Learn more about the EAJA

EAJA Awards

Filters
Agency Agency subcomponent Name Award date Award amount Awardees Claims description Finding basis Actions
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Yaak Valley Forest Council
$ 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 Sequoia Forestkeeper and Earth Island Institute
$ 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 Cascadia Wildland and Oregon Wild
$ 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
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Yellowstone to Unitas Connection and Alliance for the Wild Rockies
$ 12,500
Rebecca K. Smith 1) Claims the Forest Service failed to take a hard look at potential cumulative effects on sage grouse and sage grouse habitat, and 2) Failed to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives in the EIS. On 7/7/2022, the District of Idaho issued an order staying the Summary Judgment and motion to dismiss deadlines. The Forest Service withdrew the challenged Record of Decision and parties agreed to discuss a stipulated dismissal. Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Western Watersheds Project, Sierra Club, Wyoming Wildlife Advocates and Gallatin Wildlife Association
$ 160,000
Nathan D. Rectanus, Matthew R. Arnold and William S. Eubanks, II 1) Claims the Forest Service refusal to examine any alternatives contemplating a phase out of artificial feeding at Alkali Creek shifted the Forest Service's obligations under NEPA to consider less environmentally harmful alternatives, 2) Claims the Forest Service failed to take a "hard look" at the environmental impacts of its decision by inappropriately deferring to Wyoming Game and Fish Commission's assessment of the threats associated with CWD and the need for artificial feeding of elk, and 3) Claims the Forest Service arbitrarily constrained its review of cumulative impacts by refusing to examine Alkali Creek in conjunction with other feed grounds in the Forest, or with efforts by NPS and FWS to phase out artificial feeding on the NER through its 2007 BEMP. On 9/21/2021, the District Court of Wyoming issued an order stating that the Forest Service violated NEPA in authorizing the five-year special use permit for the Alkali Creek feed ground under a categorical exclusion. Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Native Ecosystems Council, Alliance for the Wild Rockies
$ 122,000
Rebecca K. Smith and Timothy M. Bechtold 1) Claims the Forest Service's representations and/or omissions in the EIS regarding road density and elk habitat violate NEPA, 2) Forest Service failed to disclose the decrease in active goshawk nesting territories to the public in the EIS, and failed to comply with Forest Plan requirement to conduct an evaluation report if active nests decline by 10% in a year, and 3) Claims Forest Service's representations and/or omissions in the EIS regarding tree cutting in an Inventoried Roadless Area violate the 2001 Roadless Rule. On 4/4/2022, the District Court of Montana granted the plaintiffs' motion for Summary Judgment as to Claim 1 (all portions except illegal roads portion) and Claim 5. The project is remanded back to the Forest and enjoined pending Agency compliance with both NFMA and NEPA. Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Native Ecosystems Council
$ 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 Cascadia Wildlands, Oregon Wild and Willamette Riverkeeper
$ 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 Forest Service Umpqua Watersheds, Wildlands and Oregon Wildland
$ 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 Central Oregon LandWatch et al v. Kovarik et al
$ 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 Forest Service Western Watersheds Project, Wildearth Guardians and Predator Defense
$ 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 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 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 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
U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement REDACTED v. Garland Null REDACTED 10th Cir. granted joint motion to remand to allow BIA to properly address ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Null Show
Viewing 15 of 73710 results