EAJA Awards

In order to download please refine your results

Filters

Clear

Filters

Apply

Agency	Agency subcomponent	Name	Award date	Award amount	Awardees	Claims description	Finding basis	Actions
U.S. Department of Agriculture	Forest Service	Klamath Forest Alliance	10-29-2021	$ 37,000	Meriel L. Darzen	Violated NEPA by unlawful use of inapplicable categorical exclusion and arbitrary conclusion that no extraordinary circumstances are present.	Violated NEPA by unlawful use of inapplicable categorical exclusion and arbitrary conclusion that no extraordinary circumstances are present.	Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture	Forest Service	Sequoia Forestkeeper and Earth Island Institute	01-26-2022	$ 68,000	Rene´ Voss and Matt Kenna	1) Claims the Forest Service failed to prepare an EA, which violates NEPA.	On July 23, 2021, the Eastern District Court of California ordered the Forest Service enjoined from felling any trees in the Plateau Roads Hazard Tree Project area.	Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture	Forest Service	Center for Biological Diversity, Heartwood, Ohio Environmental Council, Sierra Club	03-01-2022	$ 300,000	Wendy S. Park, Diana Descale-Joffe, Nathan G. Johnson and Elizabeth Benson	1) Claims failure to prepare a supplemental environmental review, and 2) claims BLM's preparation of an unlawful EA and FONSI or EIS.	On 4/18/18, the Southern District Court of Ohio determined the Forest Service and BLM failed to take the requisite "hard look" at the impacts of fracking in the Wayne National Forest prior to deciding to grant leases.	Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture	Forest Service	Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Native Ecosystems Council	03-09-2022	$ 108,382	Rebecca K. Smith and Timothy M. Bechtold	1) Claims the Forest Service’s conclusion in the Project EIS that it is conserving adequate and “well-distributed” habitat for elk that maintains hunting opportunities is contrary to the law, and 2) The site-specific Forest Plan amendment and agency practice of issuing successive site-specific amendments to evade analysis of a "significant" Forest Plan amendment.	Plaintiffs prevailed on Claim 1 insofar as defendants were required to reinitiate consultation on the grizzly bear, because of concurrent project activities in more than three subunits. The 2019 Record of Decision is vacated and the matter is remanded for further Agency action consistent with the order.	Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture	Forest Service	Save the Bull Trout and Alliance for the Wild Rockies	03-15-2022	$ 13,000	Timothy Bechtold and Rebecca K. Smith	1) Claims that unpermitted incidental take of bull trout violates ESA.	On 3/15/20, the District Court of Montana issued an order dismissing the case with prejudice, with each party to abide by the agreed upon fee and cost stipulation agreement.	Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture	Forest Service	Umpqua Watersheds, Wildlands and Oregon Wildland	04-11-2022	$ 16,000	Erin E. Hogan-Freemale and Oliver J.H. Stifel	1) Claims unlawful use of inapplicable categorical exclusion, and 2) The conclusion that no extraordinary circumstances are present was arbitrary.	On 3/10/22, the parties signed a stipulation agreement that resolves the disputes set forth in plaintiffs' complaint including plaintiffs' claim for attorney's fees and costs.	Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture	Forest Service	Cascadia Wildland and Oregon Wild	06-09-2022	$ 115,000	Nicholas S. Cady and Mariel L. Drazen	1) Claims the Forest Service failed to supplement NEPA analyses for the previously approved projects, including the Green Mountain, Lang Dam, and Hwy 46; and 2) Failed to engage in NEPA analysis for new logging activities in the Holiday Farm Fire.	On 12/27/21, the District Court of Oregon granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. The Forest Service is enjoined from permitting any further logging in Hwy 46 Project area and any further post-fire salvage logging in the Lang Dam Project area until further order of the court.	Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture	Forest Service	Cascadia Wildlands, Oregon Wild and Willamette Riverkeeper	06-13-2022	$ 96,000	Oliver J.H. Stifel and Mariel L. Drazen	1) Claims unlawful use of inapplicable categorical exclusion violates NEPA, 2) The conclusion that no extraordinary circumstances are present is arbitrary, and 3) There was a failure to take a hard look as required by NEPA.	Parties settled the matter of fees and costs between them. Due to the settlement, on 6/13/22, the plaintiffs withdrew their motion for award of attorney's fees and other expenses.	Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture	Farm Service Agency	In Re: Farm Service Agency	06-21-2022	$ 16,710	Name Withheld	The Agency County Committee found that Appellant was not eligible for the 2018 Farm Program payments.  Although the Agency did find that Appellant made significant contributions of capital and land, Specifically, the Agency found that the partners of Appellant received guaranteed payments for their contributions of active personal labor and active personal management, which had to be excluded per the regulations.	On February 3, 2022, a NAD Administrative Judge issued an appeal determination finding that the Agency’s decision was erroneous.	Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture	Forest Service	Western Watersheds Project, Wildearth Guardians and Predator Defense	06-29-2022	$ 16,667	Talasi Brooks and Lauren Rule	1) Claims wildlife predator damage management actions have no valid NEPA, 2) Wildlife services has not completed supplemental NEPA analysis and is causing irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, 3) Using Annual Work Plans to authorize predator damage management actions on federal lands in Idaho without conducting the necessary site-specific NEPA analysis violates NEPA, and 4) Operating Pocatello supply depot without adequate NEPA analysis violates NEPA.	After reviewing the filings and Administrative Records in the case, the parties decided to explore the possibility of resolving the case amicably and without protracted litigation. The parties requested the case be stayed to facilitate settlement discussions. The Court granted those motions in June 2021. Settlement was reached/filed in June 2022.	Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture	Forest Service	Yaak Valley Forest Council	07-06-2022	$ 70,248	Emily F. Wilmot and Graham Copes	1) Claims the Forest Service failed to prepare a Comprehensive Management Plan for the Pacific Northwest Trail within two fiscal years of the date of the enactment of legislation designating a national scenic trail.	On July 6, 2022, the District Court of Montana issued a decision that the Forest Service failed to timely prepare a Comprehensive Management Plan for the Pacific Northwest Trail and failed to reissue the charter for the Trail's advisory council.	Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture	Forest Service	Central Oregon LandWatch et al v. Kovarik et al	07-15-2021	$ 100,000	Oliver Stiefel and Rory Isbell	1) Claims violations of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines Protecting Rocky Mountain Elk 2) Violations of INFISH and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines Protecting Riparian Areas and Water Quality. 2) Claims that the FS failed to adequately disclose and consider direct and indirect impacts to elk 2) Failed to adequately disclose and consider direct and indirect impacts to riparian areas and water quality 3) Failure o adequately disclose and consider cumulative impacts.	Motion for Summary Judgment filed on 9/22/20 and Cross Motion for Summary Judgment filed on 10/30/20. Settlement Agreement and Stipulation of Dismissal filed on 6/9/21. Order approving settlement agreement and stipulation of dismissal filed on 6/14/21.	Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture	Rural Development	In the Matter of Rural Development	06-15-2021	$ 5,338	Null	Challenge to Multi-Family Housing decision.	The Applicant has met its burden of demonstrating that it meets all the conditions of eligibility for an award of EAJA fees and expenses. The Agency’s actions and decision were not substantially justified. The Applicant was the prevailing party in the adversarial adjudication. The Applicant has not unduly or unreasonably delayed or protracted the proceedings.There are no special circumstances that would make the award of fees unjust. The Applicant’s request for attorney fees and accountant fees is approved, as modified.	Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture	Farm Service Agency	In the Matter of Farm Service Agency	04-18-2021	$ 48,913	Null	Challenge to Market Facilitation Program payments	Applicants’ application meets EAJA requirements. Applicants prevailed over the Department. The Department’s position in the underlying NAD appeal was not substantially justified. The claimed fees and expenses are authorized under the law.	Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture	Farm Service Agency	In the Matter of Farm Service Agency	10-01-2020	$ 178,850	Null	Challenge to Wetland determination	Applicants’ application meets EAJA requirements. Applicants prevailed over the Department. The Department’s position in the underlying NAD appeal was not substantially justified. Applicant has not unduly or unreasonably delayed or protracted the proceedings.There are no special circumstances that would make the award of fees unjust.	Show

Delete

Do you really want to delete this item?

There is no undo for this operation.

Cancel Delete

Viewing 15 of 73710 results