Opinion ID: 1179643
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: adequacy of environmental impact statement

Text: OPAL contends that the EIS is inadequate as a matter of law because it does not include consideration of offsite alternatives to the proposed landfill project and because the analysis of potential impact to groundwater contained in the EIS is inadequate to support the issuance of the UUP. The adequacy of an EIS is a question of law subject to de novo review. Weyerhaeuser, 124 Wash.2d at 37, 873 P.2d 498. At the same time, the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA), RCW 43.21C.010-.914, provides that the decision of an agency regarding the adequacy of an EIS is to be accorded substantial weight. RCW 43.21C.090. EIS adequacy involves the legal sufficiency of the data in the EIS. Klickitat County Citizens Against Imported Waste v. Klickitat County, 122 Wash.2d 619, 633, 860 P.2d 390, amended, ___ Wash.2d ___, 866 P.2d 1256 (1993) (citing Richard L. Settle, The Washington State Environmental Policy Act: A Legal and Policy Analysis § 14(a)(i) (4th ed. 1993)). Sufficiency of the data is assessed under the rule of reason, which requires a `reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable environmental consequences' of the agency's decision. Weyerhaeuser, 124 Wash.2d at 38 (citations omitted).
OPAL first contends that the EIS is legally deficient because it does not include analysis of offsite alternatives. The EIS discussed three alternative proposals: a no-action proposal and two different configurations of a proposed landfill on the same site. It did not include discussion of offsite alternatives to the proposal. SEPA requires that an EIS contain a detailed discussion of alternatives to the proposed action. RCW 43.21C.030(c)(iii). SEPA's administrative rules provide that an EIS must consider as alternatives those actions that could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal's objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation. WAC § 197-11-440(5)(b). Under current administrative rules and case law, whether an EIS must include consideration of offsite alternatives depends on whether the project is public or private. An EIS for a private project on a specific site need only consider a no action alternative plus other reasonable alternatives for achieving the proposal's objective on the same site. WAC § 197-11-440(5)(d); Weyerhaeuser, 124 Wash.2d at 39, 873 P.2d 498. A public-project EIS must also include a discussion of offsite alternatives to the proposal. Weyerhaeuser, 124 Wash.2d at 39, 873 P.2d 498. To determine whether a project is public or private, we look first to who sponsored or initiated it because the administrative rules define a private project as any proposal primarily initiated or sponsored by an individual or entity other than an agency. WAC § 197-11-780. The classification rests not on nominal sponsorship but on a factual assessment of the level of public involvement in the project. See Weyerhaeuser, 124 Wash.2d at 39-40, 873 P.2d 498. In this case, we think it clear that the project was primarily sponsored and initiated by Waste Management, a private entity. Contrasting the facts of this case with those of Weyerhaeuser illuminates the private nature of the instant proposal. In Weyerhaeuser, the private corporation acted pursuant to a contract with the county when it sought to develop a new in-county landfill site, id. at 39, 873 P.2d 498; Waste Management has no such obligation to develop a landfill for Adams County [1] . In fact, Adams County has not yet formally decided to use the proposed facility to meet its own waste disposal needs. The private entity in Weyerhaeuser had a longstanding relationship with the county, including the county's involvement in the formation of the corporation to handle the county's entire solid waste system. Id. Waste Management currently is not involved in handling Adams County's solid wastes nor was the county involved in creating the corporation. Alternatively, a project may be designated public because a government entity seeks to fulfill its responsibility to perform a traditional governmental function through the project. See id. at 40-41, 873 P.2d 498. For example, in Weyerhaeuser, we noted that a private company that had been given the job of operating the `whole Pierce County solid waste system ...' was performing a governmental function. Id. at 39, 873 P.2d 498 (citation omitted). Thus, even though it was a private company that applied for a conditional use permit to construct a new landfill, id. at 29, 873 P.2d 498, we held that the proposed project was public because its purpose was to fulfill the County's responsibility for the collection and disposal of solid waste, see id. at 40, 873 P.2d 498. This governmental function test ensures that a government agency cannot avoid the requirement of environmental consideration of alternative sites by simply contracting with a private entity to carry out its public duty. See id. at 41, 873 P.2d 498. OPAL contends that Weyerhaeuser established a rule of law that an EIS for a landfill project must always include consideration of offsite alternatives. In so contending, OPAL misconstrues our governmental function analysis in that case. Our statement that regardless of whether the County deals with a private company, the collection and disposal of solid waste is the County's responsibility, id. at 41, 873 P.2d 498, must be read in context. We were not creating a hard and fast rule that any activity relating to solid waste handling that takes place within a county constitutes a public project of that county, even where, as here, it does not even involve disposal of that county's own solid waste. Rather, the key to the analysis is whether the governmental entity has, by means of the project at issue, allowed a private entity to fulfill the government's responsibility for handling the solid waste within its jurisdiction. Under the governmental function analysis, we conclude that the proposed project is not one through which Adams County seeks to perform a traditional government function. Waste Management seeks to build a landfill to serve customers throughout the Pacific Northwest, including Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Canada. Adams County has no governmental responsibility for the solid wastes generated outside of the county, such that this project could be perceived as an attempt to contract with a private entity to fulfill that responsibility. Even were Adams County to decide to use the landfill for the wastes generated in the county, Waste Management estimated that Adams County's solid waste would constitute less than two percent of the anticipated annual volume of wastes disposed of at the facility. In conclusion, we hold that Waste Management's proposed landfill project was properly characterized as private, because it was primarily sponsored and initiated by a private entity and is not intended to fulfill the solid waste responsibilities of Adams County. As such, the EIS did not need to include a discussion of offsite alternatives to the proposed development.
OPAL next argues that the analysis of potential groundwater impact is inadequate. Adams County responds that this proposal is appropriately evaluated in phases and that the analysis of the groundwater issue is sufficient for the siting phase of the permit process. As both parties seem to agree that further study will be required before an operating permit can be issued, we must first decide if phased review is appropriate. If so, we must then analyze the contents of the EIS relating to groundwater impact and, under the rule of reason, giving deference to the commissioners, determine whether it provided sufficient information for them to decide to issue the UUP. The draft EIS was accompanied by a draft geohydrological assessment report, which set forth preliminary analysis of the geology and hydrology of the site. Admin.R. at 1762-2408. The purpose of the report was to determine the general physical conditions at the site. Admin.R. at 1774. The report acknowledged that after site approval, additional studies would be required to obtain more specific data needed for the detailed design of the facility and its environmental controls. Id. The final EIS contained a summary of the draft geohydrological report, which concluded that [b]efore a permit to operate the landfill will be granted, characterization of the flow path between the base of the landfill and the uppermost monitorable unit at the site, and design of an effective groundwater monitoring system that will identify leaks and provide opportunity for meaningful remediation would be required. Admin.R. at 2547 (emphasis added). Although SEPA does not discuss the phasing of environmental review, administrative rules provide that review may be phased in some situations. WAC § 197-11-060(5). The purpose of phasing review is to enable agencies and the public to focus on issues ripe for decision and to exclude from consideration issues that are not yet ready. Klickitat, 122 Wash.2d at 638, 860 P.2d 390 (citing WAC § 197-11-060(5)(b)). Phased review is appropriate under the rules when [t]he sequence is from an environmental document on a specific proposal at an early stage (such as need and site selection) to a subsequent environmental document at a later stage (such as sensitive design impacts). WAC § 197-11-060(5)(c)(ii). Phased review is not appropriate when [i]t would segment and avoid present consideration of proposals and their impacts that are required to be evaluated in a single environmental document.... WAC § 197-11-060(5)(d)(iii). Proposals required to be evaluatedin one document are those that are related to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a single course of action.... WAC § 197-11-060(3)(b). Closely related proposals are further defined as ones that are interdependent parts of a larger proposal and depend on the larger proposal as their justification.... WAC § 197-11-060(3)(b)(ii). Washington courts have approved phased review of environmental impacts in certain situations. For example, this court has approved a bare bones EIS that identified the potential impacts of an application for a rezone to allow for construction of residential units. Cathcart-Maltby-Clearview Community Council v. Snohomish County, 96 Wash.2d 201, 208-11, 634 P.2d 853 (1981). In Cathcart, we held that the EIS was adequate at this stage in that it identified potential impacts and provided a framework for further EIS preparation, reasoning that This project is an appropriate candidate for a piecemeal EIS presentation, for at this time it is extremely difficult to assess its full impact. Given the magnitude of the project, the length of time over which it will evolve, and the multiplicity of variables, staged EIS review appears to be an unavoidable necessity. Id. at 210, 634 P.2d 853. An early-stage EIS is particularly appropriate when decisionmakers will have an opportunity to demand greater detail at a later project stage. Thus, in Cathcart, this court noted that when the developers seek sector, division of development, and plat approvals, a more detailed EIS can be required. 96 Wash.2d at 209, 634 P.2d 853; see also Ullock v. City of Bremerton, 17 Wash.App. 573, 583, 565 P.2d 1179 (1977) (noting that the city would have to require a more detailed EIS at a later permit stage). We conclude that this proposal presents an appropriate situation for phased review. The EIS at this phase focuses on the early issue of site selection. The EIS thus need only evaluate the proposed site's general suitability for a landfillincluding potential groundwater impactin order to enable the county to decide whether or not to issue a UUP. Greater detail on the specific design of the landfill can be required at the next phase of the permitting process, when Waste Management must apply for construction and operation permits. The two phases (unclassified use and operating permit applications) are not interdependent; it would not be inconsistent for the county to decide that the site is appropriate for a landfill generally but that a particular design is unsatisfactory. We also hold that the analysis of groundwater impact in the EIS is sufficient for this phase. After listening to expert testimony regarding the adequacy of this analysis, the trial court concluded that the assessment of hydrology and groundwater impacts is adequate. Even the one expert relied on by OPAL to support its argument that the analysis is inadequate, Larry Beard, did not testify definitively that the studies are inadequate for making the siting decision. Beard, who reviewed the geohydrological analysis, testified, [I]f I can summarize our conclusions first with respect to the locational standards, and they do in fact appear to meet the basic locational standards ... [s]o in terms of those minimum requirements, the site at this point, there appears to be enough information to draw those basic conclusions. Admin.R. at 8143. He also conveyed his understanding that further work could be done before an operations permit would be granted. Thus, we see no basis for overturning the determination by the commissioners.