553 (1996) New Checklist Submitted for 2,000 x 250 ft. ‘irrigation’ pond. New Determination of Significance issued for EIS Hearing Examiner upheld D.S. for irrigation/water skiing pond – appeal filed SEPA DS cannot be challenged until a final decision is made on underlying permit application (grading) (no writ of review) Not categorically exempt action (irrigation). HE decision to reverse DS and issue an MDNS conditioned up removing water skiing use not arbitrary and capricious.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT An “Environmental Impact Statement” (EIS) is required for projects or actions with likely significant adverse environmental impacts. Methodology for identifying and analyzing potentially adverse impacts, and finding reasonable alternatives and possible mitigation measures. Useful for developing mitigation conditions

EIS SCOPING The EIS “Scoping Process” is the first formal step in preparing an EIS. Initiate public involvement in the EIS process Narrow the focus of the EIS to significant environmental issues Eliminate those issues that are insignificant or not directly related to the proposal.

Project Applicant’s Role In nearly all private actions requiring government approval, the project applicant, not the agency, bears the burden of preparing the EIS. Depending on the jurisdiction and type of analysis required, the applicant will prepare the EIS for agency review or pay for an EIS to be done under the agency’s direction. In either case, the applicant should work closely with the agency to avoid pitfalls or inadequacies in the EIS review.

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY OFFICIAL Each agency must designate a “Responsible Official” The Responsible Official must administer the SEPA review and decision making process. Must ensure an open process, adequate notification, proper scoping of the proposal, disclosure of impacts, consideration of mitigation, and consideration of public comments. Responsible for compliance with the SEPA procedural requirements and threshold determination. If no agency approval or other agency action is required, SEPA review is not required.

Environmental Impact Statement Process Draft EIS Final EIS Supplemental EIS DEIS issued for 30 days of public comment FEIS required within 60 days of the end of public comment period Final EIS sent to Ecology and all other agencies that commented

DRAFT EIS The Draft EIS must Include a detailed statement by the responsible official on: �� (i) the environmental impact of the proposed action; �� (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; �� (iii) alternatives to the proposed action; �� (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and �� (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented; RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c)

EIS Requirements The Responsible official shall consult with and obtain the comments of all public agencies with jurisdiction or expertise. The EIS and comments and views of the appropriate federal, state and local agencies shall be made available and shall accompany the proposal through the review processes. The EIS must study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources; RCW 43.21C.030(2)(d) and (e)

Adequacy of EIS Appellate court's focus is to determine whether the environmental effects of the proposed action are disclosed, discussed and substantiated by opinion and data RCW 43.21C.030; Gebbers v. Okanogan County Public Utility Dist. No. 1, 1 44 Wash.App. 371, 183 P.3d 324 (2008). The purpose of an EIS is to facilitate the decision-making process; it need not list every remote, speculative, or possible effect or alternative. The discussion of alternatives in an EIS need not be exhaustive, but must present sufficient information for a reasoned choice among alternatives. Additional projects do not require review for cumulative impacts in an EIS if the additional projects are either substantially independent from the proposed action or are not necessary to the project's purpose and need

Consideration of Alternatives Okanogan County Public Utilities District No. 1 , 144 Wash.App. 371, 183 P.3d 324 (2008). Challenge to sufficiency of Final EIS for PUD’s construction of new power lines over Cascade Mts. FEIS not required to consider, as an alternative to the new line, rebuilding of the existing line as a connected action under a cumulative impacts analysis FIES sufficiently discussed and estimated the environmental impacts and the economic costs of the alternatives. Purpose of EIS is to facilitate the decision-making process Speculative, remote or possible alternatives do not need to be considered

Cumulative Impacts Okanogan County Public Utilities District No. 1 , 144 Wash.App. 371, 183 P.3d 324 (2008). SEPA does not define cumulative impacts. NEPA defines it as “the impact from the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions.” 40 CFR 1508.7 Additional projects do not require review in an EIS for cumulative impacts if they are either substantially independent from the proposed action or not necessary to meet the project’s purpose Construction of new line, along with maintenance of old line for backup, does not created a connected or cumulative action Potential for future project involving rebuilding existing line is independent, and not a cumulative impact

Use of Existing EIS WAC 197-11-600(3) provides that any agency acting on the same proposal must use the existing EIS unless: Assume lead agency status (WAC 197-11-240) There is new threshold determination or supplemental EIS is required based on a “substantial change” that results in significant adverse environmental impacts or there is “new information” or “misrepresentation” about the environmental impacts. If the agency decides to provide additional discussion on an issue in the form of a supplemental EIS (at its own expense).

Judicial Review Exception Other agencies acting on the same proposal in a permit review capacity are not bound by the lead agency’s SEPA determination. WA Ct. of Appeals ruled issuance of a MDNS by King County did not preclude the Shoreline Hearings Bd. from denying proposal based on Shoreline Management Act requirements. See Bellevue Farm Owners Assoc. v. Wash. Shorelines Hearings Bd ., 100 Wn. App. 341, 977 P.2d 380 (2000)( rev. denied ).

Statutory Exemptions There are several statutory exemptions for certain specific projects, as set forth in RCW 43.21C. These actions include certain forest practices, irrigation projects, waste discharge permits, watershed and fish restoration, forest road maintenance, school closures and annexation RCW 43.21C should be reviewed in determining whether a proposed action is exempt by statute due to the limited nature of the exemptions from a threshold determination and EIS requirements

Categorical Exemptions By Rule The SEPA rules also specify certain categorical exemptions for projects which do not significantly affect the environment and thus do not require a threshold determination or any environmental documentation. WAC 197-11-720 The proposed actions contained in Part Nine (WAC 197-11-800) are categorically exempt from threshold determination and EIS requirements, except as provided in WAC 197-11-305.

Categorical Exemptions, con’t. The following categorical exemptions were adopted by rule and set forth at WAC 1897-11-800. These exemptions involve specific actions that are not anticipated to cause significant adverse environmental impacts: Minor new construction Repair, remodeling and maintenance activities Water rights appropriations of one cubic foot per second or less of surface water, or of 2,250 gallons per minute or less of ground water, for any purpose Purchase or sale of real property Minor land use decisions Open burning (except the adoption of plans, program or regulations by any agency incorporating general open burning standards)

Categorical Exemptions, con’t. The granting of variances under the Clean Air Act, RCW 70.94.181 extending applicable air pollution control requirements for one year or less The granting or denial of water quality certifications under the Federal Clean Water Act Activities of the state legislature Judicial activity Enforcement and inspections Business and other regulatory licenses Activities of agencies Financial assistance grants by one agency to another The formation of local improvement districts, unless such formation constitutes a final agency decision to undertake construction of a structure or facility not exempt Information collection and research, including basic data collection, research, resource evaluation, requests for proposals (RFPs)

Categorical Exemptions Exceptions Even if an exemption is listed in Part Nine of the WAC as categorically exempt, it may still require a threshold determination as set forth in WAC 197-11-305 and WAC 197-11-908 governing critical areas Under WAC 197-11-908, each county/city may select certain categorical exemptions that do not apply in one or more critical areas designated in a critical areas ordinance Proposals that will be located within critical areas require a threshold determination shall be made for all such actions, and an EIS shall not be automatically required for a proposal merely because it is proposed for location in a critical area In addition, under WAC 197-11-305, an otherwise exempt proposal is not exempt if it is part of a series of related actions, some of which are not exempt or, if it is part of a series of related exempt actions that together may have a probable significant adverse environmental impact

Research and Data Collection Exemption Public Utility District No. 1 of Clark County v. Pollution Control Hearings Board, 137 Wn. App. 150, 151 P.3d 1067 (2007) Challenge to information and data collection categorical exemption under WAC 197-11-800(17) Clark County PUD sought permit for authorization of testing to collect data to use to monitor draw down time and to measure the groundwater draw down that occurs from pumping the well. The PCHB found that the preliminary permit was not categorically exempt from SEPA because the test well was not designed primarily for data collection, but was rather intended to determine what steps might be necessary to effectively contain the contaminated groundwater.

Public Utility District No. 1 of Clark County , con’t Collection of groundwater data to assess whether the Fruit Valley was an appropriate location for groundwater extraction and a new well field project was not subject to SEPA challenge Ecology’s authority to regulate Washington's water code entitled it to deference with regard to statutes and regulations dealing with water resources. Preliminary permit was exempt from SEPA because it fell within the categorical exemption for data collection and research.

Fluoridation Clallam County Citizens for Safe Drinking Water v. City of Port Angeles, 137 Wn. App. 214, 151 P.3d 1079 (2007) DNS by the City of Port Angeles Council fluoridate the public water supply based on categorical exemption under WAC 197-11-845 WA State Dept. of Health allows fluoridation of public water supplies WAC 197-11-845 exempts all actions under programs administered by the Dept. of Health from environmental review under SEPA

SEPA Appeal of Fluoridation, con’t. The Citizens argued that even if the Dept of Health's actions in approving and regulating fluoridation was categorically exempt, WAC 197-11-845 does not also exempt the City's decision to fluoridate The Citizens also argued that the City's program was a part of a larger proposal including multiple agency actions, some of which were exempt, and some of which were not, and that the entire proposal was not exempt under WAC 197-11-305(1)(b)(i), which provides that a proposal, otherwise categorically exempt, will not be exempt if the proposal is a segment of a proposal that includes a series of actions some of which are not categorically exempt The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the proposal exempt. The Court of Appeals affirmed the City's action as exempt under WAC 197-11-845

King County v. King County Hearing Examiner and Sno-King Environmental Alliance, 135 Wn. App. 312, 144 P.3d 345 (2006) King County (KC) final EIS, November, 2003 for Brightwater Sewage Treatment Facility in Maltby In January, 2004, Sno-King appeal denied by Hearing Examiner. HE ordered KC to conduct investigative trenching and to prepare a supplemental EIS. KC and Sno-King appealed (KC proceeded to complete the trenching and prepared a supplemental EIS). Sno-King and Snohomish County appealed the adequacy of the SEIS and KC sought a writ of prohibition to stop the appeals. KC and Snohomish County reached a settlement and Snohomish County proceeded to issue permits to begin construction of the facility with the agreed upon mitigation. The KC Superior Court denied the writ of prohibition. KC appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded case.

Brightwater appeal, con’t. The Ct. ruled the hearing examiner exceeded his jurisdiction by conditioning the denial of Sno-King’s appeal on KC’s completion of trench investigations and a SEIS to address the impacts from a potential earthquake. HE’s authority limited to determining the adequacy of final EIS and that Sno-King was prohibited from appealing the SEIS once KC applied for the project permits – despite the policy arguments that any entity could short circuit SEPA by applying for permits SEPA determinations must be consolidated with the appeal of the underlying action - except that appeals of procedural determinations by the agency may be allowed prior to submitting an application for a project permit. RCW 43.21C.075(3)(b)(ii) and WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(vi)(B) The general rule, the Ct. stated, is that SEPA determinations are not appealed separately, with only a few narrow exceptions. Thus, the hearing examiner exceeded his authority to require a SEIS, did not have jurisdiction over Sno-King’s appeal of the SEIS and lacked jurisdiction over the appeal once KC applied for a project permit under the SEPA statute and regulations noted above. The Ct. held the writ should have been issued and the SEIS appeal dismissed

SEPA REQUIREMENTS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES CLEANUP Washington Model Toxics Control Act (RCW 70.105D) and Ecology regulations at WAC 173-340 govern all private or public hazardous waste investigations and cleanups Remediation technologies are invasive and physically alter the environment (soils, sediments, groundwater, surface water, natural resources, wildlife, fish, etc.) SEPA is triggered at hazardous waste sites by Ecology’s decision or action to authorize or conduct a cleanup

MTCA Actions No Further Action determination – issued by Ecology after investigation and report completed. SEPA not triggered. Remediation Orders, Consent Decrees, Voluntary Cleanup Actions are subject to SEPA SEPA is triggered by cleanup action (Cleanup Action Plan) that could affect the environment

SEPA – MTCA Coordination Ecology is both lead agency under SEPA and MTCA, and is responsible for coordinating the requirements of each statute and implementing regulations to avoid duplication Ecology will issue the Cleanup Action Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Documents may be combined or cross referenced (e.g., combine a draft RI/FS and EIS) Ecology may issue simultaneous notices and public review and comment periods

SEPA – MTCA Coordination Ecology Guidance: Toxics Cleanup Program Policy #130A SEPA Threshold Determination will be issued with RI/FS or through investigation process (no later than proposed Cleanup Action Plan) Environmental Checklist review at RI/FS scoping phase DS or scoping notice can be issued prior to RI/FS, but a DNS cannot be issued before a RI/FS

Notice and Process SEPA Registry Ecology Website State Agency SEPA officials and staff Signage Publication Personal Notification

Economic Impacts Analysis or DNS

Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development v. CLC Associates of Spokane Valley , WA Court of Appeals, Div. 3, June 3, 2008 (unrecorded decision) SEPA DNS and Site Plan approval Checklist Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) 35 conditions Appeal based on inadequate findings of fact and conclusions of law Sufficient analysis of traffic by DOT and City

Wal-Mart DNS Hearing Examiner documentation of 50 FoF Deference to Local Agency Sufficiency of evidence and mitigation Fiscal Impacts unproven Economic competition speculative based on testimony of City staff National urban blight syndrome irrelevant

�ݺ�ߣ

Sepa August2011

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Sepa August2011 (20)

Sepa August2011