VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
Peter Goldman
Washington Forest Law Center
615 Second Avenue, Suite 360
Seattle, Washington 98104-2245
Re: Appeal of the May 10, 2000 denial by the Forest
Practices Board (the "Board") of that certain Petition for
Adoption of Forest Practices Rules Regarding Recreation and
Aesthetics, dated August 18, 1999, filed by Washington
Forest Law Center on behalf of its clients The Mountaineers
and Alpine Lakes Protection Society (the "Petition")
Dear Mr. Goldman:
Pursuant to RCW 34.05.330(3), I have fully reviewed your appeal
of the Petition and the relevant statutes and regulations. As
you know, because the Forest Practices Board is not under the
jurisdiction of the governor, my authority under RCW 34.05.330 is
limited to making nonbinding recommendations to the Board.
Washington' forests are a tremendous asset to our people in many
ways. Our forests and natural resources define Washington, and
are a large part of what makes our state a desirable place to
live. Beyond the traditional benefits of logging, our forests
provide far-reaching economic benefits - directly and indirectly.
The natural beauty and recreational opportunities of this state
provide a way of life that helps to attract tourism and other
non-forest products industries to our beautiful and natural
state. The products of our forests also provide substantial
revenue for the common schools and support vital industry and
thousands of jobs.
Your appeal raises a legal question of whether the making of
forest practices rules regarding protection of recreation and
aesthetics is discretionary or mandatory for the Board. Good
arguments exist on both sides of that question. However, there
appears to be no dispute that the Board has at least
discretionary authority to make such rules, and declined to do
so. Accordingly, the question does not need to be answered to
address your appeal, and is better left to the courts to answer.
It is my policy to intervene in matters presented to me under RCW 34.05.330(3) only when I believe the administrative body whose
decision is at issue has abused its discretion or acted
arbitrarily or capriciously. It is also my policy not to
second-guess the thoughtful and deliberate decisions of a state
agency or board, so long as those decisions are well founded and
proper under the law. The Board had a good-faith basis for
determining that its authority to make rules regarding recreation
and aesthetics is discretionary, not mandatory. Once that
determination was made, the Board also had a good-faith basis for
its decision to deny the Petition based on its belief that
existing rules, in conjunction with voluntary efforts of
landowners, are sufficient for the immediate future, and that the
Board's current workload would not permit it to immediately
engage in that rulemaking.
After investigating the Board's decision to deny the Petition, I
learned that substantial public discussions were devoted to
finding ways to enhance the voluntary efforts of landowners.
Specifically, I understand that the industry expressed
willingness to work with advocacy groups to identify several of
the most critical trails of statewide significance (i.e., those
in which significant public investment has been made) and look at
ways to protect the public investment. There were also
discussions about training foresters in ways to preserve the
recreational and aesthetic aspects of the forests they manage.
As with so many issues where stakeholders on each side of the
controversy have strongly held beliefs and business concerns, the
solution to this issue should lie in a compromise. The Board has
promised to look further into this matter at its annual work plan
meeting in the early fall. I believe that it would be in your
and your clients' best interests to continue working with the
Board and other stakeholders to reach an agreement to make a
limited rule, or a voluntary arrangement, that will protect the
maximum amount of forest as quickly as possible.
As you know, the Board has expressed concerns about its ability
to make and administer such rules if they are made, due to
financial constraints. I know that your clients and others have
done a tremendous amount of mapping and other work to help the
Department of Natural Resources implement recreational and
aesthetic regulations, and that computer technology exists to
dramatically speed review. I am certain that if all parties will
set aside their differences, and work cooperatively, a reasonable
arrangement can be reached to protect the most critical areas
until the Board is able to make rules dealing with aesthetics and
recreation.
I do, however, think that it would be practical for the Board to
make rules that require reasonable notice to local media outlets,
advocacy groups, and nearby landowners, who have registered with
the Board, that a forest practices permit to harvest timber on a
particular parcel has been applied for. Accordingly, I make that
recommendation to the Board.
Thank you for your extensive efforts and profound commitment to
the protection of the forests in our state.
Sincerely,
Gary Locke
Governor
| cc: | Dennis W. Cooper, Code Reviser |
| Tim Martin, Co-Chief Clerk, House of Representatives | |
| Cindy Zehnder, Co-Chief Clerk, House of Representatives | |
| Tony Cook, Secretary of the Senate | |
| Jennifer Belcher, Commissioner of Public Lands |