Court Opinion

ID: 9733105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:53:43.191941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:38.447000
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(dissenting). The least that the citizens of Wisconsin should expect from state agencies is that they follow their own rules. As is obvious from all the opinions written in this case, trial and appellate, the Department of Administration (DOA) did not follow its own rules in this case. I would therefore affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
Under the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA), all state agencies must consider the impact of their proposed actions on the environment. The courts have the responsibility to see that the agencies do so. To ensure proper consideration of the impact of its actions on the environment, the DOA is bound to follow the rules and procedures it imposed on itself under WEPA in determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). When the DOA decided not to prepare an EIS, it was required to create a reviewable record explaining its decision. In this case, the DOA, with the majority's stamp of approval, neither prepared an EIS nor created a reviewable record.
*609While some might be concerned that the majority's decision severely weakens the need for agencies to comply with their rules and with WEPA, it is evident from this per curiam opinion that the decision in this case is like "a restricted railroad ticket, good for this day and train only." Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 669 (1944) (Roberts, J., dissenting).
Because I believe that according to its own rules the DOA must prepare an environmental impact statement, I dissent and I would affirm the holding of the court of appeals.
The purpose of the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act1 is to ensure that administrative agencies consider the environmental impact of their proposed actions. WEPA does not mandate a particular decision in an individual case. The statute requires an agency only to identify and evaluate the environmental effects of a particular project while planning for the project. In sum, WEPA protects against an agency's uninformed decisions, not against an agency's unwise decisions.2 The substance of WEPA is the procedure the agencies must follow to ensure informed decision-making.3
*610In 1976, the Governor ordered all state agencies to comply with Revised Guidelines designed to implement WEPA.4 Accordingly the DOA enacted Wis. Admin. Code sec. Adm 60, the DOA rules applicable to this case. (For the full text of chapter Adm 60, see appendix.) Complying with the Executive Order, the DOA rules, sec. Adm 60.03, set forth an Action Type List that categorizes all of the DOA's actions5 as Type I, II, or III for purposes of determining the need for an EIS. Type I actions "shall always require an EIS"; Type II actions require at least an environmental assessment (EA); and Type III actions are presumed not to require an EIS or an EA.6
*611The DOA rules mandate that the DOA use the Action Type List to determine whether an EIS is needed for the particular action under consideration. Section Adm 60.04(1) states that the "action type list shall be used to determine the category of the proposed action." (Emphasis added.)
Although the DOA rules require the DOA to determine whether the building was a Type I, II, or III action, not one judge reviewing the record in this case could find anything demonstrating that the DOA had expressly considered the Action Type List contained in sec. Adm 60.03. During oral argument the court of appeals asked counsel for the DOA whether the DOA had ever expressly decided the action type and if so when. Counsel could not answer the question. Larsen v. Munz Corp., 166 Wis. 2d 751, 762 (Ct. App. 1992).
Deciding on the action type is not a mere technicality, not an extra hoop through which an agency must jump. It is necessary for compliance with WEPA, an Executive Order, and the DOA's chapter Adm 60 rules.
Furthermore, when determining that no EIS is required, the DOA must develop a reviewable record, showing that it took a "hard look" at the environmental consequences involved in the project. Wisconsin's Envtl. Decade, Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 79 Wis. 2d 409, 420, 425, 256 N.W.2d 149 (1977) (WED III). The court must subject an agency's decision not to prepare an EIS, and the record on which it is based, to a "searching inquiry." 79 Wis. 2d at 420.7 The burden of showing *612compliance with WEPA is on the DOA. 79 Wis. 2d at 430.
Although the majority opinion professes to follow WED III, it cannot conduct a searching inquiry because the DOA created no record to review regarding whether this building was a Type I action. Instead, the majority opinion apparently rests on the following reasoning: Because the DOA did not order an EIS, which is required in Type I actions, the DOA must have implicitly determined that the building was not a Type I action. This reasoning might have merit if the majority could find any evidence to support its claim. The majority's reasoning fails, however, because the DOA's conduct is inconsistent with the majority's reasoning and because the majority's opinipn is internally inconsistent.
The inconsistencies become evident when examining the majority's conclusion that the DOA implicitly decided the building did not fall under any category of the three action types on its action type list. The majority states that when an agency determines that a proposed action does not fall under any category on its action type list, the agency must prepare an environmental assessment. Majority opinion at 603-604. In clear contradiction of the requirement it just stated, the majority then claims that when confronted by the supposedly uncategorized action the DOA "appropriately responded" by preparing a preliminary environmental impact assessment (PEIA). Majority opinion at 604. If *613the DOA had concluded that the action was uncat-egorized, the preparation of an environmental assessment would have been the appropriate response.8 Thus, the DOA's conduct is not consistent with the majority's reasoning about the DOA's making implicit determinations, and the majority's reasoning is not internally consistent.
Moreover, it appears that the concept underlying the Action Type List, sec. Adm 60.03, is that the list encompass all potential agency actions. By assigning each action to a category on the list, an agency could easily and uniformly determine the procedures necessary to comply with WEPA. The Executive Order under which the DOA adopted its sec. Adm 60 rules requires each agency "to list all of its actions under one or more of the categories," to "maintain an updated list of all categories of actions taken by the agency," and "to ensure that all agency actions have been listed."9 The majority concludes that, because the building involves a long-term lease with an option to purchase, the action is "without precedent." Majority opinion at 604. The majority opinion misses the point: WEPA is concerned with the impact of agency actions on the environment, not with financing schemes. The construction of a build*614ing was well within the imagination of the DOA personnel who drafted and adopted the Action Type List.
The only inference to be drawn from the majority's reasoning and from the record is that the DOA never determined the action type, thereby ignoring its own sec. Adm 60 rules or proceeding in ignorance of them. The court of appeals drew this inference. I agree with the court of appeals.
After constructing the DOA's implicit determination that the building was not a Type I action and no EIS was needed, the majority applies Wisconsin's Envtl. Decade, Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 79 Wis. 2d 409, 419, 256 N.W.2d 149 (1977) (WED III), to examine whether the implicit determination that the building was not a Type I action was reasonable. The majority gives deference to the DOA's implicit determination. Because the DOA did not determine whether the building constitutes a Type I, II, or III action, or even an uncategorized action, the court should not grant deference to the DOA's failure to follow its rules, as the majority does. Moreover, because the DOA never made the determination that the majority infers, nor created a record of its determination, the majority cannot examine the "reasonableness" of the DOA's determination.
The majority constructs its own after-the-fact rationale to persuade themselves and the public of the reasonableness of the DOA's implicit determination that the building is not a Type I action. Even assuming arguendo that the "reasonableness" standard is appropriate, the majority's after-the-fact construct is not persuasive.
Under the DOA's rules the only Type I action is the development of "new facilities" on "parcels not previously developed by the state." Facility development is defined as "[planning, designing, contracting for and constructing physical facilities when the department of *615administration is to be the managing authority as defined in ss. 16.84 and 16.845, Stats.', i.e. the 'lead agency.' " Section Adm 60.03. (See appendix.)
In evaluating the "reasonableness" of the DOA's "implicit determination" that the building is not Type I, the majority first claims that the DOA did not serve as the "designer, contractor, constructor, nor developer" of the building. Majority opinion at 600. The majority's application of the rule assumes that in order for the building to be a Type I action the DOA must be the sole designer, contractor, constructor, or developer of the building. The language of the rule does not support this interpretation.
The DOA clearly engaged in planning, designing, contracting for and constructing the building. The majority concedes that the DOA gave the Munz corporation "significant guidance" in all these activities. Majority opinion at 601. "Significant guidance" is a significant understatement of the DOA's involvement in the building. The lease provides that the DOA shall approve final plans and specifications, review bids for construction, and approve the purchase of certain materials. The DOA also provided Munz with 150 pages of construction guidelines and, according to the lease, Munz was required to retain a full-time state construction representative on the site during construction. Finally, the DOA requested the addition of numerous design upgrades, including the addition of kitchen and cafeteria areas, showers and locker rooms, and a meeting room.10
*616The majority alternatively asserts that in reaching its decision that the building was not a Type I action, the DOA implicitly referred to the 1976 Governor's Revised Guidelines which stated that Type I actions involve facilities "to be owned" by the state. Majority opinion at 601.11 The DOA rules, sec. Adm 60.03, omitted the words "to be owned" from its Type I action list. Even if the DOA rules contained these words, the DOA would still need to prepare an EIS, because the lease-purchase agreement clearly allows for the possibility, indeed the probability, that the building at issue is "to be owned" by the state or a state agency.
In sum, the majority simply ignores that WEPA is designed to force agencies to include environmental factors in their decision-making processes. See WED III, 79 Wis. 2d at 416; sec. Adm 60.01(1). Under WEPA, agency decision-makers must acquire and consider all relevant environmental information before they commit resources to a project. Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. v. DNR, 94 Wis. 2d 263, 271, 288 N.W.2d 168 (Ct. App. 1979) (citation omitted). The DOA did not comply with either the letter or spirit of its rules for implementing WEPA. The majority allows the DOA to evade its responsibilities under the law, sending an unfortunate message to the citizens of this state who must obey agency rules or suffer the consequences.
*617Government officials must be held strictly responsible for following the rules they adopt. If we do . not hold government officials to this standard, we invite ad hoc judgments that increase opportunities for government abuse. The United States Supreme Court has held that when an agency adopts rules to govern its decision-making, even when a statute grants the agency absolute discretion in making the decision, the agency must follow those rules. Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363, 388 (1957); Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535, 539-40 (1959).12
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stated the principle of holding an agency to its own rules as follows:
[I]t is elementary that an agency must adhere to its own rules and regulations. Ad hoc departures from those rules, even to achieve laudable aims, cannot be sanctioned ... for therein lie the seeds of destruction of the orderliness and predictability which are the hallmarks of lawful administrative action. Simply stated, rules are rules, and fidelity to the rules which have been properly promulgated, consistent with applicable statutory requirements, is required of those to whom Congress has entrusted the regulatory missions of modem life.
Reuters Ltd. v. F.C.C., 781 F.2d 946, 950-51 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
If the DOA believes that the sec. Adm 60 rules it promulgated to implement WEPA provide for the prepa*618ration of an EIS in more cases than WEPA requires, the DOA must amend its rules, not ignore them.
For the reasons set forth, I would affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
APPENDIX
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
Chapter Adm 60
WISCONSIN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT, PROCEDURES FOR DEPARTMENT ACTIONS
Adm 60.01 Purpose
Adm 60.02 Definitions
Adm 60.03 Department action type list
Adm 60.04 Determination of need for an EIS
Adm 60.05 Scoping
Adm 60.06 Contents of an EIS
Adm 60.07 Distribution and review of the DEIS and FEIS
Adm 60.08 Public hearings on the DEIS and FEIS
Adm 60.09 Record of decision
Adm 60.01 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to:
(1) Establish a policy to assure departmental consideration of the short and long term environmental and economic effects of department actions upon the human environment.
(2) Provide principles, objectives, definitions and criteria to be used by the department in the implementation of s. 1.11, Stats. Implementation includes the evaluation of proposed actions; the study, development and description of alternatives where proposed actions involve unresolved conflicts in the use of available resources; and the preparation and review of environmental impact statements.
*619(3) Establish the identification of major actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and the need for an environmental impact statement.
(4) Provide an opportunity for public input to the decision-making process.
Adm 60.02 Definitions. (1) "Action" means any activity, initiated by the department or initiated by someone outside state government, which could not have occurred but for the department and which may affect the human environment.
(2) "Alternatives" means other actions or activities which may be reasonably available to achieve the same or altered purpose of the proposed action, including the alternative of no action.
(3) "Department" means the department of administration.
(4) "EA" or "environmental assessment" means a documented brief but comprehensive analysis of a proposed Type II action to determine its environmental impact; to study, develop, and thoroughly describe alternatives; and to determine whether the proposed action constitutes a major state action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment or involving unresolved conflicts in the use of available resources.
(5) "EIS" or "environmental impact statement" means a written report prepared pursuant to s. 1.11, Stats., which contains an analysis of anticipated impacts of a proposed action, and alternatives to the proposed action, upon the human environment. The draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) is a preliminary version of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS).
(6) "Finding of no significant impact" means a completed environmental assessment which indicates *620that the proposed action is not a major action which will significantly affect the quality of the human environment and that no EIS is required.
(7) "Human environment" means the totality of conditions and influences, both natural and artificial, which surround and affect all organisms, including people.
(8) "Major action" means an action which will significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
(9) "Resources" means financial, cultural and natural matter and forms as well as labor and materials used and affected by a proposed action if permitted.
(10) "Significant effects" means the considerable and important impacts, beneficial or adverse, of actions on the quality of the human environment.
Adm 60.03 Department action type list. The department has categorized its actions into the following type list which shall determine or aid in the determination of the need for an EIS. Type I actions shall always require an EIS. Type II actions may or may not require an EIS, depending on the significance of the action, or may or may not involve unresolved conflicts in the use of available resources. All Type II actions shall be evaluated by using an EA. Type III actions normally do not have the potential to cause significant environmental effects and normally do not involve unresolved conflicts in the use of available resources. Unless the department determines otherwise, these actions will not require an EA or EIS. If a particular Type III action or a particular uncat-egorized action is found by the department to involve unresolved conflicts in the use of available resources, the department shall comply with Adm 60.04(3).
*621[[Image here]]
*622[[Image here]]
*623[[Image here]]
Adm 60.04 Determination of need for an EIS. (1) During the early planning stages, the department shall determine the need for preparing an EIS on its actions. The action type list shall be used to determine the category of the proposed action.
(2) In determining whether a Type II action is a major action that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment, or is a proposed course of action which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources, the department shall base its decision on an environmental assessment (EA) which shall contain the following information:
(a) A brief description of the proposed action including maps and graphs if applicable.
(b) A brief description of those factors in the human environment affected by the proposed action.
*624(c) A brief evaluation of significant primary and secondary environmental effects that would result if the proposal were implemented.
(d) A brief study, development and description of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action and a brief evaluation of the significant environmental or other effects of these alternatives.
(e) A listing of other agencies or groups contacted and the comments of and other pertinent information from these agencies and groups.
(f) An evaluation section which contains brief discussions of the following specific factors:
1. Stimulation of secondary (indirect) effects.
2. Creation of a new environmental effect.
3. Impacts on geographically scarce environmental features.
4. Precedent-setting nature of the action.
5. Significant controversy associated with the action.
6. Conflicts with official agency plans or local, state, or national policy.
7. Cumulative impacts of repeated actions of this type.
8. Foreclosure of future options.
(g) An identification and brief discussion of appropriate alternatives to proposed Type II actions that may involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources, including the alternative of no action. A proposed action involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources when
1. The proposed action may reasonably be expected to materially use or affect a resource, temporarily or permanently; and
2. The resource is reasonably suited to one or more other uses; and
*6253. There is a discernible conflict, competition, difference or incompatibility between the use to be made of the resource by the proposed action and another use, including the present use, to which the resource is reasonably suited; and
4. The conflict, competition, difference, or incompatibility between the proposed action's use and the other uses to which the resource is reasonably suited cannot be avoided or resolved if the proposed action is implemented.
(3) If it is determined that there Eire unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources in a proposed Type II action, then the department shall study, develop and thoroughly describe the appropriate alternatives.
(4) The department shall issue a news release to news media in the vicinity of the proposed action for each EA, including the following information:
(a) A brief description of the project, including location.
(b) A contact person within the department who can provide copies of the EA and answer questions.
(c) A date by which the department will receive and consider comments before making its final decision on the need for an EIS.
(5) Following the deadline for receipt of public comment on the EA, the department shall review the assessment, consider all public comments, make required comments, and approve the assessment. A public hearing may be held to receive public input and aid in the review of and decision on the need for an EIS.
(6) If a finding is made in the EA that no EIS is required for a proposed Type II action, the original EA shall then be filed by the department in its Madison, Wisconsin office as a finding of no significant impact. *626The assessment is a public record which is available for review upon request.
(7) If a finding is made in the EA that an EIS is required for a proposed Type II action, the department shall prepare a DEIS and an FEIS.
Adm 60.05 Scoping. (1) As soon as possible after the decision to prepare an EIS, the department shall inform the public and affected agencies that an EIS will be prepared and that the process of identifying potential major issues, called scoping, is beginning.
(2) The scoping process shall include, to the extent possible, affected and other interested persons. The process may consist of meetings, hearings, workshops, surveys, questionnaires, interagency committees, or other appropriate methods or activities, and may be integrated with other public participation requirements.
(3) The department shall use the scoping process to accomplish any of the following:
(a) Determine the scope and the significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the EIS.
(b) Identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review. This will narrow the discussion of these issues in the EIS to a brief presentation of why they will not have a significant effect on the human environment or a reference to their coverage elsewhere.
(c) Set a time schedule for document preparation and opportunities for public involvement.
Adm 60.06 Contents of an EIS. (1) When an EIS is required, a DEIS and an FEIS shall be prepared by the department or prepared for the department under contract by a consultant with supervision and final editorial review by the department. The DEIS shall emphasize significant environmental issues identified during *627the scoping process. The FEIS shall be based in part upon comments received on the DEIS and on information received from other sources. An EIS shall provide analysis of the environmental and economic implications of á proposed action contemplated by the department. An EIS shall include the following:
(a) A description of the proposed action and of the affected environment including the project location, type of facility, time schedules, maps and diagrams deemed relevant, and other pertinent information which will adequately allow an assessment of the potential environmental impact by persons who want to make comments.
(b) The probable impact of the proposed action on the human environment. An evaluation will be made of the positive and negative effects of the proposed action as it relates to the environment. Secondary as well as primary consequences to the environment will be included wherever possible.
(c) Alternatives to the proposed action, including a rigorous exploration and objective evaluation of the environmental impacts of all reasonable alternatives, particularly those that might avoid all or some of the adverse environmental effects of the proposed action. Consideration will be given to the economic advantages and disadvantages and energy impacts of each alternative wherever possible.
(d) Probable adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented. Protective and mitigative measures to be taken as part of the proposed action shall be identified.
(e) The relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. The EIS shall describe the extent to which the proposed action involves tradeoffs between short-term economic gains at the expense of *628long-term environmental productivity or vice versa, and the extent to which the proposed action forecloses future options.
(f) Significant irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposed action if implemented, including a statement identifying the extent to which the proposed action irreversibly curtails the range of potential uses of the environment.
(g) A summary of the scoping process used and the major issues identified for detailed analysis in the EIS.
(h) The FEIS shall discuss at appropriate points any responsible opposing view not adequately discussed in the DEIS.
(i) If the department makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns, or if there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns that have bearing on the proposed action or its impacts, that arise after preparation of the FEIS, but before substantial implementation of the action, the department shall prepare supplements to the FEIS. If a supplement is prepared it shall be distributed and reviewed in the same manner as a DEIS or a FEIS as provided in Adm. 60.07.
(2) The EIS shall be an analysis document that enables environmental factors to be considered in the development of a proposed action. It shall be considered by the department in the decision-making process.
(3) The EIS is not a document of justification. Furthermore, disclosure of adverse environmental effects shall not necessarily require that a proposed action be denied or terminated.
(4) Environmental impact statements shall be written in plain language and should use appropriate graphics to aid decision-makers and the public. Where *629appropriate, an EIS may be combined with other required environmental or planning documents.
Adm 60.07 Distribution and review of the DEIS and FEIS. (1) Distribution and review of the DEIS, (a) Copies of the DEIS shall be distributed as follows:
1. The governor's office.
2. State, federal and local government agencies having special expertise, interest or jurisdiction.
3. Regional and county planning agencies located within the proposed project or action area.
4. The department of natural resources.
5. Libraries:
a. For proposed actions affecting a local area, the nearest library. In addition, the county clerk or town clerk will be requested to make the document available in the the county courthouse, city hall or town hall.
b. For projects of regional importance, public libraries with geographic distribution which provides public access without undue travel.
c. Projects having statewide significance, public libraries providing reasonable access by the individuals who would be potentially affected by the proposed action.
(b) Notice of availability of the DEIS. 1. An announcement sheet giving a brief description of the proposed action, a description of the administrative procedures to be followed, the date by which comments on the DEIS are to be submitted to the department, and the location where copies of the DEIS are available for review, shall be circulated as follows:
a. All local and regional units of government which have jurisdiction over the area that may be affected by the proposed action. A request will be made for posting *630the announcement sheet at the place normally used for public notices.
b. Local and regional news media in the vicinity of the proposed action.
c. Groups or individuals which have demonstrated an interest and have requested receipt of this type of information.
d. All participants in the scoping process not covered in subd. a. through c.
(c) Period of time for comment on the DEIS.
1. A minimum of 45 days from the date the DEIS is mailed shall be allowed for the receipt of comments. Depending upon the length and complexity of the DEIS, the department may establish an initial review period up to a total of 90 days. A reasonable request for extension, up to 15 days beyond the initial review period, may be granted by the department for the review of the DEIS.
2. If the department determines that a review period of less than 45 days will suffice for the DEIS, the department may limit the review period to no less than 20 days. The DEIS, announcement sheet and public notices shall call attention to the reduced review period and shall specify the date by which comments on the DEIS must be submitted to the department if they are to be considered in developing the FEIS.
(2) Distribution and review of the FEIS. (a) The FEIS shall be distributed in the same manner as the DEIS, and shall also be distributed to any person, organization or agency that submitted comments on the DEIS.
(b) The availability of the FEIS shall be announced through a notice of public hearing or through an announcement sheet similar to the announcement of the availability of the DEIS.
*631(c) A period of not less than 30 days and not more than 90 days from the date the FEIS is mailed, depending on the length and complexity of the FEIS, shall be allowed for receipt of comments from state and federal agencies and the public. A reasonable request for an extension, up to 15 days beyond the initial review period, may be granted by the department for the review of the FEIS.
Adm 60.08 Public hearings on the DEIS and FEIS. (1) Whenever a proposed action requires a DEIS and an FEIS, the department shall hold a public hearing on the DEIS, no sooner than 30 days after its issuance, and shall also hold a public hearing on the FEIS, no sooner than 30 days after its issuance and prior to making a final decision. These hearings shall be noticed and conducted in the same manner as a contested case proceeding under ch. 227, Stats. The final draft of the EIS issued by the department, and the record of decision provided in Adm 60.09, are intended to satisfy the decision requirement of s. 227.10, Stats.
(2) The hearings shall be held in the locality affected; on actions of statewide significance, the hearing may be held in Madison.
(3) The department shall issue a news release to news media in the vicinity of the proposed action for each public hearing on a DEIS or FEIS. Notice shall also be mailed to all known departments and agencies required to grant any approval necessary for the proposal; to any regional planning commission within which the affected area lies; to the governing bodies of all towns, villages, cities and counties within which any part of the proposal lies; to the governing bodies of any towns, villages or cities contiguous to any town, village or city within which any part of the proposal lies; and to interested persons who have requested such notification. *632Persons, organizations or agencies that attended the DEIS public hearing shall also receive notice of the FEIS public hearing.
(4) After the FEIS public hearing provided in sub. (1), the department shall carefully review the hearing record and summarize the comments received on the DEIS and the FEIS.
Adm 60.09 Record of decision. Where an EIS is prepared, the department shall also, at the time of its final decision, prepare a record of decision. The record of decision shall identify all alternatives considered in the order of their environmental preference. The record of decision shall state whether for the alternative selected, all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted, and if not, why they were not.

The Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act has become so synonymous with environmental protection that the decision of the court of appeals and the DOA's brief both refer to the statute as the Wisconsin Environmental Protection Act.

Federal courts have similarly interpreted the National Environmental Policy Act. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350-51 (1989); City of Oak Creek v. Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist., 576 F. Supp. 482, 488 (E.D. Wis. 1983).

 Wisconsin's Envtl. Decade, Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 79 Wis. 2d 409, 416, 256 N.W.2d 149 (1977) (WED III); City of New Richmond v. Dep't of Natural Resources, 145 Wis. 2d 535, 542, 428 N.W.2d 279 (Ct. App. 1988).

Revised Order, Guidelines for the Implementation of the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act, Executive Order No. 26 (February 12, 1976).

The DOA rules define "action" as "any activity, initiated by the department or initiated by someone outside state government, which could not have occurred but for the department and which may affect the human environment." Section Adm 60.02(1). See appendix. The DOA does not dispute that the project in issue in this case constitutes an action under these rules.

Because the preparation of an EIS is time consuming and because agencies "may very well approach the question [of an EIS] with a bias favoring a negative conclusion," WED III, 79 Wis. 2d at 420, the Revised Guidelines require all state agencies to create similar lists to implement WEPA. See Wisconsin's Envtl. Decade, Inc. v. ILHR Dep't, 104 Wis. 2d 640, 646, 312 N.W.2d 749 (1981). These Type Lists typically comprise three categories.
The Type Lists allow agencies to defend more ably a determination not to write an EIS and provide the public and the courts with a means to review an agency decision more easily. For examples of other agencies' type lists, see sec. ILHR 1.06, Wis. Admin. Code (Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations), and sec. NR 150.03, Wis. Admin. Code (Department of Natural Resources).

The reason for this careful scrutiny was described by this court as follows:
The threshold decision whether to prepare an EIS occupies a critical position within the context of WEPA's operation. A negative determination at the initial stage may eliminate to a significant degree environmental consideration by the agency and may curtail much of *612the input, which an EIS is designed to foster, of other governmental agencies and the public in the agency's decision process. It is obvious that achievement of WEPA's goals will be significantly compromised if ill-advised determinations not to prepare an EIS are permitted by the courts to stand. Thus a consideration of the manner in which WEPA was intended to function dictates a liberal approach to the threshold decision of whether the impact statement should be prepared. WED III, 79 Wis. 2d at 419.

The DOA prepared only a preliminary environmental impact assessment (PEIA). The circuit court found that the DOA’s PEIA did not correspond to an environmental assessment. The circuit court found that the PEIA was inadequate because it did not evaluate the environmental or aesthetic aspects of the Munz project and did not determine whether the proposed action constituted a major state action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Majority opinion at 595.

Revised Guidelines for the Implementation of the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act 5 (February 1976) (emphasis added).

The circuit court found that the DOA was "intimately" involved in planning and development. The circuit court categorized the building as a Type II action, however, because the court incorrectly interpreted sec. Adm 60.03 as stating that Type I actions may only occur "on land being developed by the state." Memorandum Decision at 6. Section Adm 60.03 does not require *616that a Type I action occur "on land being developed by the state," but only that the planning, designing, contracting for, and constructing occur on "parcels not previously developed by the state."

The Revised Guidelines define "facilities development" as "[planning, designing and construction of physical facilities to be owned and operated by state agencies or the state." Revised Guidelines at 2 (emphasis added). See Majority opinion at 592.

See also Center for Auto Safety v. Dole, 828 F.2d 799, 806 (D.C. Cir. 1987); State ex rel. Riley v. DHSS, 151 Wis. 2d 618, 623, 445 N.W.2d 693 (Ct. App. 1989); State ex rel. Meeks v. Gagnon, 95 Wis. 2d 115, 119, 289 N.W.2d 357 (Ct. App. 1980); sec. 227.57(8), Stats. 1989-90.