The D.C. Circuit denied environmental groups' challenge to DOI's approval of a five-year schedule for oil and gas leasing on the outer continental shelf (OCS). The groups argued the approval violated the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) because DOI inadequately assessed risks posed to vulnerable coastal communities, excluded the endangered Rice's whale from the environmental sensitivity analysis, overlooked potential conflicts with other present and anticipated ocean uses, and fell short of balancing projected benefits against environmental costs. The court found that while OCSLA required DOI to consider interrelated factors and weigh competing costs and benefits of leasing across OCS regions, it did not require analytical perfection. The court concluded DOI satisfied OCSLA because it considered relevant environmental and economic factors, applied its methodology consistently, and reasonably declined to adopt the groups' preferred species-specific weighting. It denied the petition to review.

A district court denied environmental groups' motion for partial summary judgment in a challenge to FAA's decision granting a license to a commercial space company to test its new reusable launch vehicle at its facility in Texas. The groups argued FAA violated NEPA by granting the license without first preparing an EIS. The court found the conclusions in the EA were well-reasoned and supported by the record, and that while parts of the analysis left something to be desired, they fell "within a broad zone of reasonableness." It denied the groups' motion and granted partial summary judgment for FAA.

The D.C. Circuit affirmed summary judgment for FWS in a challenge to its rejection of a petition to remove the southwestern willow flycatcher from the list of endangered subspecies. A group of ranchers argued the southwestern willow flycatcher was not a valid subspecies and thus did not qualify for listing as an endangered species. The appellate court found the group's critique of the non-clinical geographical variation standard used by FWS for evaluating the appropriateness of the classification boiled down to disagreement with the Service's reasonable assessment of competing scientific studies, which survived arbitrary and capricious review. It further held FWS' decision not to delist the subspecies was reasonable, supported, and adequately explained, and that its decision as to what constituted the best available scientific evidence was well within its zone of expertise. It affirmed summary judgment for FWS.

A district court denied environmental groups' motion for preliminary injunction in a challenge to the Forest Service's approval of a logging project in Shawnee National Forest. The groups argued the Service violated NEPA when it granted the project a categorical exclusion because it failed to sufficiently consider potential extraordinary circumstances, and that even if it did adequately consider such circumstances, failed to fully and accurately disclose to the public the information considered in making that determination. The court found the groups failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on either claim to justify a preliminary injunction and denied the motion.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for American Indian tribes in a challenge to BLM's authorization of an exchange of land that was formerly part of the tribes' reservation. The tribes, which ceded that land to the U.S. government in an agreement ratified by Congress in 1900, argued the exchange contravened the 1900 Act's restrictions on disposal of the ceded lands. A district court held that because the exchange did not comply with the 1900 Act, BLM violated the APA and breached the government's trust responsibility to the tribes. The appellate court found the Act's plain text specified that ceded lands were subject to disposal only under homestead, townsite, stone and timber, and mining laws; BLM disposed of the ceded lands under FLPMA, which was not such a law. Moreover, the exchange was to facilitate the expansion of a phosphogypsum waste facility, which is not a purpose encompassed within those categories of laws. The court also found that FLPMA did not repeal or supersede the 1900 Act's restrictions, but to the extent it was ambiguous, the canon of construction that Congress must clearly express intent to abrogate a tribe’s treaty rights resolved any ambiguity in favor of the tribes' interpretation, given that Congress had not done so. It affirmed summary judgment for the tribes.

A district court adopted a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in a lawsuit concerning the Forest Service's authorization of continued and expanded commercial livestock grazing leases in the Absaroka Beartooth Mountains. Environmental groups argued the Service failed under NEPA to take a "hard look" at potential effects on grizzly bears by relying on inadequate baseline information, downplaying the effect of earlier stocking dates, failing to assess potential effects to habitat connectivity, not sufficiently considering cumulative effects, and failing to prepare an EIS. The magistrate judge recommended finding in favor of the groups on all but the first ground. The groups also argued the Service and FWS violated the ESA by concluding the leases posed "no jeopardy" to grizzly bears, but the judge recommended that claim be dismissed as waived. The court found no error in the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, adopted them in full, and granted in part and denied in part summary judgment for the groups. It vacated the EA and decision notice, and remanded to the Service to address the deficiencies.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for BLM's approval of a logging project in federally owned coastal Oregon forests. Environmental groups argued the project violated a resource management plan (RMP) governing the forests that protected marbled murrelets, in violation of FLPMA, and that BLM violated NEPA by failing to take a "hard look" at the impacts on marbled murrelets. A district court granted summary judgment for BLM, concluding the project did not violate the RMP because it did not involve actions “modifying nesting habitat or removing nesting structure,” and that the decision not to prepare an EIS was reasonable because the project was consistent with and tiered to the RMP. The appellate court found the term "modifying nesting habitat" in the RMP was ambiguous, that BLM's narrow interpretation of it was reasonable, that its interpretation was entitled to deference, and that the project fully conformed to the RMP under that interpretation. It further concluded BLM did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in preparing the EA and FONSI for the project. It affirmed summary judgment for BLM.

A district court granted in part and denied in part summary judgment for property owners in a challenge to FWS' 2020 final rule designating ESA critical habitat for the black pinesnake. Timberland owners and family trusts whose land falls within two units designated as critical habitat argued the designation reduced property values, interfered with land use, and stigmatized their property. The court found the Service's designation of Units 7 and 8 as "occupied" critical habitat was unsupported by observational data and fell short of the evidentiary standard required under the ESA. It further found the Service relied on an economic analysis that failed to consider quantifiable impacts. It vacated the rule as it pertains to Units 7 and 8 and remanded to FWS for further proceedings.

A district court denied summary judgment for an environmental group in a challenge to the Forest Service's authorization of logging projects in White Mountain National Forest. The group argued the Service violated NEPA and the National Forest Management Act by failing to analyze alternatives, including a "no action" alternative, failing to take a "hard look" at environmental impacts, and failing to design the projects consistently with the forest plan. The court found the Service's analysis of current and future expected conditions of the project areas without any interventions, and its demonstration that the proposed interventions were necessary to bring the conditions into compliance with the forest plan, was sufficient documentation that it considered a no-action alternative. It further found the Service took a sufficiently hard look at impacts to water quality, the northern long-eared bat, scenic and recreational resources, and forest health, as well as cumulative impacts, and that the Service's EAs and supporting documentation showed its interpretation and application of forest plan standards were not arbitrary or capricious. The court granted summary judgment for the Service.

A district court granted EPA's motion to dismiss a challenge to its 2022 denial of a coal-fired power plant's request to extend the deadline to comply with an amendment to the Agency's 2015 rule that required the plant to stop adding coal ash to unlined impoundments. The 2015 rule prohibited ash from being stored in impoundments where it was likely to contaminate groundwater, and the 2020 amendment required unlined impoundments to either be retrofitted with linings to prevent groundwater contamination or be closed and stop receiving new coal ash. The power plant sought an extension on the closure date for its unlined impoundment. EPA denied the request, finding that the plant's closure of another impoundment violated the 2015 rule's waste-in-place closure requirements. The plant filed suit, arguing the Agency violated the APA by retroactively applying new law to the impoundment's closure, by making erroneous determinations, and by depriving it of procedural due process. The court found the retroactivity claim failed because the newly announced groundwater requirement was not new; the 2015 rule always required units closed with waste-in-place to minimize inflow and outflow of groundwater. It further found the erroneous finding claim failed because EPA applied the correct law to seemingly well-founded facts, and that the due process claim failed because the 2015 rule's plain text notified the plant of the groundwater closure requirement. It granted EPA's motion to dismiss.