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

Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.110 (2026)

Content of state environmental policy act rules

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
It shall be the duty and function of the department of ecology:
(1) To adopt and amend rules of interpretation and implementation of this chapter, subject to the requirements of chapter 34.05 RCW, for the purpose of providing uniform rules and guidelines to all branches of government including state agencies, political subdivisions, public and municipal corporations, and counties. The proposed rules shall be subject to full public hearings requirements associated with rule adoption. Suggestions for modifications of the proposed rules shall be considered on their merits, and the department shall have the authority and responsibility for full and appropriate independent adoption of rules, assuring consistency with this chapter as amended and with the preservation of protections afforded by this chapter. The rule-making powers authorized in this section shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following phases of interpretation and implementation of this chapter:
(a) Categories of governmental actions which are not to be considered as potential major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment, including categories pertaining to applications for water right permits pursuant to chapters 90.03 and 90.44 RCW. The types of actions included as categorical exemptions in the rules shall be limited to those types which are not major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The rules shall provide for certain circumstances where actions which potentially are categorically exempt require environmental review. An action that is categorically exempt under the rules adopted by the department may not be conditioned or denied under this chapter.
(b) Rules for criteria and procedures applicable to the determination of when an act of a branch of government is a major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment for which a detailed statement is required to be prepared pursuant to RCW 43.21C.030.
(c) Rules and procedures applicable to the preparation of detailed statements and other environmental documents, including but not limited to rules for timing of environmental review, obtaining comments, data and other information, and providing for and determining areas of public participation which shall include the scope and review of draft environmental impact statements.
(d) Scope of coverage and contents of detailed statements assuring that such statements are simple, uniform, and as short as practicable; statements are required to analyze only reasonable alternatives and probable adverse environmental impacts which are significant, and may analyze beneficial impacts.
(e) Rules and procedures for public notification of actions taken and documents prepared.
(f) Definition of terms relevant to the implementation of this chapter including the establishment of a list of elements of the environment. Analysis of environmental considerations under RCW 43.21C.030(2) may be required only for those subjects listed as elements of the environment (or portions thereof). The list of elements of the environment shall consist of the "natural" and "built" environment. The elements of the built environment shall consist of public services and utilities (such as water, sewer, schools, fire and police protection), transportation, environmental health (such as explosive materials and toxic waste), and land and shoreline use (including housing, and a description of the relationships with land use and shoreline plans and designations, including population).
(g) Rules for determining the obligations and powers under this chapter of two or more branches of government involved in the same project significantly affecting the quality of the environment.
(h) Methods to assure adequate public awareness of the preparation and issuance of detailed statements required by RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c).
(i) To prepare rules for projects setting forth the time limits within which the governmental entity responsible for the action shall comply with the provisions of this chapter.
(j) Rules for utilization of a detailed statement for more than one action and rules improving environmental analysis of nonproject proposals and encouraging better interagency coordination and integration between this chapter and other environmental laws.
(k) Rules relating to actions which shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter in situations of emergency.
(l) Rules relating to the use of environmental documents in planning and decision making and the implementation of the substantive policies and requirements of this chapter, including procedures for appeals under this chapter.
(m) Rules and procedures that provide for the integration of environmental review with project review as provided in RCW 43.21C.240. The rules and procedures shall be jointly developed with the department of commerce and shall be applicable to the preparation of environmental documents for actions in counties, cities, and towns planning under RCW 36.70A.040. The rules and procedures shall also include procedures and criteria to analyze planned actions under RCW 43.21C.440 and revisions to the rules adopted under this section to ensure that they are compatible with the requirements and authorizations of chapter 347, Laws of 1995, as amended by chapter 429, Laws of 1997. Ordinances or procedures adopted by a county, city, or town to implement the provisions of chapter 347, Laws of 1995 prior to the effective date of rules adopted under this subsection (1)(m) shall continue to be effective until the adoption of any new or revised ordinances or procedures that may be required. If any revisions are required as a result of rules adopted under this subsection (1)(m), those revisions shall be made within the time limits specified in RCW 43.21C.120.
(2) In exercising its powers, functions, and duties under this section, the department may:
(a) Consult with the state agencies and with representatives of science, industry, agriculture, labor, conservation organizations, state and local governments, and other groups, as it deems advisable; and
(b) Utilize, to the fullest extent possible, the services, facilities, and information (including statistical information) of public and private agencies, organizations, and individuals, in order to avoid duplication of effort and expense, overlap, or conflict with similar activities authorized by law and performed by established agencies.
(3) Rules adopted pursuant to this section shall be subject to the review procedures of chapter 34.05 RCW.
[ 2012 1st sp.s. c 1 s 311; 1997 c 429 s 47; 1995 c 347 s 206; 1983 c 117 s 7; 1974 ex.s. c 179 s 6.]

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.
Severability—1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
Finding—Severability—Part headings and table of contents not law—1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.
Purpose—1974 ex.s. c 179: See note following RCW 43.21C.080.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. POLLUTION CONTROL, 932 P.2d 158 (Wash. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. POLLUTION CONTROL, 932 P.2d 158 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 13× “RCW 43.21C.110(1) (amended by Laws of 1983, ch.”
Ctr. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 131 Wash. 2d 345 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 12× “Boise Cascade Corporation and other pulp and paper mills (mills) appeal a superior court order remanding re-issuance of their mills’ waste water discharge permits to the Pollution Control Hearings Board to determine *348 whether these permits constitute a "major action” under…”
Snohomish Cnty. v. State, 850 P.2d 546 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “An EIS may not be required if the action is one that is "categorically exempt under RCW 43.21C.110-(l)(a)". RCW 43.21C.031. If not otherwise exempt, an EIS "shall be prepared on .”
Alps v. State Forest Practices Bd., 144 P.3d 385 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 34× “110(1)(a) authorizes Ecology to create and to apply a cumulative-effects exception rule, WAC 197-11-305, to both administrative and statutory SEPA exemptions because the statute does not distinguish between them. We disagree. 1.”
Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. Dep't of Ecology, 837 P.2d 1007 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 4× “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).”
Alpine Lakes Prot. Soc'y v. Dep't of Ecology, 135 Wash. App. 376 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 30× “110(l)(a) authorizes Ecology to create and to apply a cumulative effects exception rule, WAC 197-11-305, to both administrative and statutory SEPA exemptions because the statute does not distinguish between them.”
Plum Creek Timber Co., L.P. v. Washington State Forest Practices Appeals Bd., 993 P.2d 287 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “” RCW 43.21C.110(l)(a). The Legislature provided that those “categorical exemptions” are to be “limited to those types which are not major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment.”
Norway Hill Pres. & Prot. Ass'n v. King Cnty. Council, 552 P.2d 674 (Wash. 1976). “100; RCW 43.21C.110. The Council recently adopted the final version of its guidelines, effective January 16, 1976.”
Ellensburg Cement Prods., Inc. v. Kittitas Cnty., 317 P.3d 1037 (Wash. 2014). “” RCW 43.21C.110(l)(b). ¶12 Pursuant to that statutory authority, Ecology has established a “threshold determination process” to decide whether an action is a major action significantly affecting the environment for which an EIS is required.”
Noel v. Cole, 655 P.2d 245 (Wash. 1982). “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.”
Waterford Place Condo. Ass'n v. City of Seattle, 791 P.2d 908 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Thus, we also rely on administrative interpretation and the legislative history of the statute.”
Kettle Range Conservation Grp. v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 85 P.3d 894 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “” RCW 43.21C.110-(l)(a). B. Watershed Analyses In 1992, the Forest Practices Board and Ecology adopted major changes to the Forest Practices Rules, a major component of which is the watershed analysis — a process for gathering environmental information about watershed…”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.110(1) — 6 cases
Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. POLLUTION CONTROL, 932 P.2d 158 (Wash. 1997). “RCW 43.21C.110(1) (amended by Laws of 1983, ch.”
Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. Dep't of Ecology, 837 P.2d 1007 (Wash. 1992). “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).”
Alps v. State Forest Practices Bd., 144 P.3d 385 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “110(1)(a) authorizes Ecology to create and to apply a cumulative-effects exception rule, WAC 197-11-305, to both administrative and statutory SEPA exemptions because the statute does not distinguish between them. We disagree. 1.”
Alpine Lakes Prot. Soc'y v. Dep't of Ecology, 135 Wash. App. 376 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “110(l)(a) authorizes Ecology to create and to apply a cumulative effects exception rule, WAC 197-11-305, to both administrative and statutory SEPA exemptions because the statute does not distinguish between them.”
Carpenter v. Island Cnty., 577 P.2d 575 (Wash. 1978).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.110(1)(a) — 8 cases
Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. POLLUTION CONTROL, 932 P.2d 158 (Wash. 1997). “RCW 43.21C.110(1) (amended by Laws of 1983, ch.”
Alps v. State Forest Practices Bd., 144 P.3d 385 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “110(1)(a) authorizes Ecology to create and to apply a cumulative-effects exception rule, WAC 197-11-305, to both administrative and statutory SEPA exemptions because the statute does not distinguish between them. We disagree. 1.”
Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. Dep't of Ecology, 837 P.2d 1007 (Wash. 1992). “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).”
Clallam Cnty. Citizens v. City of Port Angeles, 151 P.3d 1079 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 151 P.3d 1067 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.110(1)(d) — 1 case
Indian Trail Prop. Owner's Ass'n v. City of Spokane, 886 P.2d 209 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.110(b) — 1 case
Ellensburg Cement Prods., Inc. v. Kittitas Cnty. (Wash. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.110(f) — 1 case
West 514, Inc. v. Cnty. of Spokane, 770 P.2d 1065 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.110(l)(a) — 8 cases
Ctr. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 131 Wash. 2d 345 (Wash. 1997). “Boise Cascade Corporation and other pulp and paper mills (mills) appeal a superior court order remanding re-issuance of their mills’ waste water discharge permits to the Pollution Control Hearings Board to determine *348 whether these permits constitute a "major action” under…”
Alpine Lakes Prot. Soc'y v. Dep't of Ecology, 135 Wash. App. 376 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “110(l)(a) authorizes Ecology to create and to apply a cumulative effects exception rule, WAC 197-11-305, to both administrative and statutory SEPA exemptions because the statute does not distinguish between them.”
Plum Creek Timber Co., L.P. v. Washington State Forest Practices Appeals Bd., 993 P.2d 287 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “” RCW 43.21C.110(l)(a). The Legislature provided that those “categorical exemptions” are to be “limited to those types which are not major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment.”
Noel v. Cole, 655 P.2d 245 (Wash. 1982). “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.”
Snohomish Cnty. v. State, 850 P.2d 546 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “An EIS may not be required if the action is one that is "categorically exempt under RCW 43.21C.110-(l)(a)". RCW 43.21C.031. If not otherwise exempt, an EIS "shall be prepared on .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.110(l)(b) — 1 case
Ellensburg Cement Prods., Inc. v. Kittitas Cnty., 317 P.3d 1037 (Wash. 2014). “” RCW 43.21C.110(l)(b). ¶12 Pursuant to that statutory authority, Ecology has established a “threshold determination process” to decide whether an action is a major action significantly affecting the environment for which an EIS is required.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.110(l)(f) — 1 case
Concerned Citizens of Hosp. Dist. No. 304 v. Bd. of Commissioners of Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 304, 897 P.2d 1267 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
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.