Growth Management and SEA The Non-Project Review (NPR) system of Washington State ,USA,

1. CS23.1.3 #533 1/17 Growth Management and SEA The Non-Project Review (NPR) system of Washington State ,USA, focusing on the legislative background Tokyo Institute of Technology Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Science and Engineering 2.Osaka University Research Institute for Sustainable Science Sachihiko HARASHINA1, Yuki SHIBATA1, Terukazu KUMAZAWA2 IAIA’07 6 June

2. Outline 2/17 Introduction －Growth Management and SEA Background Viewpoint & Objectives of this Research State Environmental Policy Act. (SEPA) in Washington State (WA.). Integration of GMA and NPR Public Participation in New NPR System Discussion i. Information Disclosure, ii. Public Participation, iii. Appeal Conclusion

3. 3/17 Introduction－Growth Management and SEA Land Use of the Central Business Districts (CBD) [Photo by Harashina,2004] Tokyo New York

4. 4/17 Introduction－Growth Management and SEA Land Use， 10km from the CBDs Tokyo New York [Photo by Harashina,2004]

5. 5/17 Introduction－Growth Management and SEA Land Use， 20ｋｍ from the CBDs Tokyo New York [Photo by Harashina,2004] Long-term&Wide-area solutions are needed !!

6. 6/17 Background Need to control the urbanization by strategically-designed policy Need to give environmental consideration by adequate public participation Growth Management Policy SEA system The systems in Washington State (WA.) has been characterized as most advanced in terms of the level of integration of SEA and Growth Management Policy※ [※ American Planning Association (1998), Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook, Chapter 12]

7. 7/17 Viewpoints & Objectives of the Research Viewpoints (1)Information Disclosure, (2)Public Participation (narrowly defined ; i.e. opportunity to comment), (3)Appeal systems should be fundamental elements in the process of SEA. Identify * the process of the SEA in WA. * the provisions related to public participation in the SEA process Objectives

8. Interviewee -the core members of each bureau Date of interview Ms. Teri North (WA. Department of Ecology) 2006.11.30 Ms. Linda Healy (WA. Department of Transportation) 2006.12.01 Mr. Tim Trohimovich (NGO, futur wise in Seattle) 2006.12.04 Mr. Rick Olson (Puget Sound Regional Council) 2006.12.06 8/17 About Interview Washington State Capital : Olympia Largest city : Seattle Area : 1.8 billion Km2 Population : 6.3 million [Washington State Office of Washington State (2006)] Olympia Seattle

9. 9/17 SEPA ( State Environmental Policy Act. ) in WA. 1971 – WA. enacted SEPA modeled on NEPA (1969) 1976 – SEPA Guideline was legislated. (adopted specific procedural requirements to enhance efficiency, to promote public participation) 1984 - SEPA Rules were adopted. (streamlined the screening process and clarified the appeal procedures. )

10. 10/17 SEPA ( State Environmental Policy Act. ) in WA. Proposal Initiated SEPA process as shown had been applied for both Project Action (decisions on specific construction project) & Non-Project Action. (decisions on policies, plans, and programs, including adoption or amendment of ordinance, regulation) Review of Exemption Exemption Environmental Checklist Issue DNS (Determination of nonsignificance ) Issue DS/Scoping Notice (Determination of significance ) PublicNotice CP-14 Appeal PublicNotice Draft EIS CP-14 [CP14/30] : prepared comment period at least 14/30days. [Appeal] : public and agencies can challenge lead agency. It called “Administrative Appeal” Appeal PublicNotice Final EIS CP-30 PublicNotice Appeal Agency Decision

11. 11/17 Integration and NPR system 1990 - GMA (Growth Management Act.) was enacted (cites & counties adopt policies, plans, and regulation to manage land use, environmental resources… ) 1995 - SEPA Rules were amended Added provisions for integration of SEPA into planning process under the GMA 2001 – New NPR (Non-Project Review) system including new document form was introduced

12. 12/17 Integration and New NPR system for Policy, Plan, Program SEPA requires proponents to use integrated approach to include environmental factor in both planning & decision-making. The NPR Form is intended to be used concurrently with the development of a nonproject proposal. (i.e. upon identification that a plan, policy or rule is likely to be needed.) Proposal Initiated Review of Exemption Exemption NPR Form & checklist Issue DNS (Determination of nonsignificance ) Issue DS/Scoping Notice (Determination of significance ) PublicNotice CP-14 Appeal PublicNotice Draft EIS CP-14 Appeal PublicNotice Final EIS CP-30 PublicNotice Appeal Agency Decision

13. 13/17 Public Participation in New NPR System Example of integration process. • NPR processes are built into • whole planning process. • Environmental analysis starts • concurrently with preliminary • planning considerations. • Public Participations including • Public Notice, Comment Period, • Appeal also are built into early • or whole planning stage. [ NPR ] Proposal Initiated [ Planning ] NPR Form & Checklist Development of the proposal Issue DS/Scoping Notice (Determination of significance ) Issue Notice of Application Combined Document PublicNotice CP-14 Appeal Combined Document Draft plan including alternatives Draft EIS PublicNotice Discussion on the Public Participation - Information Disclosure - Public Participation - Appeal CP-30 Combined Document More concrete Plan document Final EIS PublicNotice Appeal Agency Decision

14. 14/17 Discussion - Information Disclosure • Combined SEPA documents disclose environmental • information and planning information at the same time. • NPR Form provides information including adverse effect • to the public in the early stage of planning. discussion formulation NPR Form search/alternatives NPR Form seems to be enhancing the discussion and information necessary for not only environmental review, but also development of plan & good decision. analysis Draft EIS evaluation interpretation Final EIS adoption

15. 15/17 Discussion - Public Participation • - SEPA stipulates • Comment Periods on SEPA documents. • Respond to all the comments received. • SEPA doesn’t stipulate Hearings • and meetings, it just encourages. Types of Public Participation Meeting Type Document Type discussion discretion Comments Periods are required as minimum opportunities. Synthesizing both types is better. stipulated

16. 16/17 Discussion - Appeal SEPA provides opportunities for public citizens and agencies to challenge the decisions made in the SEPA process. ：decision-making stages ： opportunities to appeal at each stage discussion opportunities to appeal at each stage is considered to be effective for immediately collecting inappropriate decision. Mature ness of the Plan Decision-making stages Final decision

17. 17/17 Conclusion • As a result of integration, Public Participations are built • onto early and whole planning processes. • Information regarding Policy, Plan, or Program is • disclosed in the preliminary planning consideration stage. • -SEPA requires Document Type Public Participation. On • the other hand, SEPA doesn’t stipulate Public Hearings • and meetings, it just encourages. • SEPA prepares appeal processes at each stage in SEA.

18. Thank you.

19. Appendix

20. Contents of NPR Form - Background ; Name of proposal, Legal authority, Time line - Need and Objective ; Identify the problems, Needs, objectives - Environmental Overview - Regulatory Framework - Public Involvement ; Processes expected to be used - Affected Environment (environmental elements likely to be affected) - Key Issue Assessment ; List of issues and the reasons - Proposed Action and Alternative Actions - Consistency of the proposal with other plans, policies - Monitoring and Follow-up

21. The integrated model The consent-related model Strategic-decision making SEA stages Strategic-decision making SEA stages [ Micheal Schmidt, Elsa Joao, Eike Albrecht (2004), Implementing Strategic Environmental Assessment, Springer, p9.]

22. Area (km2) Population (million) Density (person/ha) Tokyo (33) ６１７ ８.１４ １３２ New York (17) ６８２ ７.５６ １１１ London (11) ５８８ ４.１０ ７０ Paris (11) ７６１ ６.１６ ８１ Berlin (4) ８６２ ３.４０ ３９ International Comparison of Population Density （inter-city district） ●Tokyo (23 wards):2002●New York (New York City excluding Staten Island):2000 ●London (Inner London and outer 6 wards):2001 ● Paris (Paris city and outer 3 prefectures):1999 ● Berlin(12 wards):2004

23. Proposed Agency Action Categorical Exclusion (CEQ1501.4(a)) Exclusion Applies (CEQ1501.4(a)2) EA (CEQ1501.3) FONSI (CEQ1501.4(e)1) Scoping Process (CEQ1501.7) Draft EIS (CEQ1502.9(a)) Final EIS (CEQ1502.9(b)) Record of Decision (CEQ1505.2) Implementation of Agency Action

24. Proposed Agency Action Feasible PI (CEQ1501.4(b)) Categorical Exclusion (CEQ1501.4(a)) Exclusion Applies (CEQ1501.4(a)2) Notice of Intent Federal Register (CEQ1501.7) EA (CEQ1501.3) FONSI (CEQ1501.4(e)1) PI (CEQ1501.7(a)) Scoping Process (CEQ1501.7) Public Review (30days) (CEQ1501.4(e)2) Federal Register (CEQ1506.10(a)) Draft EIS (CEQ1502.9(a)) CP (min.45days) (CEQ1503.1(a)) Final EIS (CEQ1502.9(b)) Referrals and Response (CEQ1504.3) Federal Register (CEQ1506.10(a)) Record of Decision (CEQ1505.2) CP (min.30days) (CEQ1503.1(b)) CP : Comment Period Implementation of Agency Action

25. Permit Application Received or Agency Proposal Initiated Review of Exemption Determine SEPA Lead Agency Evaluation Environmental Checklist Issue DS/Scoping Notice (Determination of significance ) Issue DNS (Determination of nonsignificance ) 14 day review 14 day review Public Comment Draft EIS 30 day review Public Comment Final EIS 7 day wait Agency Decision (Unless DNS withdraw) Agency Decision