A district court denied a biologist's motion to preliminarily enjoin flood control releases from the Coyote Valley Dam into the Russian River to protect ESA-listed salmon species. The biologist sought to enjoin the Army Corps of Engineers from making flood control releases unless it determines that doing so would reduce threat to life and property below the dam, to require the Corps to complete unperformed components of its incidental take statement (ITS) concerning turbidity, and require it to adjust releases to reduce the effects of turbidity on the listed salmonids. The court found the biologist was likely to succeed on the merits of his ESA §9 claim, as the Corps admitted to not complying with all the conditions of the ITS measure concerning turbidity; but failed to demonstrate that "extreme or very serious damage" was likely to occur to the listed species absent an injunction. It denied the motion.

A district court granted DOI's motion to dismiss a lawsuit concerning tribal water rights on the Crow Reservation in Montana. Tribal members who hold property on the reservation challenged the 2010 Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act (Settlement Act), which provided benefits to the tribe in exchange for waivers and releases of all water rights claims that the tribe or individuals could have asserted against the United States, arguing their water rights had lost senior priority status, which reduced the market value of their allotments and meant they could be forced to forgo their use of a given water source if shortages were severe enough. The U.S. government moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The court found plaintiffs sufficiently established subject matter jurisdiction, but that their claims under the APA, the Settlement Act, and the Due Process Clause were all deficient in one way or another. It dismissed the suit.

A district court denied environmental groups' motion to preliminarily enjoin implementation of a BLM-approved watershed restoration project in eastern Nevada. The groups argued BLM violated NEPA by failing to take a "hard look" at the project's impacts, and violated FLPMA by failing to address special status species requirements in the relevant resource management plan (RMP). The court found the EA included analyses of site-specific impacts as well as habitat- and species-specific impacts, and that it sufficiently analyzed cumulative impacts of grazing. It further found BLM considered the habitat needs of bat species as required by the RMP and did not violate the proscribed fire requirements in sage grouse habitats; but that the agency failed to address the requirement to replace lost special status species habitat. The court ultimately determined that the groups failed to show they were likely to suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief, and denied the motion.