Wash. Rev. Code » Title 76 · Chapter 76.09
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 76.09.010 (2026)

Legislative finding and declaration

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The legislature hereby finds and declares that the forestland resources are among the most valuable of all resources in the state; that a viable forest products industry is of prime importance to the state's economy; that it is in the public interest for public and private commercial forestlands to be managed consistent with sound policies of natural resource protection; that coincident with maintenance of a viable forest products industry, it is important to afford protection to forest soils, fisheries, wildlife, water quantity and quality, air quality, recreation, and scenic beauty.
(2) The legislature further finds and declares it to be in the public interest of this state to create and maintain through the adoption of this chapter a comprehensive statewide system of laws and forest practices rules which will achieve the following purposes and policies:
(a) Afford protection to, promote, foster and encourage timber growth, and require such minimum reforestation of commercial tree species on forestlands as will reasonably utilize the timber growing capacity of the soil following current timber harvest;
(b) Afford protection to forest soils and public resources by utilizing all reasonable methods of technology in conducting forest practices;
(c) Recognize both the public and private interest in the profitable growing and harvesting of timber;
(d) Promote efficiency by permitting maximum operating freedom consistent with the other purposes and policies stated herein;
(e) Provide for regulation of forest practices so as to avoid unnecessary duplication in such rules;
(f) Provide for interagency input and intergovernmental and tribal coordination and cooperation;
(g) Achieve compliance with all applicable requirements of federal and state law with respect to nonpoint sources of water pollution from forest practices;
(h) To consider reasonable land use planning goals and concepts contained in local comprehensive plans and zoning regulations;
(i) Foster cooperation among managers of public resources, forestland owners, Indian tribes and the citizens of the state;
(j) Develop a watershed analysis system that addresses the cumulative effect of forest practices on, at a minimum, the public resources of fish, water, and public capital improvements of the state and its political subdivisions; and
(k) Assist forestland owners in accessing market capital and financing for the ecosystem services provided to the public as a result of the protection of public resources.
(3) The legislature further finds and declares that it is also in the public interest of the state to encourage forestland owners to undertake corrective and remedial action to reduce the impact of mass earth movements and fluvial processes.
(4) The legislature further finds and declares that it is in the public interest that the applicants for state forest practices permits should assist in paying for the cost of review and permitting necessary for the environmental protection of these resources.
[ 2010 c 188 s 3; 1999 sp.s. c 4 s 901; 1993 c 443 s 1; 1987 c 95 s 1; 1974 ex.s. c 137 s 1.]

Notes:

Findings—Intent—2010 c 188: See note following RCW 76.44.070.
Part headings not law—1999 sp.s. c 4: See note following RCW 77.85.180.
Effective date—1993 c 443: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately [May 15, 1993]." [ 1993 c 443 s 6.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Kettle Range Conservation Grp. v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 85 P.3d 894 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kettle Range Conservation Grp. v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 85 P.3d 894 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “degradation of water quality and fish and wildlife habitat; (2) whether the watershed analysis rules require consideration of environmental, aesthetic, recreational, or wildlife concerns; (3) whether the WSA rules permit alternatives to the prescriptions; (4) whether the WSA’s…”
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. King Cnty., 592 P.2d 1108 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 4× “The Department of Natural Resources acting under the FPA, on the other hand, enforces its regulations regarding forest practices for the purpose of protecting public, private and *733 commercial forest lands.”
Snohomish Cnty. v. State, 850 P.2d 546 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “A number of WEC members have homes located on Lake Roesiger, and WEC is concerned about the effects of clear-cutting on water quality, erosion, fisheries, and fire hazard. The FPA declares as its purposes the "protection to forest soils, fisheries, wildlife, water quantity and…”
Heidgerken v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 993 P.2d 934 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× ““Every person who violates any provision of RCW 76.09.010 through 76.09.280 or of the forest practice rules .”
Johnson Forestry Contracting, Inc. v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 126 P.3d 45 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “170, “[e]very person who violates any provision of RCW 76.09.010 through 76.09.280 . . . shall be subject to a penalty in an amount of not more than ten thousand dollars for every such violation.”
Dep't of Nat. Resources v. Marr, 774 P.2d 1260 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “RCW 76.09.010. Consistent with the underlying policy of protecting the environment, the Legislature gave the FPA broad application by broadly defining forest land: "Forest land" shall mean all land which is capable of supporting a merchantable stand of timber and is not being…”
Oberg v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 787 P.2d 918 (Wash. 1990). · cites it 2× “RCW 76.09.010(1). The majority argues that the assessment procedure, by which the fire fighting activities of DNR are partially funded, indicates the Legislature's intent to have DNR's fire fighting duties run to the forest landowners as a particular class.”
Chuckanut Conservancy v. WASH. STATE DNR, 232 P.3d 1154 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “The act provides for the designation and protection of endangered species, and provides a means to conserve the ecosystems on which such species depend.”
Chuckanut Conservancy v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 156 Wash. App. 274 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “The act provides for the designation and protection of endangered species, and provides a means to conserve the ecosystems on which such species depend.”
Nw. Ecosystems All. v. Dep't of Ecology, 17 P.3d 697 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “The trial court did not *907 separately address the UDJA claims. The Appellants appeal these three rulings.”
Alps v. State Forest Practices Bd., 144 P.3d 385 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “040(1) requires the Forest Practices Board to adopt such rules as "necessary to accomplish the purposes and policies stated in RCW 76.09.010." As we note above, RCW 76.”
Alpine Lakes Prot. Soc'y v. Dep't of Ecology, 135 Wash. App. 376 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “040(1) requires the Forest Practices Board to adopt such rules as “necessary to accomplish the purposes and policies stated in RCW 76.09.010.” As we note above, RCW 76.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 76.09.010(1) — 16 cases
Snohomish Cnty. v. State, 850 P.2d 546 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “A number of WEC members have homes located on Lake Roesiger, and WEC is concerned about the effects of clear-cutting on water quality, erosion, fisheries, and fire hazard. The FPA declares as its purposes the "protection to forest soils, fisheries, wildlife, water quantity and…”
Kettle Range Conservation Grp. v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 85 P.3d 894 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “degradation of water quality and fish and wildlife habitat; (2) whether the watershed analysis rules require consideration of environmental, aesthetic, recreational, or wildlife concerns; (3) whether the WSA rules permit alternatives to the prescriptions; (4) whether the WSA’s…”
Oberg v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 787 P.2d 918 (Wash. 1990). “RCW 76.09.010(1). The majority argues that the assessment procedure, by which the fire fighting activities of DNR are partially funded, indicates the Legislature's intent to have DNR's fire fighting duties run to the forest landowners as a particular class.”
Johnson Forestry Contracting, Inc. v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 126 P.3d 45 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “170, “[e]very person who violates any provision of RCW 76.09.010 through 76.09.280 . . . shall be subject to a penalty in an amount of not more than ten thousand dollars for every such violation.”
Chuckanut Conservancy v. WASH. STATE DNR, 232 P.3d 1154 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “The act provides for the designation and protection of endangered species, and provides a means to conserve the ecosystems on which such species depend.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 76.09.010(2) — 6 cases
Nw. Ecosystems All. v. Dep't of Ecology, 17 P.3d 697 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “The trial court did not *907 separately address the UDJA claims. The Appellants appeal these three rulings.”
Dep't of Nat. Resources v. Browning, 199 P.3d 430 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
Ruiz v. State, 225 P.3d 458 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
Ord v. Kitsap Cnty., 929 P.2d 1172 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).
Nw. Ecosystem All. v. Doe, 17 P.3d 697 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 76.09.010(2)(a) — 1 case
Heidgerken v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 993 P.2d 934 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). ““Every person who violates any provision of RCW 76.09.010 through 76.09.280 or of the forest practice rules .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 76.09.010(2)(c) — 1 case
Esses Daman Fam., Llc, Res/cross-app. v. Dept Of Nat. Resources (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 76.09.010(6) — 1 case
Dep't of Nat. Resources v. Marr, 774 P.2d 1260 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “RCW 76.09.010. Consistent with the underlying policy of protecting the environment, the Legislature gave the FPA broad application by broadly defining forest land: "Forest land" shall mean all land which is capable of supporting a merchantable stand of timber and is not being…”
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.