SaltWater Islanders for Timberedlands
c/o Laura Bienen
13337 108th Avenue SW
Vashon, Washington 98070
| Re: December 3, 1999 appeal of the November 4, 1999 denial by the Department of Natural Resources Forest Practices Board (the "Board") of that certain Petition for Adoption, Amendment, or Repeal of a State Administrative Rule, presented to the Board on May 14, 1997, filed by SaltWater Islanders for Timberedlands ("SWIFT"), seeking rulemaking related to saltwater islands (the "Petition") |
Pursuant to RCW 34.05.330(3), I have fully reviewed your appeal
of the Petition and the relevant statues and regulations, and
after careful consideration, hereby deny the appeal. Your letter
did not state the reasons for your appeal other than your belief
that the Board's action did not respond to your original
proposal. The Board denied the Petition in good faith after
substantial review and consideration, and did not abuse its
discretion. The actions of the Board in denying the Petition are
not such that intervention by the Governor is appropriate.
The Board divided the issues you presented into four categories.
As the Board stated in its November 4, 1999 letter, the first
three categories are being or will be addressed by the Board, or
addressed by the Department of Natural Resources
administratively. Accordingly, they do not pertain to your
appeal.
The fourth category is the subject of your appeal. Requests in
this area were officially denied because, in the Board's words,
they were "outside of the Board's authority." I have reviewed
your concerns and concur with the Board's decisions for the
following reasons:
1. Forest fragmentation on islands. While forest fragmentation
is not limited to island geography but is a statewide issue, the
Board's rulemaking authority does not extend directly to this
area. Forest fragmentation is a local government land use issue
to be covered under the Growth Management Act and other
authorities.
2. Regulatory incentives to limit forest conversion. The Board
has limited authority in this area to restrict conversion, and
existing tools for that purpose are already in place. A more
full regime of regulatory incentives is beyond the purview of the
Board's authority and would require new state law or local
government actions.
3. Compliance with the Shoreline Management Act. Local
government, with state Department of Ecology oversight, has
responsibility to ensure compliance with the Shoreline Management
Act. The Board does not.
4. Problems with absentee ownership. State law allows absentee
ownership and therefore the Board has no authority to apply
forest practices regulations on that basis.
For these reasons, I have affirmed the Board's decision to deny
rulemaking on these issues. Thank you for your obvious concern
and extensive efforts to protect the ecology of 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 | |
| Amy F. Bell, Forest Practices Board |