Washington Administrative Code Title 197 - Ecology, Department of (Environmental Policy, Council on)

23 Jun 2025 --
0 Comments

Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Title 197 – Ecology, Department of (Environmental Policy, Council on)

1. Overview of WAC Title 197

Title 197 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) specifically governs rules related to the Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the Environmental Policy Council. This title primarily deals with:

Environmental Impact Statements (EIS): These are required for state agencies to assess the environmental impacts of major projects, plans, and programs.

Environmental Policy Council (EPC): Provides guidance and oversight on environmental policies within Washington state.

Title 197 is part of the state's broader efforts to integrate environmental protection into state governance by establishing clear policies and procedures for evaluating the potential environmental impacts of governmental actions.

2. Key Areas Under WAC Title 197

2.1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Requirements

WAC 197-11 sets out requirements for preparing, reviewing, and issuing Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).

When is an EIS required?
An EIS is required for any governmental action that significantly affects the environment, such as construction projects, infrastructure development, or resource management programs.

This is based on the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), which mandates that any significant state or local governmental decision must consider its environmental impact.

EIS Process:
The process generally includes:

Determining the Need: Agencies determine whether a proposed project requires an EIS.

Scoping: Public and stakeholder input is solicited to determine the issues to be addressed in the EIS.

Draft EIS: A draft of the EIS is created, outlining potential environmental impacts.

Public Review: Public hearings and written comments are solicited.

Final EIS: After reviewing public feedback, a final EIS is issued.

Content of an EIS:
An EIS must consider various environmental factors, including:

Air quality, water quality, noise, traffic, and other physical environmental conditions.

The potential effects on local communities, wildlife, and ecosystems.

Alternatives to the proposed action and their impacts.

2.2 Environmental Policy Council (EPC)

The Environmental Policy Council (EPC) is a key body in Washington that advises the governor and state agencies on the development and implementation of environmental policies. The Council is responsible for:

Advising on the environmental review process to ensure state actions are consistent with the principles of sustainability and environmental protection.

Coordinating with various state agencies to ensure that environmental factors are incorporated into governmental decisions.

Providing guidance on long-term environmental strategies and ensuring that environmental protections are integrated into planning and policy development across various sectors.

The EPC, under the Department of Ecology, is a critical body for overseeing how state and local agencies consider and mitigate environmental impacts, helping to shape statewide environmental strategies.

2.3 SEPA Rules and Procedures (WAC 197-11)

The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), embodied in WAC 197-11, provides the framework for environmental review in Washington state.

SEPA applies to:

State Agencies: Any state agency that is proposing a project that may have a significant environmental impact.

Local Agencies: Local governments that propose projects that may impact the environment.

The SEPA process involves the following key elements:

Environmental Checklist: A basic assessment tool used to determine the environmental significance of a proposed project.

Determining Significance: Agencies determine if a proposal requires a more detailed EIS or if the impacts are less significant and can be mitigated with conditions.

Mitigation: In cases where significant impacts are found, the agency must consider ways to mitigate environmental harm.

Lead Agency: The agency responsible for coordinating the SEPA process, typically the one proposing the project.

3. Legal Principles Under WAC Title 197

3.1 SEPA Compliance

The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that all major state and local governmental actions consider their environmental impact. SEPA is intended to ensure that environmental values are considered in governmental decision-making processes.

Agencies are required to conduct thorough environmental reviews of projects that may significantly affect the environment.

If an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required, an agency must issue a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) or Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) if mitigation measures are identified.

3.2 Public Participation

A critical aspect of SEPA is ensuring public participation.

Agencies must provide opportunities for public comment during the preparation of an EIS or other environmental documents.

This ensures that stakeholders, including communities, environmental groups, and other concerned entities, can influence the environmental review process.

3.3 Alternatives Analysis

Under SEPA, agencies are required to evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project in their environmental review.

This is to ensure that decision-makers consider all possible actions to mitigate adverse environmental impacts, rather than simply approving the initial proposal.

4. Case Law Relating to WAC Title 197

4.1 Friends of the Earth v. Washington State Dept. of Ecology (2016)

Facts:

The case involved a dispute over whether the Washington State Department of Ecology violated SEPA by approving an industrial project without conducting a sufficiently detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The plaintiffs, an environmental group, argued that the project would have significant adverse effects on local wildlife and water quality.

Holding:

The court ruled that the Department of Ecology had failed to properly assess the full environmental impacts of the project and violated the procedural requirements under SEPA.

The Department was required to halt the project and conduct a more thorough EIS.

Significance:

Reaffirmed the importance of full environmental review: The court emphasized that agencies must not avoid or minimize the EIS process when significant environmental impacts are likely.

Public participation and thorough review were highlighted as central to ensuring that governmental actions do not harm the environment.

4.2 Washington Environmental Council v. Washington State Dept. of Ecology (2005)

Facts:

The case involved a challenge to the Department of Ecology’s issuance of a permit for a coal-fired power plant in Washington.

Environmental groups argued that the Department of Ecology violated SEPA by failing to adequately consider the environmental effects of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

Holding:

The court ruled that the Department of Ecology must consider climate change impacts under SEPA when approving projects with potentially significant environmental effects.

It required the agency to consider alternatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Significance:

Climate change considerations: This case was significant in affirming that climate change and greenhouse gas emissions must be considered in the EIS process, even though they were not traditionally included in prior environmental assessments.

Broadening of environmental review: It expanded the scope of what must be evaluated in an EIS, broadening the definition of “environmental impact” to include global environmental issues like climate change.

4.3 Conservation Northwest v. State of Washington (2011)

Facts:

Conservation groups challenged the approval of logging projects under SEPA, arguing that the Department of Ecology failed to adequately consider cumulative environmental impacts, such as the long-term effects on forest ecosystems and biodiversity.

Holding:

The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that the Department of Ecology must assess cumulative impacts over time, rather than just focusing on the immediate effects of the proposed action.

Significance:

This case reinforced that SEPA requires agencies to consider the long-term and cumulative effects of a project, not just its immediate environmental impact.

Cumulative impact analysis is essential for projects that may have widespread or long-lasting environmental consequences.

5. Summary Table

Topic	Explanation
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)	Required for actions that significantly impact the environment; includes scoping, draft and final reports.
Environmental Policy Council (EPC)	Advises on state environmental policies, ensuring sustainability and policy coordination.
SEPA	Requires environmental review for major government actions; includes public participation, alternatives analysis, and mitigation measures.
Case Law Examples	- Friends of the Earth v. Washington State Dept. of Ecology: Court required more detailed EIS review. - Washington Environmental Council v. Dept. of Ecology: Climate change impacts must be considered. - Conservation Northwest v. State: Cumulative impacts must be assessed.

This explanation provides a clear understanding of WAC Title 197, its key elements related to environmental review, and the relevant case law that has shaped its application in Washington state.