In an unpublished opinion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for FWS in a challenge to its decision not to list the Tucson shovel-nosed snake as endangered under the ESA. An environmental group petitioned FWS to list the species in 2004, and again in 2020 after the Service rejected the initial petition. The group's second petition argued FWS mistakenly interpreted a USGS study to expand the snake's range and wrongly included snakes that shared genetic rather than phenotypic characteristics, but the Service determined listing was still not warranted. The group filed suit, and a district court concluded FWS acted reasonably in determining that listing the snake as endangered was not warranted. The appellate court agreed, finding the Service's decision flowed directly from research suggesting the snake was best distinguished by genetics at the subspecies level, which in turn required construing its range based on records of genetically, rather than physically, similar snakes. It affirmed summary judgment for FWS.

The D.C. Circuit vacated the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA's) 2020 rule authorizing the transportation of liquefied natural gas by rail in newly designed tank cars without a permit. Environmental groups, several states, and an Indian tribe petitioned for review, arguing PHMSA violated NEPA by failing to take a "hard look" at how the rule would affect public safety. The court found the record reflected a high-consequence risk of a derailment that could seriously harm the environment, and thus that PHMSA was required to prepare an EIS. Because PHMSA failed to do so, the court vacated the rule and remanded to the agency for further proceedings.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part two district court rulings in lawsuits concerning policies governing oil and gas lease sales conducted by BLM on protected sage-grouse habitat. Environmental groups filed suit in Idaho and Montana, challenging certain sales conducted under guidance revised by BLM in 2018 to (1) adopt new language specifying that the requirement to prioritize leasing outside sage-grouse habitat applied only where there was a backlog in the agency's capacity to process expressions of interest in land parcels, and (2) shorten the public comment period required for reviewing the parcels under NEPA and for protesting sales under FLPMA. The Montana court concluded BLM's June 2018 Wyoming sale violated FLPMA because it failed to comply with the prioritization objective in the agency's 2015 land management plan, and the Idaho court concluded that five 2018 sales occurring in Nevada, Wyoming, and Utah violated NEPA's and FLPMA's public participation requirements. Both courts vacated the guidance and the lease sales. The appellate court affirmed the Montana court's conclusion that the June 2018 Wyoming sale violated FLPMA and the Idaho court's conclusion that the sales in Nevada, Wyoming, and Utah violated FLPMA, but it found that the June 2018 Wyoming and Nevada sales, and sale of 124 parcels during the September 2018 Wyoming sale, did not violate NEPA because BLM retained a 30-day comment period. It held that the Idaho court abused its discretion in vacating the lease sales, and that the leases should remain in place upon remand to BLM, but it enjoined all surface-disturbing activity while the agency considers the leasing decisions in compliance with appropriate public participation process.

A district court granted in part and denied in part summary judgment for an environmental group in a lawsuit concerning NMFS' approval of a management plan proposed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for releasing hatchery-raised fish into the Upper Willamette River. The group argued NMFS violated the ESA by issuing an unlawful biological opinion (BiOp) finding the plan did not jeopardize the winter steelhead or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat. The court found the group failed to show how the reports it cited were the best available data NMFS should have relied on when issuing the BiOp or that the BiOp cited to incorrect data; but concluded the BiOp did not appropriately consider the effect on winter steelhead eggs. It further found the agency's conclusion that the effect of competition from hatchery steelhead on winter steelhead was "low" was not supported by the record, that the agency did not directly address or resolve the issue of winter steelhead being displaced by hatchery fish, and that its explanation with respect to climate change effects failed to evaluate the consequences to winter steelhead of projected worsening conditions. The group also argued NMFS violated NEPA by issuing an unlawful EIS and record of decision to approve the plan, but the court found that the five alternatives considered complied with NMFS' obligations under NEPA to consider a reasonable range of alternatives. It granted in part and denied in part summary judgment for the group, granted in part and denied in part NMFS' cross-motion, and granted the parties leave to submit briefing as to the appropriate remedy.