Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.037 (2026)

Application of RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) to forest practices

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Decisions pertaining to applications for Class I, II, and III forest practices, as defined by rule of the forest practices board under RCW 76.09.050, are not subject to the requirements of RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) as now or hereafter amended.

(2) When the applicable county, city, or town requires a license in connection with any proposal involving forest practices:

(a) On forestlands that are being converted to another use; or

(b) On lands which, pursuant to RCW 76.09.070 as now or hereafter amended, are not to be reforested because of the likelihood of future conversion to urban development, then the local government, rather than the department of natural resources, is responsible for any detailed statement required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c).

(3) Those forest practices determined by rule of the forest practices board to have a potential for a substantial impact on the environment, and thus to be Class IV practices, require an evaluation by the department of natural resources as to whether or not a detailed statement must be prepared pursuant to this chapter. The evaluation shall be made within ten days from the date the department receives the application. A Class IV forest practice application must be approved or disapproved by the department within thirty calendar days from the date the department receives the application, unless the department determines that a detailed statement must be made, in which case the application must be approved or disapproved by the department within sixty days from the date the department receives the application, unless the commissioner of public lands, through the promulgation of a formal order, determines that the process cannot be completed within such period. This section shall not be construed to prevent any local or regional governmental entity from determining that a detailed statement must be prepared for an action regarding a Class IV forest practice taken by that governmental entity concerning the land on which forest practices will be conducted.

[ 2011 c 207 s 3; 1997 c 173 s 6; 1983 c 117 s 2; 1981 c 290 s 1.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases, 1982–2010 · leading case: Snohomish Cnty. v. State, 850 P.2d 546 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Snohomish Cnty. v. State, 850 P.2d 546 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “050; RCW 43.21C.037(1). We hold that the Legislature's exemption of class III forest practices from SEPA spares DNR (and the parties) from individual case-by-case environmental review.”

Kettle Range Conservation Grp. v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 85 P.3d 894 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “050(1); RCW 43.21C.037(1). The legislature also required that the Department of Ecology, in its SEPA rules “provide for certain circumstances where actions which potentially are categorically exempt require environmental review.”

Noel v. Cole, 655 P.2d 245 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 2× “RCW 43.21C.037. While SEPA does authorize the promulgation of administrative exemptions, they are limited to actions which are not major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment.”

Alpine Lakes Prot. Soc'y v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 979 P.2d 929 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “050(1); RCW 43.21C.037(1). Class IV forest practices are those “which have a potential for a substantial impact on the environment and therefore require an evaluation by [DNR] as to whether or not an [EIS] must be prepared.”

Chuckanut Conservancy v. WASH. STATE DNR, 232 P.3d 1154 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “The act provides for the designation and protection of endangered species, and provides a means to conserve the ecosystems on which such species depend. Section 10 authorizes a landowner to negotiate a habitat conservation plan at a landscape level to minimize and mitigate any…”

Chuckanut Conservancy v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 156 Wash. App. 274 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “The act provides for the designation and protection of endangered species, and provides a means to conserve the ecosystems on which such species depend. Section 10 authorizes a landowner to negotiate a habitat conservation plan at a landscape level to minimize and mitigate any…”

Alps v. State Forest Practices Bd., 144 P.3d 385 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 14× “Second, is the forest practices exemption, RCW 43.21C.037, subject to Ecology's administrative rules promulgated under RCW 43.”

Alpine Lakes Prot. Soc'y v. Dep't of Ecology, 135 Wash. App. 376 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 11× “110(1) allow Ecology to apply its “cumulative effects” Rule 305 to both administrative and statutory SEPA exemptions? Second, is the forest practices exemption, RCW 43.21C.037, subject to Ecology’s administrative rules promulgated under RCW 43.”

Plum Creek Timber Co., L.P. v. Washington State Forest Practices Appeals Bd., 993 P.2d 287 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “050(1) and RCW 43.21C.037(1) for Class I, II and III forest practices are unlike other statutory SEPA exemptions.”

West Main Assocs. v. City of Bellevue, 742 P.2d 1266 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). “See RCW 43.21C.037. We disagree. In its findings and conclusions, the city council cited specific policies and provisions and described how West Main's project would be inconsistent with those policies and provi *521 sions.”

Nw. Ecosystems All. v. Dep't of Ecology, 17 P.3d 697 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “050, RCW 43.21C.037(3). The classification system determines whether certain forest practices will receive SEPA review.”

Alpine Lakes Prot. Soc'y v. DNR, 979 P.2d 929 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “050(1); RCW 43.21C.037(1). Class IV forest practices are those "which have a potential for a substantial impact on the environment and therefore require an evaluation by [DNR] as to whether or not an [EIS] must be prepared[.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.037(1) — 6 cases

Snohomish Cnty. v. State, 850 P.2d 546 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “050; RCW 43.21C.037(1). We hold that the Legislature's exemption of class III forest practices from SEPA spares DNR (and the parties) from individual case-by-case environmental review.”

Alpine Lakes Prot. Soc'y v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 979 P.2d 929 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “050(1); RCW 43.21C.037(1). Class IV forest practices are those “which have a potential for a substantial impact on the environment and therefore require an evaluation by [DNR] as to whether or not an [EIS] must be prepared.”

Kettle Range Conservation Grp. v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 85 P.3d 894 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “050(1); RCW 43.21C.037(1). The legislature also required that the Department of Ecology, in its SEPA rules “provide for certain circumstances where actions which potentially are categorically exempt require environmental review.”

Alpine Lakes Prot. Soc'y v. Dep't of Ecology, 135 Wash. App. 376 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “110(1) allow Ecology to apply its “cumulative effects” Rule 305 to both administrative and statutory SEPA exemptions? Second, is the forest practices exemption, RCW 43.21C.037, subject to Ecology’s administrative rules promulgated under RCW 43.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.037(3) — 8 cases

Alps v. State Forest Practices Bd., 144 P.3d 385 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Second, is the forest practices exemption, RCW 43.21C.037, subject to Ecology's administrative rules promulgated under 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.