Preserving Scenic Forests
Document Actions
Since 1997, WFLC has been working to ensure that clear-cuts do not mar the landscape of our scenic highways.
Just by driving around the Olympic Peninsula or through some of the Cascade Mountain valleys it becomes glaringly evident that the Washington forest practices rules are woefully deficient in protecting the beauty of forested areas in places where aesthetics matter, such as near National Parks and along scenic highways.
WFLC’S Legal Efforts to Ensure Protection of Forest Aesthetics
In our first case addressing the forest aesthetics issue, WFLC, on behalf of Alpine Lakes Protection Society, appealed the Department of Natural Resource's approval of a Plum Creek Timber Company permit to build a road to be used for future logging through the pristine Scatter Creek basin and Alpine Lake Wilderness Area. The Forest Practices Appeals Board found that logging near Scatter Creek would not have an adverse impact on recreation, aesthetics or wildlife in the Alpine Lake Wilderness Area and affirmed the permit.
However, in June 1998, the King County Superior Court reversed the Appeals Board decision and ordered the Department of Natural Resources to re-examine the permit under the State Enviromental Policy Act.
In 1999, as a reaction to the successful 1998 ruling on protection of forest aesthetics, WFLC and Earthjustice filed a Petition for Rulemaking on behalf of several conservation groups. The Petition requested the Forest Practices Board to adopt specific rules protecting the scenic beauty of areas frequented by the public.
After a lengthy hearing process, the Board denied the Petition but committed to considering the aesthetics issue in the future. WFLC chose not to appeal the Board's decision to superior court.
In 2004, WFLC’s forest aesthetics consultant, Dean Apostol, completed a study in conjunction with six nationally-recognized forest landscape experts. The Study concluded that Washington’s forest practices rules are deficient in protecting aesthetics.
As of September 2005, we are formulating our response to the Study’s conclusions. Please check back with us in the future for information on our progress on this issue.
