EAJA Awards
| Agency | Agency subcomponent | Name | Award date | Award amount | Awardees | Claims description | Finding basis | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | Idaho Conservation League et al v. U.S. Forest Service |
$ 125,000
|
Bryan Hurlbutt, Laurence Lucas, Roger Flynn | Violations of inadequate EA/FONSI and violations to prepare and EIS. Violations to minimize Imacys. Failure to comply with NFMA regulations and the Targhee Forest Plan. Violations of inadequate EA/FONSI and violations to prepare and EIS | Court found that the Forest Service violated NEPA, NFMA, and the Organic Act by failing to adequately consider (1) the groundwater of Dog Bone ridge, and (2) how that groundwater from Dog Bone Ridge will impact the Yellowstone cutthroat trout in Corral Creek. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | WildEarth Guardians et al v. Forson et al |
$ 308,742
|
Western Environmental Law Center, Oregon | Failed to execute its duties under the ESA by not initiating consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service on gray wolves. Claim added in Amended Complaint filed on 10/9/2017 and 10/23/2017. Decision is inconsistent with the Forest Plan (i.e., inconsistent with standards and guidelines for Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer habitat - disturbance during caving season; failed to comply with road density standards/guidelines; failure to minimize stream crossings; failed to comply with ROS (motorized trails in semi-primitive non-motorized areas); failed to comply with old growth and scabland area requirements (i.e., new road construction should be avoided). Failure to take a “hard look” at impacts (i.e., failure to provide accurate baseline data on road, sediment, elk and elk habitat, impacts to gray wolves, wolf habitat or wolf prey; failure to consider cumulative impacts - impacts from grazing on streams, sediment, vegetation; Blue Mountains Resiliency Project, unauthorized OHV use). Failed to demonstrate implementation of and compliance with “minimization criteria” (i.e., damage to soil, watersheds, vegetation, harassment of wildlife and destruction of habitat, minimize conflicts of forest users). | Failed to execute its duties under the ESA by not initiating consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service on gray wolves. 1) Failed to adequately demonstrate consistency with its Forest Plan regarding Standards and Guidelines associated with elk calving habitat and elk wallows; 2) Improperly amended INFISH “riparian management objectives” by relying on non-site-specific data; 3) Failed to demonstrate consistency with its own road density requirements; 4) Failed to comply with INFISH requirements in modifying Resource Management Objectives. 5) Failed to take a “hard look” at the Project’s effects on gray wolves. and elk security habitat vis-a-vis open and closed user-created roads. 6) Failure to disclose and analyze direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of elk-caving and rutting sites. 7) Cumulative impacts analysis was insufficient, and arbitrary and capricious, as to the road density and user-created and closed roads analysis. 8) Failed to comply with the Travel Management Rule’s minimization criteria. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | Citizens for a Healthy Community; High Country Conservation Advocates; Center for Biological Diversity; and WildEarth Guardians |
$ 24,000
|
Kyle J. Tisdel | Failure to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives; Failure to take a ;SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF1. Failure to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives; Failure to Take a Hard Look at Cumulative Impacts of the Bull Mountain MDPFailure to Take a Hard Look at Cumulative Impacts of the Bull Mountain MDP | Failed to comply with NEPA by not taking a hard look at the reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts of oil and gas, particularly concerning the indirect impacts of combustions emissions associated with the projects. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | Center for Biological Diversity et al v. Leverette et al |
$ 210,000
|
William J. Snaoe, III, Marc D. Fink and Allison N. Melton | Failure to consider the cumulative impacts of the prospecting permits along with all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions prior to issuing the prospecting permits. Consider whether the extension of the prospecting permits, and Twin Metals’ Mine Plan of Operations, preference right lease applications, and/or new permit applications are cumulative and/or connected actions that must be considered together. Consider and address relevant new science and information, prior to issuing the prospecting permits. Prepare and environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) prior to issuing the prospecting permits. 1)Failure to consult with the FWS and ensure no jeopardy to listed species and no adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat, prior to issuing the prospecting permits. Specifically, concerning the Canada lynx, gray wolf, and northern long-eared bat. 2) Reinitiate and complete consultation on the ongoing impacts of the hard rock minerals prospecting permits on the Superior National Forest, concerning the gray wolf, northern long-eared bat. 3) The BLM violated its own regulations in issuing the prospecting permits. Specifically, pursuant to the BLM’s regulations, in order to extend a prospecting permit, the BLM must prove that (a) the mining company “explored with reasonable diligence,” and was unable to determine the existence and workability of a valuable deposit covered by their permit, or (b) that the permittee’s failure to perform diligent prospecting activities was due to conditions beyond their control. 43 C.F.R. § 3505.62(a). | Failed to comply with NEPA by not conducting an Environmental Assessment. The BLM violated its own regulations in issuing the prospecting permits. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | Southeast Alaska Conservation Council et al v. United States Forest Service et al |
$ 210,000
|
Thomas S. Waldo and Olivia Glasscock | Failure to determine where within the project area the logging or road construction would take place. The FEIS does not provide site-specific information about the project. Failure to identify resource concerns of the road. The Forest Service did not identify site-specific mitigation measures for the road. | Null | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | Center for Biological Diversity; and Maricopa Audobn Society |
$ 28,000
|
Marc D. Fink and Brian Segee | Failure to reinitiate and complete consultation. Failure to develop and implement a recovery plan for the New Mexico Jumping Mouse. Failure to carry out the FWS' Assistance, Programs for the conservation of the New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse. Failure to insure and maintain a viable population of ne New Mexico Meadow jumping Mouse. | US Fish and Wildlife Service failed to develop and implement a recovery plan for the New Mexico Jumping Mouse | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | Alliance for the Wild Rockies et al v. United States Forest Service et al |
$ 68,000
|
Claudia M. Newman and David A. Bricklin | Failure to take a hard look at the environmental effects of the new management activities, conduct a reasoned analysis of the best scientific information regarding impacts, or adequately adverse impacts. Not consistent with the Payette National Forest Plan. | The Lost Creek FEIS improperly tiers to the WCS Amendments in violation of NEPA because the WCS Amendments never went through a NEPA analysis. Not consistent with the Payette National Forest Plan. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | Environmental Protection Information Center v. Carlson et al |
$ 191,000
|
Rene P. Voss and Matt Kenna | Violated NEPA by approving the Ranch Fore Roadside Fire Project. | The FS will not proceed with the following previously-approved commercial timber sales: Bartlett Roadside Fire Salvage; Deer Valley Roadside Fire Salvage;M3 Roadside Fire Salvage;M5-Pacific Roadside Fire Salvage; M10 West Roadside Fire Salvage; or Pine Mountain Roadside Fire Salvage. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | High Country Conservation Advocates et al v. United States Forest Service et al |
$ 147,631
|
Edward B. Zukoski and Mary Emily Splitek | Violated NEPA failing to consider an alternative that would have protected the Pilot Knob Roadless Area from coal mining. Failed to disclose or analyze the water, wildlife, vegetation or other resources across the 19, 700-acre exception area, making it impossible for the agency to fairly compare alternative courses of action. Failed to acknowledge and account for the environmental impacts of the increased demand for coal which will be induced by its decision. Failure to take a "hard Look" at the Climate Impacts of the Lease Modifications. | The decision to eliminate the Pilot Know Alternative from Exception SFEIS was arbitrary and thus violated NEPA | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | Bark et al v. United States Forest Service |
$ 312,730
|
Brenna Bella and Jennifer Schwartz | Violated NFMA by authorizing a project that is inconsistent with the applicable Forest Plan management directives. Violated the TRM by improperly claiming in its Decision Notice to have identified a minimum road system without addressing or explaining how the identified system is based on the factors listed at 36 C.F.R. § 212.5(b). Violated NEPA by issuance of the Crystal Clear Restoration Project EA/FONSI and Decision Notice. | Court finds that he Forest Service did not violate NEPA, the NFMA, or the TMR in approving the Crystal Clear Restoration project. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Service et al |
$ 47,500
|
Marc D. Fink and Brian Segee | 1) Failure to reinitiate and complete ESA Section 7 consultation to ensure ongoing livestock grazing does not jeopardize listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat 2)Unlawful irreversible or irretrievable commitment or resources pending completion of consultation | Failing to reinitiate Section 7 consultation for actions authorizing livestock grazing on allotments in national forest lands within Greenlee County. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | Klamath Forest Alliance v. Blower et al |
$ 37,000
|
Meriel L. Darzen | Violated NEPA by unlawful use of inapplicable categorical exclusion and arbitrary conclusion that no extraordinary circumstances are present. Failure to make a rational determination that the proposed commercial salvage logging operations and green tree removal in LSRs is consistent with the NWFP and the Forest Plan. Failure to explain how the Slater Fire Safe Re-entry Project is consistent with the NWFP and the Forest Plan violates NFMA. Plaintiff intends to add a claim under ESA section 7 upon expiration of the 60-day notice period. | On 8/27/21 Court grants Joint Motion for Stay. Order signed approving settlement and stipulated dismissal 10/21/21. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | WildEarth Guardians v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service |
$ 350,000
|
Steven Sugarman | 1) FSW did not base 2012 BiOps on the best available scientific information 2) No substantial evidence for the FWS's no-jeopardy and no-adverse modification findings in the 2012 BiOPs 3) 2012 BiOps do not contain an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts 4)Decision to issue eleven separate BiOps for the Region 3 national forests. 1) The ITSs are associated with the USFs implementation of the 1996 S&Gs 2) The ITSs utilize an reasonable proxy measure of incidental take which only captures the amount of MSPO take expected to occur within PACs. | Order issued 9/12/19 that the Forest Service timber management actions in region 3 national forests must cease pending formal consultation and reinitiate a formal Section (7)(a)(2) consultation and formulate superseding BiOps that conform with terms of this Order. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | Conservation Northwest et al v. US Forest Service et al |
$ 90,000
|
Marla S. Fox | 1) Claims failure to initiate and complete consultation before adopting the Decision and publishing the 2020 use maps because those actions “may affect” ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat. 2) Failure to reinitiate and complete consultation before adopting the Decision and publishing the 2020 use maps. 1) Claims failure to provide sufficient advance public notice or a sufficient opportunity for the public to comment before finalizing its Decision and publishing the 2020 use maps. 2) Failed to complete the site-specific analysis required by NEPA for the Decision and 2020 use maps. 3) Failure to review the Decision and the 2020 use maps pursuant to NEPA, including the failure to take a hard look at the environmental impacts of or reasonable alternatives to its decision. Failure to provide notice and comment consistent with NEPA, including the requirements for scoping, before designating roads for new vehicle classes in its Decision and before publishing the 2020 use maps. | Motion to Determine Scope of Review for Claim filed by Petitioners. Hearing set without oral argument then continued. Stipulated Motion to Dismiss by Petitioners. Case dismissed with prejudice on 6/7/21. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | Georgia ForestWatch et al v. United States Forest Service |
$ 30,000
|
Patrick Hunter | 1)Claims the approval of the Cooper Creek Project was a violation 2) Erred in refusing to consider the reasonable alternative recommended by conservation groups 3) Failure to assess and disclose the environmental impacts of the Cooper Creek Project on Roadless Areas. 4) Failure to consider reasonable alternatives 2)Failure to disclose the effects the Cooper Creek Project would have on two areas that are unfragmented by roads, utility corridors, and past logging, and are eligible for inclusion in the next potential wilderness inventory. 5) Failing to address and disclose the impact of the project on roadless areas | Motion to Stay initially granted on 8/14/20 and last order granted on 8/18/20. Dismissal order entered on 8/27/21 after settlement agreement was reached. | Show |