(DOWNLOAD) "Alpine Lakes Protection Society V. Washington State Department Of Natural Resources" by Washington Court of Appeals ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Alpine Lakes Protection Society V. Washington State Department Of Natural Resources
- Author : Washington Court of Appeals
- Release Date : January 12, 1999
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 75 KB
Description
The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE), the Washington Forest Practices Board (FPB) and Plum Creek Timber Company (Plum Creek) appeal a Judgement of the King County Superior Court overturning DNR's modified determination of nonsignificance with respect to the Alps Watershed Analysis prepared by Plum Creek. The court ordered that the watershed analysis be disapproved pending completion of an environmental impact statement (EIS), and also ordered that a series of geo-technical prescriptions contained in the watershed analysis be revised to explicitly require consideration of cumulative impacts in developing any alternative to a no-action prescription contained in the analysis. DNR also appeals the superior court's award of attorney fees to Alpine Lakes Protection Society (ALPS) under the equal access to Justice act, RCW 4.84.340-.360, for attorney fees incurred at the administrative level and in superior court. We hold that the Washington Forest Practices Appeals Board (FPAB) erred in ruling by summary Judgement that an EIS is not required based on the reasoning that approval of the watershed analysis and selection of geo- technical prescriptions, in and of themselves, will have no probable significant adverse environmental impact. But the superior court erred in requiring an EIS that is a decision to be made by the FPAB after considering future, albeit as yet unproposed, forest practices. Moreover, the geo-technical prescriptions are not defective for failure to explicitly require consideration of cumulative effects in developing alternative prescriptions, in that the purpose of the entire watershed analysis process is to address the cumulative effects of forest practices on the public resources of fish, water and public capital improvements and the language of the geo-technical prescriptions is consistent with this purpose. The superior court erred in awarding ALPS attorney fees incurred at the administrative level but did not err in awarding fees incurred at the judicial review level. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part. We remand to the superior court for such adjustments as may be appropriate in the attorney fee award in light of the decision on appeal. And we remand to the FPAB for a fact-finding hearing on whether an EIS must be prepared.