Opinion ID: 1179643
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adequacy of Groundwater Study

Text: 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.