EPA (State Environmental Policy Act) Handout Material

The following material was provided to the Chehalis Watershed Coalition (CWC) by Rebecca Innman, WaDOE. The material is a handout from a presentation she made in Chehalis on August 13, 1997.

For specific information on SEPA, go to Washington Department of Ecology

Pick a topic in which you are interested:

Early EPA History
SEPA Requirements
ESHB 1724
ESHB 1724 Consistency
Action/Exemptions/Lead Agency
Determination of Nonsignificance
Determination of Significance/EIS
Substantive Authority (WAC 197-11-660)
SEPA APPEALS
COMMENTING
TIPS:

Early EPA History

SEPA was adopted in 1971 due to:

concern that environmental quality was not being adequately considered in the permitting process

statements by agencies that environmental protection was beyond their authority

SEPA was often the only tool to regulate development impacts

There were few local comprehensive plans/zoning regulations

Zoning was not required to be consistent with the comprehensive plan

Regulatory tools have been developed over the years, but SEPA is still the fallback

Growth Management Act was passed in 1990

Many new requirements and regulatory tools

Some overlap with SEPA (e.g., critical areas ordinances)

SEPA Requirements

Evaluate environmental issues (procedural)

Integrate SEPA into existing permitting processes (underlying governmental action)

Analyze environmental consequences

Identify possible alternatives and/or mitigation

Involve other agencies and the public

Consider environmental issues in decision making (substantive authority)

Consider environmental consequences along with economic & technical issues

Use SEPA authority to mitigate impacts

Use SEPA authority to deny the proposal when significant adverse environmental impacts cannot be reasonably mitigated

ESHB 1724

ESHB 1724 (1995 Legislation)

Amended several laws, including:

Growth Management Act

State Environmental Policy Act

Shoreline Management Act

Created the Local Permit Process (RCW 36.70B)

Legislative intent

GMA is the "integrating framework" for all land use related laws

Environmental review is a fundamental part of planning AND project review, not a separate process

SEPA is only used for "gaps and overlaps"

Do not duplicate other requirements
Do not reopen earlier land use decisions

ESHB 1724 Consistency

GMA counties/cities must determine project consistency with development regulations or the comprehensive plan (RCW 36.70B.030)

Type of land use permitted at the site

Density of residential development in UGA

Availability and adequacy of public facilities

If the project is consistent, local government shall not:

reexamine alternatives, or

hear appeals on these items (except code interpretation)

If not consistent, the project is:

denied, or

changed/conditioned so it becomes consistent

Action/Exemptions/Lead Agency

SEPA compliance is required prior to governmental "action"

Nonproject actions (adoption/amendment of rules, plans)

Approval of private projects (permits, licenses)

Governmental projects (public facilities, utilities)

A proposal exists when:

A proponent submits an application, or

An agency proposes to take an action (either project or nonproject)

Certain types of projects which normally have no significant adverse impact are exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-800)

Minor new construction (example, 4 units or less)

Repair and maintenance .

Variances under the Clean Air Act (WAC 197-11-8,00,(9))

Air Operating Permits (HB 1220)

Cities and counties may adopt:

Flexible threshold (exemption) levels for minor new construction (WAC 197-11-800(9))

Critical areas where certain exemptions will not apply (WAC 197- 11-908)

One agency is identified as Lead Agency and is responsible for:

SEPA procedural requirements

Issuance of appropriate SEPA documents

Determination of Nonsignificance

If there are no significant impacts, the lead agency issues a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS)

A 15-day comment period is required if:

Another agency has jurisdiction
DNS is mitigated under WAC 197-11-350
Nonexempt clearing or grading permit is required
Project involves nonexempt demolition
DNS is issued after a DS is withdrawn
DNS on a "GMA action" added in March 1995 (policy, plan, or regulation adopted or amended under RCW 36.70a.106 or 210)

If a comment period is required, the lead agency must

Give public notice

Distribute the DNS/checklist

Consider comments and reevaluate the DNS (retain, revise, or withdraw the DNS)

Determination of Significance/EIS

If there will be a probable significant adverse environmental impact, the lead agency issues a Determination of Significance (DS) and requires an environmental impact statement (EIS)

Scoping provides a way to:

Narrow the scope of the EIS to significant issues

Involve the public and other agencies in the early stages

Draft EIS analyzes:

Reasonable alternatives

Existing environment

Significant adverse environmental impacts

Possible mitigation measures

Final EIS includes:

Responses to comments on the draft EIS

Clarification and/or corrections to the draft

Substantive Authority (WAC 197-11-660)

Agency actions may be conditioned denied based on:

Formally designated agency SEPA policies

Specific adverse environmental impacts clearly identified in the environmental document

A determination that other regulations do not mitigate the impact

Mitigation (conditions) must be:

Reasonable and capable of being accomplished

Imposed only to extent attributable to adverse impacts of the proposal; voluntary additional mitigation may occur

Included in the permit/approval

Project denial can only occur when:

A Significant adverse impact is identified in a final EIS; and

Reasonable mitigation measures are insufficient to mitigate the impact

SEPA APPEALS

Types of SEPA Appeals

Administrative Appeal heard by an agency

Judicial Appeal court appeal of permit and SEPA document

Appealable decisions

Final DS, DNS, or EIS (procedural)

SEPA Substantive determinations (RCW 43.21C.060), (conditions/mitigation applied to a permit or denial using EPA authority)

Number of appeals allowed

Procedural one only - at an open record hearing

Substantive no more than one open record,' and one closed record appeal at local legislative body

SEPA administrative appeals must be:

- heard at an open record hearing

- consolidated with other hearing requirements

- specified in the agency's SEPA procedures

COMMENTING

Write clear, concise comments

Identify inaccurate, unclear, or missing information

Be as factual as possible

Reference relevant portions of the SEPA or GMA document

Submit Comments on Time!

TIPS:

Increase your Credibility

Think about Tone

Use Complete Sentences

Use Logical Organization