Wash. Rev. Code » Title 43 · Chapter 43.21C
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.031 (2026)

Significant impacts

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) An environmental impact statement (the detailed statement required by RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c)) shall be prepared on proposals for legislation and other major actions having a probable significant, adverse environmental impact. The environmental impact statement may be combined with the recommendation or report on the proposal or issued as a separate document. The substantive decisions or recommendations shall be clearly identifiable in the combined document. Actions categorically exempt under RCW 43.21C.110(1)(a) and 43.21C.450 do not require environmental review or the preparation of an environmental impact statement under this chapter.
(2) An environmental impact statement is required to analyze only those probable adverse environmental impacts which are significant. Beneficial environmental impacts may be discussed. The responsible official shall consult with agencies and the public to identify such impacts and limit the scope of an environmental impact statement. The subjects listed in RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) need not be treated as separate sections of an environmental impact statement. Discussions of significant short-term and long-term environmental impacts, significant irrevocable commitments of natural resources, significant alternatives including mitigation measures, and significant environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated should be consolidated or included, as applicable, in those sections of an environmental impact statement where the responsible official decides they logically belong.
[ 2012 1st sp.s. c 1 s 302; 1995 c 347 s 203; 1983 c 117 s 1.]

Notes:

Finding—Intent—Limitation—Jurisdiction/authority of Indian tribe under act—2012 1st sp.s. c 1: See notes following RCW 77.55.011.
Authority of department of fish and wildlife under act—2012 1st sp.s. c 1: See note following RCW 76.09.040.
Finding—Severability—Part headings and table of contents not law—1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 5× “A As a threshold issue, appellants argue King County is procedurally barred from challenging Black Diamond's DNS at this stage for failure to properly appeal the DNS before the Superior Court.”
Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. POLLUTION CONTROL, 932 P.2d 158 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 4× “" RCW 43.21C.031 (Supp. 1995). However, "[a]ctions categorically exempt under RCW 43.”
Davidson Serles & Assocs. v. City of Kirkland, 159 Wash. App. 616 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “RCW 43.21C.031. The SEPA rules provide procedures and requirements for adopting a planned action ordinance or resolution described in RCW 43.”
Ctr. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 131 Wash. 2d 345 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 4× “” RCW 43.21C.031 (Supp. 1995). However, "[ajctions categorically exempt under RCW 43.”
Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. Dep't of Ecology, 837 P.2d 1007 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 4× “020(2), 3 RCW 43.21C.031, 4 and RCW 43.21C.110, 5 *765 and the regulations implementing those statutes, by issuing certain NPDES permits without requiring applicants for those permits to file environmental impact statements (EIS).”
DAVIDSON SERLES v. City of Kirkland, 246 P.3d 822 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 5× “RCW 43.21C.031. The SEPA rules provide procedures and requirements for adopting a planned action ordinance or resolution described in RCW 43.”
Snohomish Cnty. v. State, 850 P.2d 546 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “RCW 43.21C.031. If not otherwise exempt, an EIS "shall be prepared on .”
Cougar Mountain Assocs. v. King Cnty., 765 P.2d 264 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 2× “: (1) To declare a state policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his *751 environment; (2) to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere; (3) and stimulate the health and welfare of man; and (4) to…”
Lanzce G. Douglass, Inc. v. City of Spokane Valley, 225 P.3d 448 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “WAC 197-11-360(1); RCW 43.21C.031; SVMC 21.20.100, .110. ¶30 Douglass filed an environmental checklist.”
Adams v. Thurston Cnty., 855 P.2d 284 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “RCW 43.21C.031; WAC 197-11-360, -408, -410.”
Kucera v. State, Dept. of Transp., 995 P.2d 63 (Wash. 2000). “" RCW 43.21C.031(1). However, not every governmental decision or action is subject to review under SEPA.”
Klickitat Cnty. Citizens Against Imported Waste v. Klickitat Cnty., 866 P.2d 1256 (Wash. 1993). “RCW 43.21C.031. As a result of this threshold determination, the County did not prepare an EIS on the 1989 Plan Update.”
Show all 41 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.031(1) — 14 cases
Kucera v. State, Dept. of Transp., 995 P.2d 63 (Wash. 2000). “" RCW 43.21C.031(1). However, not every governmental decision or action is subject to review under SEPA.”
Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. POLLUTION CONTROL, 932 P.2d 158 (Wash. 1997). “" RCW 43.21C.031 (Supp. 1995). However, "[a]ctions categorically exempt under RCW 43.”
Ctr. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 131 Wash. 2d 345 (Wash. 1997). “” RCW 43.21C.031 (Supp. 1995). However, "[ajctions categorically exempt under RCW 43.”
Lands Council v. Washington State Parks & Rec. Comm'n, 309 P.3d 734 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 137 Wash. App. 150 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.031(2)(a)(i) — 2 cases
Davidson Serles & Assocs. v. City of Kirkland, 159 Wash. App. 616 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “RCW 43.21C.031. The SEPA rules provide procedures and requirements for adopting a planned action ordinance or resolution described in RCW 43.”
DAVIDSON SERLES v. City of Kirkland, 246 P.3d 822 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “RCW 43.21C.031. The SEPA rules provide procedures and requirements for adopting a planned action ordinance or resolution described in RCW 43.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.031(2)(a)(ii) — 2 cases
Davidson Serles & Assocs. v. City of Kirkland, 159 Wash. App. 616 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “RCW 43.21C.031. The SEPA rules provide procedures and requirements for adopting a planned action ordinance or resolution described in RCW 43.”
DAVIDSON SERLES v. City of Kirkland, 246 P.3d 822 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “RCW 43.21C.031. The SEPA rules provide procedures and requirements for adopting a planned action ordinance or resolution described in RCW 43.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.