Docket

Document Actions

Matter

Status

Legal Issue

^{U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 07-35266; U.S. Supreme Court Nos. 11-338 and 11-347}

^{In a unanimous opinion issued August 17, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that polluted run-off from logging roads is subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act.}^{In mid-September 2011, both the timber industry and the State of Oregon filed petitions for certiorari requesting that the Supreme Court review the case. Opposition brief papers are due in mid-November 2011.}

^{Clean Water Act}

Sierra Club SFI non-conformance complaint against Weyerhaeuser

^{Complaint filed October 1, 2009}

^{Complaint alleges Weyerhaeuser violated several of SFI’s environmental standards when it conducted logging and roadbuilding on extremely steep and unstable slopes}

ForestEthics complaint against SFI filed with the Federal Trade Commission

^{Complaint filed September 9, 2009}

^{Complaint alleges that SFI engages in deceptive and misleading national advertising}

ForestEthics complaint against SFI filed with the Internal Revenue Service

^{Complaint filed September 9, 2009}

^{Complaint reports SFI for potentially inappropriately using a tax-exempt “public charity” for funding, operating, and marketing its private forest certification label}

CIC v. Salazar

^{U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, No. 1:08-cv-1409-EGS}

^{On September 1, 2010, the U.S. District Court remanded the spotted owl recovery plan to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and also announced its intention to remand the 2008 northern spotted owl critical habitat designation, on a schedule to be determined by the court.}

^{Challenge to Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan and critical habitat designation}

FSC v. USTR

^{U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 09-35985}

^{Argued and submitted for decision November 2, 2010; a memorandum affirming the District Court's decision was issued Dec. 1, 2010. The Court issued a mandate on Jan. 25, 2011, concluding litigation.}

^{Miscellaneous Receipts Act, NEPA}

CBD v. USTR

^{U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 10-35102}

^{Argued and submitted for decision November 2, 2010}

^{Freedom of Information Act}

Skagit County v. State of Washington

^{Skagit County Superior Court}^{No. 05-2-00246-1}

^{Settlement reached and case dismissed in July 2009}

^{State Trust Lands, Water Quality}

Alpine Lakes Protection Society, et al. v. Washington State Forest Practices Board

^Washington^State^{Supreme Court No. 79993-8}

^{Appeal filed August 2005; Court of Appeals issued decision October, 2006; Petition for Review filed March, 2007 (joined with ALPS v. Ecology, below); the Supreme Court denied review in February 2008, terminating the case}

^{Cumulative Effects of Multiple Forest Practices, Forest Aesthetics}

Alpine Lakes Protection Society, et al. v. Washington State Department of Ecology

^Washington^State^{Supreme Court No. 79993-8}

^{Appeal filed July 2004; Court of Appeals issued decision October, 2006; Petition for Review filed March, 2007 (joined with ALPS v. FPB, above); the Supreme Court denied review in February 2008, terminating the case}

^{State Environmental Policy Act}

The Mountaineers v. DNR and Plum Creek Timber Company

^Thurston^{County Superior Court No. 02-2-00490-1}

^{Stayed in Superior Court pending a resolution of ALPS v. FPB and ALPS v. Ecology; the Supreme Court denied review of the companion cases in February 2008, terminating the case}

^{Cumulative Effects of Multiple Forest Practices, Forest Aesthetics}

Seattle Audubon Society v. Norton

^{U. S. District Court, W.D. Washington, No. C05-1835}

^{Case settled in September, 2006; Services agreed to do a Recovery Plan}

^{Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan}

Washington Environmental Council v. Sutherland

^{King County Superior Court No. 04-2-26461-8SEA}

^{Case settled in March 2006}

^{Sustainable Harvest, Cumulative Effects, Northern Spotted Owl, Salmon}

State Owned Forests v. Sutherland

^Washington^State^{Supreme Court No. 76431-0}

^{The Court of Appeals issued a decision in 2004; the Supreme Court denied review in 2005, terminating the case.}