(1) The lead agency shall have more flexibility in preparing EISs on nonproject proposals, because there is normally less detailed information available on their environmental impacts and on any subsequent project proposals. The EIS may be combined with other planning documents.
(2) The lead agency shall discuss impacts and alternatives in the level of detail appropriate to the scope of the nonproject proposal and to the level of planning for the proposal. Alternatives should be emphasized. In particular, agencies are encouraged to describe the proposal in terms of alternative means of accomplishing a stated objective (see WAC 197-11-060
(3)). Alternatives including the proposed action should be analyzed at a roughly comparable level of detail, sufficient to evaluate their comparative merits (this does not require devoting the same number of pages in an EIS to each alternative).
(3) If the nonproject proposal concerns a specific geographic area, site specific analyses are not required, but may be included for areas of specific concern. The EIS should identify subsequent actions that would be undertaken by other agencies as a result of the nonproject proposal, such as transportation and utility systems.
(4) The EIS's discussion of alternatives for a comprehensive plan, community plan, or other areawide zoning or for shoreline or land use plans shall be limited to a general discussion of the impacts of alternate proposals for policies contained in such plans, for land use or shoreline designations, and for implementation measures. The lead agency is not required under SEPA to examine all conceivable policies, designations, or implementation measures but should cover a range of such topics. The EIS content may be limited to a discussion of alternatives which have been formally proposed or which are, while not formally proposed, reasonably related to the proposed action.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 43.21C.110. 84-05-020 (Order DE 83-39), § 197-11-442, filed 2/10/84, effective 4/4/84.]