What is the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA)?
The Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA), sec. 1.11, Wisconsin Statutes, was created by Chapter 274, Laws of 1971 and became effective on April 29, 1972. It is closely patterned after the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which was effective January 1, 1970. WEPA requires that all state agencies prepare environmental impact statements (EIS) with every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major activities “significantly affecting the human environment.”
In addition, WEPA requires state agencies to study, develop and describe alternatives when a particular course of action involves unresolved conflicts in the use of available resources. In accordance with WEPA and the regulations of the Federal Council on Environmental Quality, the UW System has developed an Action Type List to assist in determining the need for an environmental impact statement. The list consists of three classifications that follow…
- WEPA Type I: Those actions which require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
- WEPA Type II: Those actions which may or may not require an EIA but must be evaluated by completing an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
- WEPA Type III: Actions which do not require an EIS or EIA
One of the various functions in the Capital Planning and Budget office is the role of the UW System Environmental Affairs Officer. That individual assists the institutions and the State of Wisconsin Division of Facilities Development & Management (DFDM) in identifying potential impacts to determine the appropriate classification for actions which require WEPA consideration and provides oversight for the identified process.
The Capital Planning and Budget office UW System Environmental Affairs Officer can assist the institutions and the State of Wisconsin Division of Facilities Development & Management (DFDM) in identifying potential impacts to determine the appropriate classification for actions which require WEPA consideration and provides oversight for the identified process.
Sustainability Pages
Actions
For purposes of WEPA, an "action" by a state agency is broadly interpreted. The term may include plans, research and development projects and policy recommendations, as well as physical projects. In general, categories of the UW System that require WEPA consideration include:
FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT
- The planning, design and construction of physical facilities to be owned and operated by the UW System, including UW Colleges facilities that are leased for periods up to 75 years.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
- Policies officially adopted as guides to agency action that, through their implementation, could have a significant environmental effect.
FACILITY AND MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS
- Decisions on environmentally significant matters connected with the operation of University facilities.
PLANS
- Formal plans, both short and long term, which, if implemented, could have a significant environmental impact.
RESEARCH/DEMONSTRATION
- Research and development activities, the conduct of which could have a significant impact on the environment.
Evaluation
Criteria for Environmental Significance
When an action proposed by an institution does not appear to fall within any of the categories set out in the UW System Action Type List, it must be evaluated further in consultation with the CPB staff. CPB staff will assist the institution in determining whether the project is one that “significantly affects the quality of the human environment,” and whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. The following criteria for assessing environmental significance will be applied:
- Irreversibility of Environmental Effects: If the action creates an effect upon the environment that is essentially irreversible, the need for an EIS is usually greater than if the effect could be reversed.
- Stimulation of Secondary Effects: If the action itself has minimal or no direct effects but its nature is to stimulate or induce significant secondary effects, such as major new developments, the need for an EIS is increased.
- Creating a New Environmental Effect: If the action involves building a new space as compared to renewing existing space, the need for an EIS is increased.
- Geographical Importance or Scarcity of the Resources: Certain resources are unequally distributed across the state. Actions affecting resources that are abundant statewide but locally scarce or important may require an EIS. Actions affecting resources that are locally abundant but scarce statewide or of special importance may also be significant enough to require an EIS.
- Cumulative Impacts: When an action sets a precedent for future actions or represents a decision in principle about a future major course of action, the cumulative effects should be considered when determining whether an EIS is required.
- Public and Citizen Complaints: The need for an EIS is greater if legitimate citizen concerns indicate a serious controversy to which the agency cannot adequately respond without researching the issue and presenting the results through the EIS process.
- Reasonable Alternatives: Both the National and Wisconsin Environmental Policy Acts (NEPA and WEPA) require the consideration of alternatives to the recommended action. Consideration should include alternatives that might not be within agency jurisdiction. Where such alternatives will result in substantial utilization of resources, an EIS should be prepared.
- Disruption of Program Development or Inconsistency with Long-Range Plans or Goals: If the proposed action is in conflict with official agency plans or plans of other governmental agencies, then an EIS may be required.
- Inconsistency with any National or State Policy Relating to the Environment: A proposed action that conflicts with established environmental policies should require an EIS.
- Premature or Irrevocable Foreclosure of Possible Future Options: Where a proposal limits future courses of action, the need for an EIS is increased.
- Technological Development: Agencies that engage in major technological development programs having the potential for environmental impact should anticipate the need for compliance with WEPA. Assessments must be written late enough in the development process to contain meaningful information, but early enough so that this information can practically serve as input in the decision-making process. The assessment should be periodically reconsidered and any assessment or impact statement must be prepared before technological development activities have reached a stage of investment or commitment to implementation likely to determine subsequent development or restrict future viable alternatives.
Initial Screening for Types II and III Actions
The following procedures apply:
- Where the action is within the “Type III” category, as determined by reference to the UW System action type list, the institution will maintain the capability of responding to queries as to the reasons it believes that an environmental impact statement is unnecessary. UWSA will maintain a list of all Type III actions to monitor compliance with the Type Action list and institutional activities.
- For actions in the “Type II” category, a draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), containing a succinct, comprehensive assessment of the proposal and a preliminary recommendation of the need for an environmental impact statement, shall be prepared. In the case for new buildings or building additions, a detailed EIA should be completed to fully examine the need to complete a full EIS. Refer to the EIA Services Request template.
- Under Wis. Stat. §1.11(2)(e) the UW has an obligation to study, develop and describe appropriate alternatives to recommend courses of action in any proposal that involves unresolved conflicts concerning the alternative uses of available resources. In accordance with this requirement, when it is determined that there are unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources in a proposed Type II or Type III action, the UW System will study, develop and thoroughly describe appropriate alternatives, including the “no action” alternative. This study will be in writing. If the proposed action is a Type II action, the EIA will be deemed to satisfy this requirement.
- The institutions shall maintain updated mailing lists of individuals, organizations and agencies that have requested notification of environmental assessments.
- For purposes of this requirement, a proposed action involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources when:
- The proposed action may reasonably be expected to materially use or affect a resource, temporarily or permanently; and
- The resource is reasonably suited to one or more other uses; and
- There is a discernible conflict, competition, difference or incompatibility between the use to be made of the resource by the proposed action and another use, including the present use, to which the resource is reasonably suited; and
- The conflict, competition, difference or incompatibility between the proposed action’s use and the other uses to which the resource is reasonably suited cannot be avoided or resolved if the proposed action is implemented.
- For Type I actions, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) must be prepared, and the steps of the environmental review process must be followed.
Generic and Programmatic Actions
In proceeding with the initial screening of a particular action, institutions should be aware that there may be circumstances in which “generic” or “programmatic” impact statements, treating a group or series of actions, may be appropriate.
- A “generic” impact statement is suitable to cover actions or portions of actions that are repetitive in specific cases. Only those impacts that are common to all of the generic actions should be addressed. With respect to Type I actions a generic EIS is possible but unlikely. A Type I action is usually a major specific action, or a program or policy which can be dealt with in a programmatic EIS. A generic EIS will be most commonly used for Type II actions.
- A “programmatic” EIS is prepared on a policy or program decision that will affect the long-term development of subsequent specific actions. With respect to Type I actions, a programmatic EIS is appropriate whenever agency programs or policy decisions are categorized as Type I. An entire program may be classed as a Type II action and, if deemed necessary in the environmental impact assessment, be treated with a programmatic EIS.
- Specific actions that are part of a generic or programmatic impact statement must be measured against the generic or programmatic statement. A complete environmental impact statement on a single action within the generic or programmatic statement may not be necessary.
- Generic and programmatic impact statements may be amended as new information becomes available. The review process for such changes should follow the guidelines for amendments to impact statements, set forth below.
- The designated campus officer for research/demonstration will review the UW System action type list to determine which actions might be appropriately treated as generic or programmatic. The officer will advise the institution’s WEPA Coordinator of the possibility of developing generic and programmatic impact statements, and will consult with the coordinator as to the kinds of actions that might be appropriate for such treatment.
Interagency Cooperation
There may be occasions when an institution initiates an action that impacts another state agency or agencies. For these situations, a “lead” agency should assume prime responsibility for the conduct of the environmental review process, described below. Only one comprehensive environmental impact statement should be drafted in such instances. The UW System institution involved should consult with CPB staff and the other impacted state agency and agree upon the “lead” agency. When a dispute occurs as to the lead agency designation, the lead agency question shall be resolved so as not to cause delay. The following factors are listed as guidance in determining which agency is most appropriately designated as “lead” agency:
- Magnitude of agency’s involvement;
- Project approval/disapproval authority;
- Expertise concerning the action’s environmental effects;
- Duration of agency’s involvement and,
- Sequence of agency’s involvement. The decision can be made by interagency agreement on recurring situations or on a case-by-case basis.
Upon request of the lead agency, any other state agency that has jurisdiction by law should be a cooperating agency. In addition, any other state agency that has special expertise with respect to any environmental issue, which should be addressed in the statement, may be a cooperating agency upon request of the lead agency. When acting as the lead agency, the institution should:
- Request the participation of each cooperating agency in the WEPA process at the earliest possible time;
- To the maximum extent possible consistent with its responsibility as lead agency, use the environmental analysis and proposals of cooperating agencies; and
- Meet with a cooperating agency at the latter’s request.
When acting as the cooperating agency the institution should:
- Participate in the WEPA process as the earliest possible time;
- Assume, on request of the “lead” agency, responsibility for developing information and preparing environmental analyses including portions of the environmental impact statement in which the cooperating agency has special expertise; and
- Make available staff support at the lead agency’s request to enhance the latter’s interdisciplinary capability.
A cooperating agency should contribute funding based on an equitable pro-rated allocation as determined by the lead agency.
Responsibilities
Compliance with WEPA is the responsibility of each state agency. Wisconsin Administrative Code ADM 60 establishes procedures for agency WEPA actions including factors to be considered in making a decision about environmental impact. The following information describes current practices and establishes the internal procedures of the UW System for compliance with WEPA and NEPA. This information is intended to provide a process for WEPA compliance that is consistent throughout the UW System, to provide necessary guidance to the institutions within UW System, and to ensure adherence to the intent and spirit of the law.
Capital Planning and Budget staff provides guidance to the institution’s WEPA Coordinator in fulfilling WEPA responsibilities, access to WEPA files, public notification, and oversight of institutional and agency compliance, and reviews the various deliverables. UW System Administration has delegated WEPA responsibilities to the institutions. These responsibilities include:
- In consultation with Capital Planning and Budget, identifying the type of WEPA action required.
- Drafting the request for Type I or Type II consultant services.
- For Type I and Type II actions, managing the agency responsibilities including:
- Interface with the consultants
- Attending kick-off meetings
- Identification of mailing lists
- Scheduling public hearings and participating as the agency representative
- Review of scoping, draft, and final documents
- Responding to comments
- Making Record of Decision
- For Type III actions, completing the Evaluation of Environmental Significance form.
WEPA Type I
Background
In accordance with WEPA and the regulations of the Federal Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 CFR 1500-1508, agencies are required to identify classes of action which will normally require an environmental impact statement; which normally will not require an environmental impact statement; and which will normally require an environmental impact assessment, but not necessarily an environmental impact statement. The UW System has characterized as “Type I”, those actions that always require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Below is a reference table to assist in determining the need for an environmental impact statement.
| Item | Description and Comments | |
| Construction of major new buildings (including new heating, chilling, or power plants) or major site development projects.
Note: Not all new buildings need a full EIS since many are interior to the campus and don’t have significant environmental impact. All new building projects and building additions should be reviewed with a detailed Type II Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA, essentially a draft EIS) and a public hearing should be held by the consultant/campus to solicit public review of the proposed action. If unresolved conflicts arise at the hearing, the project is moved up to a full EIS and the detailed environmental assessment (EA) document is used as the draft EIS. New building projects known to significantly affect the quality of the human environment or those that involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources should start with a full EIS. Reference: WIS. Admin. Code ADM 60.04(2) – Determination of need for an EIS | New projects on parcels previously undeveloped by the state having significant effects on air/water quality, transportation, housing, and/or campus or community land use; or those that involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources as defined under Wis. Admin. Code ADM 60.04(2) | |
| Projects and actions that would normally be a Type II action but impacts are judged to be a Type I action based on a preliminary assessment. | Additions to existing buildings or new parking facilities that significantly impact the surrounding human environment. |
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Process
In general, the environmental impact analysis process should begin as early as possible in project development. Since a consultant will be hired by the Division of Facilities Development & Management (DFDM) to prepare the EIS, the length of time required to hire that consultant and negotiate a contract needs to be considered when determining the schedule for completion of an EIS. At a minimum, the DEIS public hearing needs to have occurred prior to receiving authority to construct from the BOR and the SBC, so that any issues that could affect the project scope and budget have been identified.
For those actions initiated by the UW System or an institution within the UW System the Environmental Impact Statement (if called for) should be written late enough in the project or program development process to contain meaningful information, but early enough so that whatever information is contained in the EIS can serve as a practical input into the decision-making process. The formal WEPA process should be initiated when a decision is being made which will foreclose alternative policy options.
SCOPING
The initial step in the development of an EIS is the scoping process, which identifies issues and potential areas of concern specific to the proposed action. The EIS consultant:
- Prepares a scoping letter is for review by the EIS team and sent to those individuals and groups identified in the Distribution List.
- Develops a distribution list of legislators, state agencies, municipalities, neighborhood associations, nearby residents, interest groups, student groups, faculty and staff representatives, and individuals who should receive scoping and other WEPA documentation.
- Undertakes a relevant database search and completes the [UW Historic Assessment Form] and submits that form to the UW System Historic Preservation Officer for review and a determination on whether a [WI Historic Assessment Form] (SHPO 44.40) will need to be prepared.
- Prepares a legal notice of the public scoping meeting that is published a minimum of 15 days prior to the meeting.
- Prepares a draft electronic presentation for the scoping meeting that is provided to the EIS team members and A/E Design consultant for review and comment one week prior to the scheduled meeting. The EIS consultant also prepares a sign-in form, written public comments form, and obtains design concept/site elevation materials from the design consultant. An agenda and a handout that describes the project scope and schedule of the project are recommended.
- Leads the scoping meeting, presents the concept of the proposed facility (with or without the assistance of the lead design consultant), identifies known impacts, and solicits comments from the participants. This provides guidance on the development of data needed to address the potential environmental effects and impacts (both positive and negative) of the proposed action. Issues identified throughout the scoping process are communicated to the EIS team for inclusion in the EIS and to determine whether or not further action is necessary.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)
From information garnered through the scoping process and collection of site-specific data, the EIS consultant prepares the (DEIS). The DEIS describes the proposed action and alternatives in sufficient detail that reviewing agencies and the public can assess the environmental effects of the proposed action as it relates to their area of expertise and/or interest. The format and content of the DEIS should follow the UW System model, as shown in [EIS Services Request] template. The EIS consultant:
- Analyzes existing or readily available information to provide supplemental information on site soils, flora/fauna, social and economic effects and other information necessary to describe the proposed action and impacts as reflected in the EIS outline.
- Addresses probable effects of alternatives to the proposed action including justification as to why the selected alternative was chosen. Impacts of sustainability features that are being considered are also included.
- Once the DEIS is developed, distributes review copies of the document are provided to the EIS team for input prior to public release. The EIS consultant incorporates appropriate review comments into the DEIS, prints and distributes copies.
- Provides a 45-day public comment period is required for the DEIS and, during that timeframe, conducts a public meeting. Publication of a legal notice of availability of the DEIS is coordinated by the EIS consultant typically in combination with the legal notice of the DEIS public meeting, or a separate DEIS legal notice may be published at least 15 days prior to the public meeting. At a minimum, the legal notice is published in the local daily/weekly newspaper and campus newspaper(s) including on-campus electronic faculty/staff and student news media where available. Notices for projects of a larger magnitude, especially those with potential statewide impact, are also published in the designated official state newspaper. Notices should include a brief description of the project, cost/funding, anticipated project implementation schedule, date/time/location of the public meeting, and a website link and physical locations where copies of the DEIS can be reviewed (typically a local library and the main campus library). The notice should specify the deadline for receipt of public comments and provide contact information for the EIS consultant, who is responsible for dissemination,discussion with the EIS team, and follow-up.
- Conducts the public meeting on the DEIS. The EIS consultant prepares a draft PowerPoint presentation for the DEIS meeting and provides it to the EIS Team members for review and comment one week prior to the scheduled meeting. The EIS consultant also develops a sign-in sheet for meeting attendees and a form for those who prefer to submit written public comments. A handout that describes the project scope and schedule of the project is recommended. At the meeting, the EIS consultant advises attendees that the meeting is being recorded and summarizes the EIS process to be followed and the initial determination of need for an EIS on the proposed action. The lead design team should have a representative at the meeting to present and clarify any design issues. Typically, representatives from the EIS Team (DFDM, UWSA, the campus) are present. Current graphic materials describing the project are provided to the extent available from the lead design consultant. The EIS consultant fields questions and makes verbal clarifications for the public as appropriate at the meeting and draws upon other members of the EIS Team for input when needed. The EIS consultant collects all meeting comments (both verbal and written) and produces meeting minutes for inclusion in the final EIS (FEIS).
- During the 45-day DEIS review period, consults with the EIS team to review all comments and determine how, and to what extent, those comments will be addressed in the FEIS.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FEIS)
The EIS consultant:
- Prepares the final EIS following the public meeting and close of the public comment period on the DEIS.
- Sends a review copy of the FEIS to the EIS team as well as a draft of the legal notice prior to public release. The format of the FEIS follows that of the DEIS and addresses, by incorporation, the responses to comments raised in the DEIS. As with the DEIS, the EIS consultant prints and distributes the FEIS, which must be available a minimum of 30 days for public review.
- Publishes a Class I Notice of Hearing in the local media a minimum of 15 days prior to the hearing and follows procedures as outlined above for DEIS publication for the FEIS.
- Leads and records the final EIS public hearing that is typically scheduled near the end of the FEIS review period. The EIS consultant summarizes the EIS process, describes the project proposal, identifies the substantial changes between the DEIS and FEIS, summarizes the final findings detailed in the EIS, and describes how major comments raised during the DEIS process were addressed. Current design graphics should be provided and presented by the EIS consultant if the lead design consultant is unable to attend. The EIS consultant is responsible for collecting signatures of all public hearing attendees and all comments, verbal and written, for the record.
RECORD OF DECISION (ROD)
After the close of the hearing the institution's WEPA Coordinator will carefully review the hearing record, review comments received on the EIS and proposal, and make a decision on the proposed action. A written decision will be made on the proposed action that states the findings of fact including the findings on the environmental impact. A copy will be sent to all agencies, environmental groups, and citizens responding to the draft or final EIS, to other parties specifically requesting notification, and to others as required by law. It may be appropriate to issue a press release on the agency decision on the proposed action.
This written decision constitutes a legal finding of compliance with the WEPA process and notifies the public and interested parties that the FEIS is acceptable to the agency. The EIS and agency decision letter must be made prior to approval of contracts for facilities projects.
CONTESTED, INADEQUATE, REVISED, OR AMENDED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FEIS)
Contested FEIS | Inadequate FEIS | Revised or Amended FEIS |
Should an FEIS be contested it may be necessary to cross- examine witnesses. Cross-examination of witnesses is possible under two circumstances:
| This decision rests with the sponsoring agency, which should be responsive to the recommendations of other agencies and the public. It may continue (postpone) the hearing and remand the FEIS for redraft including additional research as deemed necessary. | The FEIS can be amended or revised after a final decision on a reversible action under limited circumstances that include the length of time since the FEIS was completed. If the document is still useful as a programmatic or generic EIS, then revisions can occur any time that (a) new and significant information becomes available; or (b) a discussion in part of the FEIS is shown to be inaccurate, outdated or otherwise inadequate. When the action has not taken place and a modification of the proposed action is made, an environmental assessment should be prepared to determine whether the modified action constitutes a new action so as to require a new DEIS. |
INCLUSION OF OTHER CRITICAL ISSUES
Where appropriate, historical and archeological preservation, aesthetics, design, energy conservation and other critical issues should be included in the DEIS and FEIS. All Type I and Type II actions that involve physical alterations should include an assessment of the historical and archeological aspects.
WEPA Type II
Background
In accordance with WEPA and the regulations of the Federal Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 CFR 1500-1508, agencies are required to identify classes of action which will normally require an environmental impact statement; which normally will not require an environmental impact statement; and which will normally require an environmental impact assessment, but not necessarily an environmental impact statement. The UW System has characterized as “Type II”, those actions which may or may not require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), but which must be evaluated by using an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Below is a reference table to assist in determining the need for an environmental impact statement.
| Item | Description and Comments | |
| Board of Regents | ||
| Administrative Rules, which are a basic change in existing board practice, and which, upon implementation, will have significant effects on the environment. | |
| Policies which are a basic change in existing board practice which, upon implementation, will have significant effects on the human environment. | |
| Proposals for new programs or major changes in existing programs, the implementation of which would have significant effects on the human environment; otherwise Type III action | |
| Capital Projects | ||
| Construction of new vehicular or pedestrian bridges | |
| Construction of new buildings or building additions that may be interior to the campus and do not produce a documented significant environmental impact [as defined under Wis. Admin. Code ADM 60.04(2)] should be evaluated with a Type II EIA; this includes changes in the exterior physical environment, new pedestrian mall and site development projects, physical education/recreation facilities and new parking facilities. This also includes arboretum development, bicycle and pedestrian trails, field station and farm improvements, or construction on existing farm sites. | |
| New construction of an addition to an existing plant to increase capacity. | |
| Consistent with development item for heating/chiller plant projects. | |
| Follow Wisconsin State Historical Preservation Office guidelines. | |
| Development of bulkhead lines, restorations, and flood plain control. | |
| Construction or reconstruction of public streets and service roads that will significantly affect traffic volumes; if no significant affect on existing conditions, then handle as a Type III action | |
| New or expanded solid waste processing or transfer facilities or sites | |
| Includes work which will actually or potentially involve depositing debris, fill, or riprap in or on waters or wetlands; removing aquatic vegetation and/or underlying soils. | |
| Demonstration Projects | ||
| The conduct of laboratory or clinic research which has environmental consequences that cannot be adequately controlled or which has environmental consequences transcending the boundaries of the immediate experimental area | |
| Out-of-doors research projects that:
| |
| Preliminary Environmental Evaluation Determination | Projects and actions that would normally be a Type III action but the impact of the project is judged to be a Type II action based on the results of a preliminary environmental evaluation. Redevelopment or expansion of existing parking facilities; building remodeling projects that impact the existing human environment. |
Type II: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Process
In general, the environmental impact analysis process should begin as early as possible in project development. Since a consultant will be hired by the State of Wisconsin Division of Facilities Development & Management (DFDM) to prepare the EIA, the length of time required to hire that consultant and negotiate a contract needs to be considered when determining the schedule for completion of an EIA. The EIA process needs to be completed prior to letting of construction contracts. For those actions initiated by the UW System or an institution within the UW System the Environmental Impact Assessment should be written late enough in the project or program development process to contain meaningful information, but early enough so that whatever information is contained in the EIS can serve as a practical input into the decision-making process. The formal WEPA process should be initiated when a decision is being made which will foreclose alternative policy options.
TASKS
The EIA consultant:
- Completes a thorough environmental analysis and data collection.
- Develops a distribution list of legislators, state agencies, municipalities, neighborhood associations, nearby residents, interest groups, student groups, faculty and staff representatives, and individuals who should receive scoping and other WEPA documentation.
- Undertakes a relevant database search and completes the [UW Historic Assessment Form] and submits that form to the UW System Historic Preservation Officer for review and a determination on whether a [WI Historic Assessment Form] (SHPO 44.40) will need to be prepared.
- Evaluates impacts–adverse and positive.
- Drafts the Type II Environmental Impact Assessment.
- Distributes the draft EIA in electronic format to the EIA team for input.
- Provides input to the EIA team to determine whether the EIA is adequate or if impacts are significant enough to warrant an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
- If it is determined that an EIS is not required, distributes a draft EIA with a copy available at the local public library and university library and an electronic version on a website.
- Publishes availability of draft EIA for public comment in local media, including the designated official state newspaper, and local newspapers, student/faculty/staff newspaper(s), and electronic newsletters/messages, noting the required 15-day public review period.
- Publishes a 15-day legal notice and hold a public meeting (this can be done in conjunction with notice on availability of EIA).
- Provides EIA Team a draft of the PowerPoint presentation for review and comment one week prior to the public meeting.
- Collects, evaluates, distributes, and responds to public comments with prior input from the EIA team.
- With input from the EIA team, determines if the public meeting/comment period produced significant impacts or controversial issues to warrant an EIS.
- If it is determined that an EIS is not required, finalizes EIA to include an Executive Summary, recommendation, comments, responses, affidavits/ copies of published legal notice(s), required signatures, etc.; and distributes hard copies of the final EIA to the Capital Planning and Budget contact, the DFDM Project Manager, and institution’s WEPA Coordinator, and additional copies to other interested/involved parties.
- If it is determined that an EIS is required, uses the information developed as a DEIS, and completes the FEIS portion of the EIS process.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)
If it is determined, upon completion of the EIA and the public comment period, that no environmental impact statement is required, the completed EIA should be made a part of the agency files as a public Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Capital Planning and Budget and the involved institution will maintain a compilation of those Type II actions for which a FONSI was made. This compilation will be made available to all interested parties, agencies and the general public upon request. The institution’s WEPA Coordinator or designated campus officer for research/demonstration shall review and sign the EIA indicating that the UW System is in compliance with Wis. Stat. §1.11, prior to approval of contracts required by the proposal.
WEPA Type III
Background
In accordance with WEPA and the regulations of the Federal Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 CFR 1500-1508, agencies are required to identify classes of action which will normally require an environmental impact statement; which normally will not require an environmental impact statement; and which will normally require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), but not necessarily an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The UW System has characterized as “Type III”, those actions that do not require either an EIS or an EIA. Below is a reference table to assist in determining the need for an environmental impact statement.
| Item | Description and Comments | |
| Campus Master Plans | Plans prepared to a level of detail clearly presenting the development policies and direction that the university, UW System, and the community endorse. These plans become the framework within which specific projects may be implemented by campus actions and the building program. | |
| Capital Projects | ||
| All reconstruction, widening, structural replacement of existing bridges and culverts in place. New construction on a new location would be a Type II action. | |
| Removal of structures, vacated streets, and associated grading improvements. | |
| Interior or exterior alterations to existing facilities not involving extensive changes in land utilization, energy use, employment capacity, exterior aesthetic qualities, resource depletion, increases in air, noise, or water pollution, etc. improvements; OSHA and communications modifications. | |
| Manufacture, installation, and maintenance of signs consistent with campus policy. | |
| Minor development projects that do not require re-contouring, destruction of wildlife habitat, or create pollution of air and water, e.g., minor sidewalk extensions, installation of bicycle racks, small tree and shrub plantings or removals, erosion control, and routine campus grounds maintenance operations. | |
| Road and parking lot resurfacing; pavement, sidewalk, curb and gutter repair; miscellaneous transportation related activities. Resurfacing or recycling of existing pavement – can include replacement of curb and gutter essentially in the same place; installation of bike racks; changes to existing bicycle paths, etc. If the project relates to an expansion of existing parking facilities, then it requires a Type II EIA. | |
| Emergency Replacement | Immediate replacement of facilities to an operative level that existed prior to damage from such things as flood, fire, or accident. | |
| Operations | ||
| Any action which has significant consequences which transcend the boundaries of the campus or the project area. This section relates to the use of chemicals on campus grounds, e.g. salt, fertilizers, herbicides, etc. (regulated chemicals should be used according to label and prescribed procedures). If significant environmental impact is anticipated, complete a Type II EIA. | |
| Window air conditioner installations that do not significantly impact the building energy load. | |
| Property and Real Estate | ||
| Acquisition by fee title of parcels of land within the approved project boundaries. | |
| Granting or taking of easements for the purpose of constructing utilities, roads, etc.. | |
| Lease may be Type II or III following DOA leasing manual procedures. | |
| Projects constructed by private or public utility companies and municipally contracted improvements (assessable improvements to the state) within identified campus boundaries. Includes signalizing intersections, curb and gutter replacements, municipal sidewalks, etc. | |
| Sale, trade, or disposal of lands owned by the Board of Regents no longer needed for university purposes. |
Type III: Wisconsin Environmental Protection Act (WEPA) Exclusion Process
The institution’s WEPA Coordinator completes the WEPA/NEPA [Environmental Significance Evaluation] form.
Template
Environmental Significance Evaluation (WEPA/NEPA)
Description: Evaluation form for the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as it relates to proposed campus physical development. Includes 14 points of assessment related to environmental impacts and alternatives, archeological and historical sites, energy impacts, economic impacts, long-range plan and policy impacts, and precedents.
Purpose: Records preliminary investigation and evaluation of potential environmental impact significance and conditional determination of Type I/II/III action requirements.
Audience: UW System Administration, Division of Facilities Development and Management, Architectural/Engineering/Planning Consultants.
Revision ID: Rev 2015-02
Guide or Sample
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Services Request
Description: Request seeking professional services to develop an EIA related to a specific capital project and/or area of campus with multiple proposed capital projects that do not produce significant environmental effects and classified as a Type II action. This template includes the UWSA Type II action worksheet, WEPA document distribution list, and UW Historical Preservation Assessment form.
Purpose: Describes project location, background, scope, budget estimate, schedule, and professional services requirements and process to develop an EIA for the proposed project or campus area.
Audience: UW System Administration, Division of Facilities Development and Management, Architectural/Engineering/Planning Consultants.
Revision ID: Rev 2015-02
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Services Request
Description: Request seeking professional services to develop an EIS related to a specific capital project and/or area of campus with multiple proposed capital projects with potentially significant environmental effects and classified as a Type I action. This template includes the WEPA document distribution list and the UW Historic Preservation Assessment form.
Purpose: Describes project location, background, scope, budget estimate, schedule, and professional services requirements and process to develop an EIS for the proposed project or campus area.
Audience: UW System Administration, Division of Facilities Development and Management, Architectural/Engineering/Planning Consultants.
Revision ID: Rev 2015-02
UW Historic Preservation Assessment Form (University of Wisconsin System)
Description: Request for UW System Historical Preservation Officer review and comment on proposed work for UW property.
Purpose: Describes address and location of historic properties, proposed project scope description, and indicates historic preservation findings of both the submitter and the historical preservation officer reviewing the proposal. Additional attachments (site plans, project drawings and details, photographs, etc.) typically accompany this form to fully articulate and illustrate the proposed work.
Audience: UW System Administration.
Revision ID: Rev 2015-02
WI Historic Preservation Assessment Form (WI Historical Society 44.40 Form)
Description: Request for State Historical Preservation Officer review and comment on proposed work for state property.
Purpose: Describes address and location of historic properties, proposed project scope description, and indicates historic preservation findings of both the submitter and the historical preservation officer reviewing the proposal. Additional attachments (site plans, project drawings and details, photographs, etc.) typically accompany this form to fully articulate and illustrate the proposed work.
Audience: State of Wisconsin Historical Society, UW System Administration.
Revision ID: Rev 2015-02