Resolution 4305 - Laserfiche WebLink

HEARINGS EXAMINER FINDINGS AND DECISION SNOHOMISH COUNTY SEPA APPEAL NO. 1-95 Page 12 6. No supplemental EIS is required if probable significant adverse environmental impacts are covered by the range of alternatives previously reviewed in existing environmental documents. The County considered four alternatives during the SEPA review of its 1989 solid waste management plan. The involvement of the City was considered for two of the alternatives reviewed in the 1989 plan, and not considered for the two remaining alternatives. Time and money constraints were the reasons given for not including the City in the two alternatives. The County has had the opportunity to review the environmental impacts of all the alternatives but opted not to do so. The adverse environmental impacts that have been raised have been, or could have been, reviewed by the County in 1989. (RCW 43.21C.034; WAC 197-11-600(3)(b)(ii); Finding of Fact Nos. 15, 16 and 17). 7. When the City adopted the existing 1989 SEPA documents as part of the SEPA review, it incorporated them by reference as the basis of the DNS. Material incorporated by reference becomes part of the new SEPA review, circulation and other process requirements. (Finding of Fact No. 3, Snohomish County's Final Statement of Appeal; Citizens v. Klickitat Co., 122 Wn.2d 619, 637). 8. Pursuant to RCW 43.21C.090, the SEPA threshold determination of the City is accorded substantial weight. The DNS will not be overturned unless there is a showing that upon a review of the entire record and all the evidence the determination was "clearly erroneous". This standard has not been proven by the Appellant. (Findings of Fact Nos. 19-26; RCW 43.21C.090; Norway Hill Preservation & Prot. Assn. v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267). 9. Comments on a proposal by another agency (the County) must be as specific as possible and address the adequacy of the environmental document, the DNS and the adopted documents by the City. The comments provided by the County do not specifically set forth arguments based on existing data, but are more speculative in nature. The appeal of the County was speculative and provided scenarios of potential consequences of the City's withdrawal from the County plan. The County did not provide adequate information for the City to address existing impacts, nor did it identify or propose mitigation of impacts. [Findings of Fact Nos. 19-26; WAC 197-11-550(I)]. 10. The City responded to all comments submitted to it by the County and the U.S. Corps of Engineers. The comments submitted to it by the County were nonspecific and general in nature. (Finding No. 3). 11. An EIS is not a compendium of every conceivable effect or alternative to a project but is simply an aid to the decisionmaking process. The EIS need include only information sufficiently beneficial to the decisionmaking process to justify the cost of its inclusion. Impacts or alternatives which have insufficient casual relationship, likelihood, or reliability to influence decisionmakers can be considered remote or speculative. The contentions of the County of speculative scenarios of the County's solid waste program without Everett are not necessary for the environmental review of the City's 1995 plan. The 1995 Plan was reviewed in earlier documents and no EIS is required. (Richard Settle, The Washington State Environmental Policy Act, A Legal and