## Facts

- The U.S. Navy operated Fallon Naval Air Station in Nevada and maintained irrigated vegetation buffer zones near runways to reduce dust, fire risk, and aircraft damage.
- Since the 1950s, the Navy leased roughly 2,200 acres of project water-right lands to local farmers to grow low water-use crops and pasture as part of an outlease program supporting the buffer zones.
- Water used for irrigation came through the Newlands Reclamation Project from the Truckee River system, which historically supplied flows to Pyramid Lake on the Pyramid Lake Paiute Reservation.
- Pyramid Lake is the exclusive habitat of the endangered cui-ui fish; the Tribe alleged that Truckee River diversions supporting irrigation reduced flows to the lake and threatened the species.
- The Tribe proposed an alternative irrigation configuration that it argued would maintain aviation safety while using less water; the Navy rejected it based on Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) biological opinions concluding the water savings would be insignificant for the cui-ui.
- The district court entered judgment for the Navy, including rulings that the proposed changes would yield only insignificant benefits and that NEPA was satisfied through a Navy categorical exclusion.

## Issues

1. Whether the Navy’s irrigation and outlease program was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the endangered cui-ui in violation of ESA § 7(a)(2), and whether the Navy could rely on FWS biological opinions for a no-jeopardy finding.
2. Whether ESA § 7(a)(1) required the Navy to adopt the Tribe’s alternative conservation measure allegedly providing equal safety benefits with less water use.
3. Whether the outlease program constituted a prohibited “take” of the cui-ui by “harm” under ESA § 9(a)(1).
4. Whether NEPA required an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, or whether a categorical exclusion validly applied.
5. Whether the Navy’s practices breached enforceable federal trust obligations owed to the Tribe.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed judgment for the Navy.
- The court held the Navy did not violate ESA § 7(a)(2) because it consulted with FWS and reasonably relied on FWS biological opinions finding the program not likely to jeopardize the cui-ui.
- The court held the Navy did not violate ESA § 7(a)(1) because the provision allows non-wildlife agencies some discretion in conservation programming and did not compel adoption of measures with only insignificant conservation benefit.
- The court rejected the ESA § 9 take claim because the record did not show the Navy’s lease-related water use caused actual “harm” to the cui-ui within the statutory meaning.
- The court held NEPA was satisfied because the leasing activity fit within a Navy categorical exclusion and the Tribe failed to show extraordinary circumstances requiring further review.
- The court found no separate actionable breach of fiduciary duty on the record presented.

## Legal Principles

- An action agency may rely on FWS biological opinions in ESA § 7 consultation absent a showing that the opinions are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
- ESA § 7(a)(1) requires agencies to use their authorities to carry out conservation programs but leaves non-Interior agencies discretion; it does not impose a rule requiring adoption of every feasible alternative that yields marginal gains.
- ESA § 9 “harm” liability requires evidence of actual injury to the species and a sufficient causal connection between the challenged activity and that injury.
- NEPA allows agencies to apply categorical exclusions to routine activities unless extraordinary circumstances indicate potential for significant environmental effects.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the Navy’s long-running irrigation lease program at Fallon Naval Air Station, concluding that reliance on FWS no-jeopardy opinions was reasonable, ESA § 7(a)(1) did not compel adoption of a minimally beneficial alternative, the record did not establish an ESA take, and NEPA compliance was satisfied through a valid categorical exclusion without extraordinary circumstances.


Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. U.S. Dep’t of the Navy, 898 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir. 1990)