State environmental policy acts

* * *

This Ballotpedia article is in need of updates. Please email us if you would like to suggest a revision. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.

* * *

* * *

* * *

State environmental policy
U.S. environmental policy
Endangered species policy
State endangered species
Federal land policy
Environmental terms

State environmental policy acts, which have been adopted by sixteen states, require that proposed state government actions (and in some states, local government or private actions) be evaluated for their potential impact on the environment or public health. For most proposed actions, state agencies prepare environmental impact statements that outline all potential environmental consequences of proposed actions, potential alternatives to the proposed actions, the possible unavoidable environmental effects, and the steps to be taken by state agencies to mitigate these effects and consequences.

The model for these state environmental policy acts is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a federal law requiring all federal agencies to submit environmental impact statements for all the major actions that could significantly affect the environment. Congress passed NEPA in 1969 during the growing push for environmental legislation such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.[1]

The most common environmental effects that state agencies seek to mitigate or avoid in their actions include impacts on air and water quality, disruption to waste management, interruptions to animal or plant species and habitats (especially endangered species), impacts on wetlands, changes to land due to cultivation or construction, and impacts on public infrastructure.

HIGHLIGHTS

* Five states—California, Georgia, Minnesota, New York, Washington—require environmental review for local government projects.

* Three states—California, Minnesota, and New York—require environmental review of private actions from individuals and businesses, namely agriculture or projects requiring state permits or funding.

* Two states—California and New York—require review of state projects for their potential impact on climate change, including additional greenhouse gas emissions and their potential effect on global warming.

## Contents

* 1 Background
* 2 Laws by state
* 3 California
* 3.1 California Environmental Quality Act
* 3.1.1 2009 climate change guidelines
* 4 Connecticut
* 4.1 Connecticut Environmental Policy Act
* 5 Georgia
* 5.1 Georgia Environmental Policy Act
* 6 Hawaii
* 6.1 Hawaii Environmental Policy Act
* 7 Indiana
* 7.1 Indiana Environmental Policy Act
* 8 Maryland
* 8.1 Maryland Environmental Policy Act
* 9 Massachusetts
* 9.1 Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
* 10 Minnesota
* 10.1 Minnesota Environmental Policy Act
* 11 Montana
* 11.1 Montana Environmental Policy Act
* 12 New Jersey
* 12.1 New Jersey Executive Order 215
* 13 New York
* 13.1 New York Environmental Quality Review Act
* 14 North Carolina
* 14.1 North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
* 15 South Dakota
* 15.1 South Dakota Environmental Policy Act
* 16 Virginia
* 16.1 Virginia Code (sections 10.1-10.1188)
* 17 Washington
* 17.1 Washington Environmental Policy Act
* 18 Wisconsin
* 18.1 Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act
* 18.2 See also
* 18.3 Footnotes

## Background[edit]

State-funded projects like wind energy are evaluated for their environmental impact.

After the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was passed in 1969, many states followed suit in enacting similar procedural requirements for their own state agencies' actions and their impact on the environment. Like NEPA, these state laws are procedural laws, which means that they require state government agencies to follow specific procedures before they take action on a major project. Each state law varies with regard to what kinds of environmental review are required, which types of project must be reviewed, the specific requirements of an environmental assessment, and so on. Two states—California and Massachusetts—require a review of all state actions that could potentially contribute to global warming and climate change. Five states—California, Georgia, Minnesota, New York, and Washington—require environmental impact reviews for local government actions, although each state has its own requirements. Three states—California, New York and Minnesota—require environmental impact reviews for some private actions, such as agricultural projects in the case of Minnesota and state-permitted and state-funded projects in New York.[2]

States with state environmental policy acts

The table below shows which states' environmental policy acts apply to state, local, and private actions.

Activities and projects subject to State Environmental Policy Acts (by state)

State | State actions and projects | Local actions and projects | Private actions and projects | Climate change
California | a | a | a | a
Connecticut | a |  |  |
Georgia | a | a |  |
Hawaii | a |  |  |
Indiana | a |  |  |
Maryland | a |  |  |
Massachusetts | a |  |  | a
Minnesota | a | a | a* |
Montana | a |  |  |
New Jersey | a |  |  |
New York | a | a | a† |
North Carolina | a |  |  |
South Dakota | a |  |  |
Virginia | a |  |  |
Washington | a | a |  |
Wisconsin | a |  |  |
*Minnesota requires an environmental review of private activities that involve specific agricultural projects
†Applies only to private actions in New York that require a state permit or state funding

## Laws by state[edit]

* California
* Connecticut
* Georgia
* Hawaii
* Indiana
* Maryland
* Massachusetts
* Minnesota
* Montana
* New Jersey
* New York
* North Carolina
* South Dakota
* Virginia
* Washington
* Wisconsin

# California[edit]

### California Environmental Quality Act[edit]

See also: Environmental policy in California

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was passed in 1970. The law requires that state and local agencies evaluate the environmental impacts of potential projects and outline whatever actions are feasible to mitigate or eliminate them. The law defines a "project" to be an action that either physically changes the environment or could be "reasonably foreseen" to change the environment indirectly. Examples of direct changes to the environment include public works construction or the clearing of land. Projects that can result in "indirect physical change" to the environment are not clearly defined in the law, but they can include any activities that involve zoning ordinances, state leases, state permits, state licenses, or other any other state certification issued by any public agency to an individual or business.[3][4]

According to the California State Legislature, the intent in passing the law was to require "all agencies of the state government" to regulate the activities of individuals, corporations, and public agencies that may affect the "quality" of the environment. The California Attorney General oversees the law's implementation.[5][6]

By law, every California city and county must have what is called a "general plan," which acts as a "blueprint" for that city or county's future development plans and includes the goals and specific policies of a particular community. According to the CEQA, these general plans act as a "project" subject to review by state authorities. According to the California Attorney General’s Office, A CEQA review of the general plan looks at the "big picture" of a community's long-term plans and objectives (such as land development, water use, and construction goals) so that its "vision" is aligned with the environmental requirements of the CEQA. The approval of these "general plans" varies by city and county, although individual city councils or county boards of supervisors are usually the ones to approve them.[7]

Additionally, the California Environmental Quality Act requires state review of "the activities of private individuals, corporations and other public agencies" whose actions could impact the environment. All projects carried out by state agencies are subject to the same level of review as private projects that require approval from the state.[8]

#### 2009 climate change guidelines[edit]

In 2009, the CEQA guidelines were updated to require each community in California to consider how its general plan would affect its community-wide greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gases are naturally present gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. They absorb and release infrared radiation, producing a warming effect that allows for life on Earth. Some scientists, however, have argued that the release of human-made greenhouse gases has contributed to global warming and subsequent changes in the climate. The CEQA guidelines require general plans in each community to perform the following actions:

| “  |

* Quantify existing and projected community-wide greenhouse gas emissions;
* Establish greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets over the life of the plan which, if achieved, would render the community's greenhouse gas emissions to be less than significant;
* Identify and analyze the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from sources in the community;
* Identify a set of specific, enforceable measures that, collectively, will achieve the emissions targets;
* Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan's progress and to require amendment if the plan is falling short; and
* Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.[9]

| ”

|
|

# Connecticut[edit]

### Connecticut Environmental Policy Act[edit]

See also: Environmental policy in Connecticut

The Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CEPA) was passed in 1973. It requires all proposed state actions to be identified and evaluated for their potential impact on the environment. Every Connecticut state department, institution, and agency is responsible for publishing an environmental assessment of proposed activities called an "Environmental Impact Evaluation" (EIE). These environmental assessments are required for the construction of coal-fired heating plants, hazardous waste disposal facilities, and sewage treatment plants. Some activities require a more substantial evaluation of their environmental impacts due to their size and scale, such as the construction of paved roads or lane additions to existing roads (exceeding $1 million) and changes to dams, rivers, or streams.[10][11]

For most kinds of state activities that may require an environmental review, the agency responsible will conduct a preliminary process to seek out public comments and information from other state agencies even before a decision to publish an impact statement is made. Some agencies will hold public meetings where details of a proposed state activity will be presented, including its purpose, the potential sites for the project, and any potential alternatives to the activity. Every member of the public and all state agency representatives are allowed to comment on all potential environmental impacts. Comment periods last at least 30 days after a notice is announced or at least five days following a public meeting, if one is held. All environmental impact assessments are published on a state agency's website.[12]

The Environmental Impact Evaluation (EIE) will include the statement of a proposed action, its purpose, and a description of the environment in the surrounding area that would be affected. Connecticut is required to include the impacts on the following environmental issues:[12]

* air and water quality
* ambient noise levels
* groundwater
* wetlands
* flooding
* critical animal or plant species and their habitats
* pesticides
* disruption of an established neighborhood or community

# Georgia[edit]

### Georgia Environmental Policy Act[edit]

See also: Environmental policy in Georgia

The Georgia Environmental Policy Act of 1991 (GEPA) is designed to protect cultural and environmental quality in Georgia from the impacts of a state government agency's actions. State government agencies include all state departments, boards, bureaus, and commissions. If a local government project is more than 50 percent funded by a state agency, or if a project involves state funds of $250,000 or more, then the law also applies to local government actions. State agencies must prepare an Environmental Effects Report (EER) for all projects that the head agency official determines could have an environmental impact, including impacts on archaeological or historical resources.[13]

If a state agency official determines that a proposed state action could significantly affect the environment, the agency must prepare an Environmental Effects Report that includes the following:[14]

* the environmental impact of the proposed government action
* alternatives to the proposed government action, including no action
* any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed government action is undertaken
* mitigation measures proposed to avoid or minimize the adverse impact of the proposed government action
* the relationship between the value of the short-term uses of the environment involved in the proposed government action and the maintenance and enhancement of its long-term value
* the effect of the proposed government action on the quality and quantity of water supply
* the effect of the proposed government action on energy use or energy production
* any beneficial aspects of the proposed government action, both short-term and long-term, and its economic advantages and disadvantages

# Hawaii[edit]

### Hawaii Environmental Policy Act[edit]

See also: Environmental policy in Hawaii

The Hawaii Environmental Policy Act (HEPA) was passed in 1974. It helped establish the Hawaii Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC), a state agency that reviews the environmental, social, and economic impacts of proposed state projects and approves permits for those actions. Specifically, the law allows the Hawaii OEQC to approve proposed projects and activities based on what are called "triggers," which are nine conditions that involve some impact to the environment. They include the following:[15][16][17]

* the use of state or county land, or state or county funds, for acquiring uncultivated land or property
* the use of any land that has been classified as a "conservation district" by Hawaii's land use commission
* any project that impacts a shoreline area
* any project within a historic site that has been designated as such in the Federal Register or Hawaii Register
* any project within the "Waikiki area" on the island of Oahu
* an amendment to any county general plans where the revised plan would result in designating land for a specific purpose other than agriculture, preservation, or conservation
* the reclassification of any land that has been previously named as a conservation district by the Hawaii state land use commission
* the construction, expansion, or modification of existing helicopter facilities
* the construction of new wastewater treatment plants, landfills, oil refineries, or facilities that generate power such as electricity

If a project meets one or more of these "triggers," then the Hawaii OEQC will take one of three options:

1. The agency may exempt the project from environmental review.
2. The agency may declare that no significant environmental impact will occur (after the agency has assessed the project's potential effects)
3. The agency will require an Environmental Impact Statement.

All environmental review documents, whether a project requires an extensive environmental evaluation or not, are made public on the Hawaii OEQC website.[15]

# Indiana[edit]

### Indiana Environmental Policy Act[edit]

See also: Environmental policy in Indiana

The Indiana Environmental Policy Act (IEPA) was passed in 1972, two years after the National Environmental Policy Act was enacted. The IEPA requires an environmental impact analysis for all state actions that significantly affect the environment. The law is administered by the Indiana Department of Emergency Management. Indiana state agencies must first conduct a preliminary study about whether the IEPA applies to a state action; a significant number of state actions are exempted from an environmental impact analysis, including the following:[2][18]

* Some actions of the Water Pollution Control Board, the Air Pollution Control Board, and the Solid Waste Management Board are categorically exempted from the IEPA, as are minor and emergency actions.
* State agencies that issue permits or licenses are exempt from the law.
* No local government actions, including construction and zoning, need to comply with the IEPA.

# Maryland[edit]

### Maryland Environmental Policy Act[edit]

See also: Environmental policy in Maryland

The Maryland Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) was passed in 1973 by the Maryland State Legislature. In contrast to the National Environmental Policy Act, the Maryland law requires a report of environmental effects of a proposed state action only when a state agency makes a request for legislative action. According to the law, a "proposed state action" means a request to the state legislature for appropriations or other actions that would potentially "alter the quality of the air, land or water resources" of Maryland. An environmental effects report must include a list of all proposed state actions that would affect "the environment, natural as well as socioeconomic and historic." This environmental report must list in detail the potential environmental effects of a proposed state action, which would include the beneficial and adverse environmental effects and how they would be handled by the state agency.[19][20]

According to the law, an environmental effects report must also include the following:[21]

* the effects of the state's action on the environment, including beneficial and harmful environmental effects
* potential steps to minimize the potentially harmful environmental effects and to maximize the beneficial ones
* all reasonable alternatives to the proposed state action that could have less harmful environmental effects or increased beneficial environmental effects (the report must also consider the alternative of no state action)

# Massachusetts[edit]

### Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act[edit]

See also: Environmental policy in Massachusetts

The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act was enacted in 1977. It requires that all state agencies take into account the environmental impact of their proposed actions, including state decisions involving permits and financial assistance. Each state agency must "use all practicable means and measures to minimize damage to the environment." Since November 2008, all proposed state actions and decisions have had to take into account their potential impact on global warming and climate change, including additional greenhouse gas emissions and their potential effects.[22][23][24]

Environmental impact reports must be prepared by the state agency proposing the action. For projects that require a permit or financial assistance from a state agency, the agency or the person seeking the permit or financial assistance must prepare the environmental report. The report must contain descriptions of the extent of the proposed action and its environmental impact, including a list of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.[22]

According to the law, "damage to the environment" includes any damage or impairment such as:[23]

* air pollution
* water pollution
* pesticide pollution
* improper sewage disposal
* reduction of groundwater levels
* increases in flooding
* destruction of seashores, marine resources, or wetlands
* damage to natural areas, parks, or historic sites

# Minnesota[edit]

### Minnesota Environmental Policy Act[edit]

See also: Environmental policy in Minnesota

The Minnesota Environmental Policy Act was passed by the Minnesota State Legislature in 1973. The law requires that all proposed state actions, in addition to some private activities, be evaluated for their impact on the environment. The first step is for the state agency to complete an "Environmental Assessment Worksheet," which is a preliminary report used to judge whether an agency's action could potentially impact the environment. If the action does not result in any environmental impact, then nothing else is needed. If the action is likely to have an impact, state agencies must prepare an "Environmental Impact Statement," which contains the nature and extent of the environmental impacts.[25][26]

The environmental impact statement must be "an analytical rather than encyclopedia document" that describes how a state action will specifically impact the environment, discusses all alternatives to the state action and their impacts, and concludes with the methods to be used for mitigating the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The statement must also take into account the "economic, employment and sociological effects" of a state action.[25]

Unlike other states' environmental policy acts, Minnesota's law requires an Environmental Impact Statement for all major state government and all major private actions that may have an environmental impact (a major private action is defined as a project that has more than just local significance). They include the following:[26]

* all state and local agency actions
* private actions involving new agricultural operations
* actions of greater than local significance as a result of a citizen petition with at least 500 Minnesota voter signatures

Other projects are exempt from an environmental impact analysis, whether or not they affect the environment, such as the following:[26]

* feedlots
* mixed-use residential and industrial commercial developments
* campgrounds
* highway projects
* nonmetallic mineral mining
* ethanol plants
* sports facilities

# Montana[edit]

### Montana Environmental Policy Act[edit]

See also: Environmental policy in Montana

The Montana State Legislature passed the Montana Environmental Policy Act in 1971. In addition to establishing the Montana Environmental Quality Council, the law requires that all major actions of the state government be evaluated for their environmental impacts. All Montana state agencies must prepare an environmental review for projects, programs, activities, or other actions that may involve a government subsidy or grant, or a state permit or license, and that may be anticipated to have an impact on the environment.[27][28]

If the state agency's action is expected to have an impact on the environment (either beneficial or adverse, or both), some form of environmental review is required. Usually two key factors determine whether an environmental impact is significant: First, the agency must determine the scope of the action, project, or program. Second, the agency must assess the characteristics of the location in which the action would occur. These two decisions are made on the basis of the following factors:[28]

* the severity, duration, geographic extent, and frequency of the potential environmental impact
* the probability that the environmental impact will occur if the proposed action goes into effect or, conversely, the reasonable assurance that the impact will not occur
* how the impact will accumulate over a certain period of time
* the quantity and quality of the environmental resources that would be affected
* the importance to the state and to society of each environmental resource affected
* any precedent that would be set as a result of a state action's impact, including whether it would commit the Montana state government to future actions with future impacts
* potential conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements

# New Jersey[edit]

### New Jersey Executive Order 215[edit]

See also: Environmental policy in New Jersey

Former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean (R) signed Executive Order 215 in 1989. The order serves as New Jersey's equivalent to other states' environmental policy acts. All state agencies, state departments, and other state authorities of New Jersey must prepare either an environmental assessment report (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for all major state projects. Typically, environmental assessments (EA) are prepared for smaller, less expensive projects, while environmental impact statements (EIS) are used for larger, more expensive projects.[29]

The goal of the executive order is "to reduce or eliminate any potential adverse environmental impacts of projects initiated or funded by the State." State agencies that propose major construction projects or grant at least 20 percent financial assistance to a project must prepare either an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.[29]

The main differences between an environmental assessment and an environmental impact statement, and between the projects to which they apply, include the following:[29]

* An environmental assessment (EA) is less comprehensive and less extensive than an environmental impact statement. The assessment does not need to contain an analysis of proposed alternatives to a particular project, although the level of project description and accompanying material (graphs, site plants, maps, and more) will be similar to an environmental impact statement. Altogether, the EA is more brief and less analytical than the environmental impact statement.
* An environmental impact statement (EIS) will cover the same issues as an environmental assessment but will include greater comprehensiveness and detail, especially regarding the descriptions and analyses of the potential environmental impacts. The most significant difference is that an EIS must include a list and description of all alternatives to the proposed project.

The executive order also lays out the two criteria on which kind of environmental review is needed:[29]

* A Level 1 project is expected to have construction costs totaling more than $1 million but less than $5 million and requires an environmental assessment.
* A Level 2 project is expected to have construction costs totaling more than $5 million and to affect more than five acres. These projects require an environmental impact statement.

# New York[edit]

### New York Environmental Quality Review Act[edit]

See also: Environmental policy in New York

New York's State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) was implemented in 1978. It requires all state and local government agencies to balance the environmental, social, and economic dimensions of their decisions involving government approval or funding for an action or project, although the law does not specifically say what this balance looks like in practice. The law also states that all agencies must look at the environmental significance of the projects they have discretion to approve, undertake, or fund. Usually an "Environmental Impact Statement" (EIS) must be written for state projects that could potentially have adverse environmental impacts. Private parties seeking government approval or funding may also be required to prepare an EIS.[30]

Most activities or projects proposed by the state government or a unit of local government, including permit approvals by both levels of government, require an Environmental Impact Statement. The statement is a description and analysis of a proposed government action that could have an impact on the environment. It must include the following details:[31]

* a description of the action, including its need and benefits
* a description of the environmental setting and the areas that will be affected
* a report of all environmental impacts related to the proposed government action
* an analysis of all reasonable alternatives to the proposed government action
* identification of the ways to reduce or avoid the adverse environmental effects

There are government actions that never require an Environmental Impact Statement. They include the following examples:

* the replacement or rebuilding of facilities on the same site
* small structures, such as garages, home swimming pools, or barns, that involve a routine permit and license renewal with no significant alteration to them
* the construction or expansion of nonresidential structures less than 4,000 square feet
* routine activities of educational institutions, such as the expansion of existing facilities by less than 10,000 square feet
* emergency actions
* repair and maintenance activities

If a government agency improperly allows a project under the environmental review law to go forward, or if it makes an improper decision during the process and does not perform the proper environmental review, the agency may be sued by citizens or groups that can show that they have been "harmed" by the government's improper activities. Courts are allowed to revoke government projects and require a new environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.[32]

# North Carolina[edit]

### North Carolina Environmental Policy Act[edit]

See also: Environmental policy in North Carolina

The North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (also called the State Environmental Policy Act in the state) was passed in 1971. It requires state agencies to review and report the environmental impact of all state actions, expenditures used, or the private use of public land that could affect any of the state's natural resources, public health, natural beauty, or historical and cultural elements. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources' criteria to determine what projects require an environmental impact study are based on the type of project or activity and its size. All state agencies that fund or approve a state project are responsible for complying with the law. Proposed projects or activities require either an "Environmental Assessment" (EA) or an "Environmental Impact Statement" (EIS). Environmental assessments document the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, but if there is no significant environmental impact found, then no more work is needed. If there will be a significant environmental impact, then an EIS must be prepared.[33]

# South Dakota[edit]

### South Dakota Environmental Policy Act[edit]

See also: Environmental policy in South Dakota

The South Dakota Environmental Policy Act was passed in 1974. It requires an environmental impact statement (EIS) for all major state actions. The EIS must contain detailed information on the environmental effects of a proposed action, list the ways in which an adverse environmental effect can be minimized, and suggest alternative actions. All state agencies, departments, offices, boards, and commissions are required under the law to prepare these statements for major projects or activities.[34]

The major state actions that are subject to the environmental policy act include all new and continuing activities or projects undertaken directly by a state agency or supported through state contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other state funding. These activities can include projects that require state leases, permits, certificates, or licenses. Before an environmental impact statement is prepared, the state agency must hold public meetings in the county where the action is going to take place. The meetings serve as a forum for public input on what should be included in the environmental impact statement. Once a draft of the statement is completed, it must be distributed to federal and state agencies as well as the public. All comments to the draft must be incorporated into the statement and made available for public comments for at least 30 days before any further action can be taken.[35]

The environmental impact statement is required to have the following elements:[36]

* a description of the proposed action and its environmental setting
* the environmental impact of the proposed action including short-term and long-term effects
* any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposal is implemented
* alternatives to the proposed action
* any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposed action if it is implemented
* mitigation measures proposed to minimize the environmental impact
* the growth-inducing aspects of the proposed action, such as its economic value

# Virginia[edit]

### Virginia Code (sections 10.1-10.1188)[edit]

See also: Environmental policy in Virginia

Sections 10.1-10.1188 were added to the Virginia Code in 1973. The sections require all state agencies to prepare and submit an environmental impact report (EIR) for their major projects. The report must identify and evaluate the environmental effects of proposed state activities, including the construction of facilities that will cost $500,000 or more. The requirement also covers acquisition of land for construction, which includes leases, and the expansion of existing facilities. State agencies are also required to consider alternative actions and mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce the environmental impact. EIRs are reviewed by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and other state agencies, which make recommendations on the projects proposed. No state funds will be used for any projects that have not received the written approval of the Governor of Virginia and the consideration of the environmental impact of a project.[37][38]

# Washington[edit]

### Washington Environmental Policy Act[edit]

See also: Environmental policy in Washington

The Washington Environmental Policy Act (also called the State Environmental Policy Act, or SEPA) was passed in 1971. It requires state and local agencies in Washington to gauge all possible environmental impacts of potential state decisions such as the following activities:[39]

* permits for private projects such as office buildings, grocery stores, and apartment complexes
* public facilities such as new schools, water pipelines, and highways
* regulations, policies, and plans such as county or city comprehensive plans, critical area ordinances, and water quality regulations

The Washington SEPA applies to all state and local agencies, including Washington state agencies, city governments, county governments, ports, and special districts such as water and school districts. Environmental impact studies are meant to give state and local agencies an overview of the potentially adverse environmental impacts of a proposed project. These studies will also allow the agencies to consider changes to project proposals to reduce potential impacts. When creating the studies, agencies are required to adopt a "systematic, interdisciplinary approach" that utilizes "the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts" in state planning and decision making. Each environmental impact study will include information on the specific environmental impacts of a proposed state action, any potential alternatives to the action, and how the state plans to mitigate the environmental impacts of its proposed action.[40]

State and local projects that may require an environmental impact study include new construction projects, demolitions, and landfills, as well as projects that involve the use of natural resources such as natural gas, electricity, solar energy, or oil. They can also include proposals such as zoning and development regulations. Some local governments may have the option to exempt minor construction projects from an environmental review depending on their scale and size.[40]

# Wisconsin[edit]

### Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act[edit]

See also: Environmental policy in Wisconsin

The Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA) was passed in 1974. It requires state agencies to consider the environmental effects of their decision-making and policies. All state agencies are required to gather the relevant environmental information about a proposed project and consider it when making policy and project decisions. Each agency must also look at potential alternatives to proposed state actions. For the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in particular, the law requires that the agency consider alternative approaches to its policies and projects in the case of unavoidable environmental impacts. Each individual project must have a statement of environmental concerns containing detailed analyses as required by the law.[41]

An environmental statement must include the most relevant information on the environmental impact of legislative proposals and major actions. The statement must also include the following components:

* a summary of the environmental impact of the proposed action
* a list of all the adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the project goes forward
* all alternatives to the proposed state action
* a description of the relationship between local, short-term uses of the environment involved with a state project and the long-term plan for the project, which includes maintenance and enhancement
* a list of all "irreversible and irretrievable commitments" of resources that would be involved if the proposed action goes forward
* a detailed list of the beneficial elements of a proposed project, short-term and long-term, including the economic advantages and disadvantages of the project

## See also[edit]

* National Environmental Policy Act

* State environmental policy

* Wetlands

* Air pollution

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ National Environmental Policy Act, "Welcome - Regulations," accessed August 14, 2014
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Duke University, "'Little NEPAs': State Equivalents to the National Environmental Policy Act in Indiana, Minnesota and Wisconsin," accessed April 13, 2015
3. ↑ California Natural Resources Agency, "2012 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines," accessed April 23, 2015
4. ↑ California Natural Resources Agency, "Frequently Asked Questions About CEQA," accessed April 24, 2015
5. ↑ California Natural Resources Agency, "California Environmental Quality Act: Chapter 1," accessed April 7, 2015
6. ↑ California Attorney General's Office, "California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)," accessed April 7, 2015
7. ↑ California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, "A Citizen's Guide to Planning," accessed April 23, 2015
8. ↑ California Department of Fish and Wildlife, "A Summary of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)," accessed April 7, 2015
9. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
10. ↑ Connecticut State Government, "Environmental Classification Document," accessed April 7, 2015
11. ↑ Connecticut General Assembly, "Legislative History of the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act," January 30, 2008
12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Connecticut State Government, "Connecticut Environmental Policy Act: An Environmental Permitting Fact Sheet," accessed April 6, 2015
13. ↑ Georgia Department of Natural Resources, "Georgia Environmental Policy Act of 1991 (GEPA)," accessed April 7, 2015
14. ↑ Georgia Department of Natural Resources, "GEPA: 12-16-1," accessed April 13, 2015
15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Hawaii Department of Health, "Office of Environmental quality Control," accessed April 13, 2015
16. ↑ Hawaii State Legislature, "Hawaii Chapter 343: Triggers for Environmental Impact Statements," accessed April 13, 2015
17. ↑ Hawaii Office of Environmental Quality Control, "Guide to the Implementation and Practice of the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act," January 2012
18. ↑ Indiana State Legislature, "Indiana Code Chapter 13: Environment," accessed April 24, 2015
19. ↑ Justia, "Subtitle 3 - Maryland Environmental Policy Act Section 1-302 - Declaration of policy," accessed April 8, 2015
20. ↑ Social Science Research Network, "The Maryland Environmental Policy Act: Resurrecting a Tool for Environmental Protection," August 13, 2014
21. ↑ Justia, "Subtitle 3: Maryland Environmental Policy Act Section 1-304:Environmental effects reports," accessed April 8, 2015
22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, "About MEPA," accessed April 7, 2015
23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, "MEPA Statute," accessed April 7, 2015
24. ↑ Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth, "Commonwealth of Massachusetts Citizens' Guide to State Services," accessed November 3, 2016
25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 Minnesota Office of the Reviser of Statutes, "Minnesota Statutes Chapter 116D: Environmental Policy," accessed April 7, 2015
26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, "Guide to Minnesota's Environmental Rules," accessed April 6, 2015
27. ↑ Montana State Legislature, "Montana Title 75: Chapter 1 (Environmental Policy and Protection Generally)," accessed April 7, 2015
28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 Montana Legislative Environmental Policy Office, "A Guide to the Montana Environmental Policy Act," accessed April 7, 2015
29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 29.2 29.3 New Jersey State Government, "Executive Order 215 of 1989," accessed April 9, 2015
30. ↑ New York Department of Environmental Conservation, "Introduction to SEQR," accessed April 9, 2015
31. ↑ New York Department of Environmental Conservation, "What is An Environmental Impact Statement?" accessed April 9, 2015
32. ↑ New York Department of Environmental Conservation, "Environmental Impact Assessment in New York State," accessed April 9, 2015
33. ↑ North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, "State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) General Information," accessed April 13, 2015
34. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Chapter 34A-9: Environmental Impact of Governmental Actions," accessed April 13, 2015
35. ↑ South Dakota Fish and Wildlife Service, "State Environmental Policy Act," accessed April 13, 2015
36. ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Chapter 34A-9-7: Contents of environmental impact statement," accessed April 13, 2015
37. ↑ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, "State Environmental Impact Reviews," accessed April 13, 2015
38. ↑ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, "Environmental Impact Review Fact Sheet," January 2015
39. ↑ Washington Department of Ecology, "State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Overview," accessed April 14, 2015
40. ↑ 40.0 40.1 Washington Department of Ecology, "SEPA - General Background," accessed April 14, 2015
41. ↑ Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, "Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA)," accessed April 14, 2015

v • e

Environmental Policy

Background|

Environmental policy in the United States • Clean Air Act • Clean Water Act • Conservation • Endangered Species Act • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • Enforcement at the EPA • Glossary of environmental terms • Energy and environmental news

* * *

Energy and environmental news|

January 2015 • February 2015 • March 2015 • April 2015 • May 2015 • June 2015 • July 2015 • August 2015 • September 2015 • October 2015 • November 2015 • December 2015

* * *

Environmental terms|

Air pollutants • Air Quality Index • BLM grazing permit • Carbon dioxide • Carbon footprint • Clean Air Act • Clean Water Act • Climate change • ConservAmerica • Cross State Air Pollution Rule • Deep ecology • Ecology • Endangered species • Implementation of the Endangered Species Act • Environmental chemistry • Environmental engineering • Environmental health • Environmental restoration • Environmental science • Federal land • Fracking • Greenhouse effect • Greenhouse gas • Ground-level ozone standards • Ground water • Hazardous air pollutant • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change • Keystone XL • Mercury and air toxics standards • Municipal solid waste • National Ambient Air Quality Standards • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System • National Priorities List of Superfund sites • National Wildlife Federation • Natural resources • Nonpoint source of water pollution • Oil • Ozone • Pesticide • Petroleum • Point source of water pollution • Public water system • Radioactive waste • Renewable energy resources • Renewable Portfolio Standards • Solar energy • State park • Superfund • Traditional energy resources • U.S. Bureau of Land Management • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • U.S. Forest Service • U.S. Geological Survey • Wastewater treatment • Water quality criteria • Wetland • Wilderness Act • Wilderness Society • Wind energy

* * *

Endangered species terms|

Candidate species • Critical habitat • Delisting • Distinct population segment • Endangered species • Listed species • Listing a species • Listing petition • Species recovery • Taking a species

* * *

Environmental policy by state|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Endangered species policy|

Costs of listing a species • Delisting a species • Endangered Species Act litigation • Endangered species policy in the United States • Endangered Species Act litigation • History of the Endangered Species Act • Private property and the Endangered Species Act • Science and the Endangered Species Act • Success rate of the Endangered Species Act • Transparency and the Endangered Species Act

* * *

Endangered species policy by state|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Environmental statistics|

Payments in lieu of taxes • Land ownership by state • Grazing permits on BLM lands • Federal land ownership by state • BLM oil and gas permits by state • Environmental spending in the 50 states • Greenhouse gas emissions by state • Superfund sites in the United States • National Park Visitor Spending Effects Report

* * *

Endangered species statistics|

Endangered species by state • Endangered animals by state • Endangered plants by state • Delisted species • Top 20 federally funded species • Land acquisition funding for endangered species • Federal endangered species grants by state

* * *

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations:  Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams, Managing Editor of Events • Joseph Greaney, Managing Editor of Policy • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Brandon McCauley • Andrew McNair • Ellie Mikus • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Heather Yates