Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. United States Department of the Navy James Webb, as Secretary of the Navy

Summary

The Ninth Circuit held that the Navy's agricultural outlease program at Fallon Naval Air Station did not violate the Endangered Species Act (ESA) because the Navy's reliance on Fish and Wildlife Service "no jeopardy" biological opinions was not arbitrary or capricious under §7(a)(2), and the Navy did not breach its affirmative duty to conserve under §7(a)(1) where the Tribe's proposed alternatives would have had only an insignificant effect on water flows for the endangered cui-ui. The court also found no "taking" under ESA §9 because the record did not show that the Navy's diversions actually harmed the fish, and the short-term leases fell within a NEPA categorical exclusion. Additionally, the Navy did not breach its fiduciary duty to the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, as the "no jeopardy" finding and ongoing conservation steps supported the district court's judgment.

Holdings

1. The Navy's reliance on the FWS's biological opinions that the outlease program would not jeopardize the cui-ui was not arbitrary or capricious, and therefore the Navy did not violate section 7(a)(2).
2. The Navy did not abuse its discretion under section 7(a)(1) by rejecting the Tribe's alternative proposals, because the proposals would have had an insignificant effect on the conservation of the cui-ui.
3. The evidence does not establish that the Navy's outlease program has actually harmed the cui-ui, so there is no 'taking' under section 9(a)(1)(B).
4. The Navy did not violate NEPA because the short-term outlease program fits within a categorical exclusion, and the Navy has not yet implemented a long-term outlease program.
5. The Navy did not breach its fiduciary duty to the Tribe because the 'no jeopardy' finding and the affirmative steps taken by the Navy to conserve water demonstrate that the Navy has not violated its trustee obligations.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Navy's outlease program violates section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act by jeopardizing the continued existence of the cui-ui.
2. Whether the Navy violated section 7(a)(1) of the ESA by failing to adopt conservation measures proposed by the Tribe.
3. Whether the Navy's outlease program constitutes a 'taking' of the cui-ui under section 9 of the ESA.
4. Whether the Navy violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement for the outlease program.
5. Whether the Navy breached its fiduciary duty to the Tribe.

Disposition

affirmed