Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca2-14-04071/USCOURTS-ca2-14-04071-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 

---

14‐4071‐cv

Friends of Animals v. Clay et al.  

In the 

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Second Circuit ________

AUGUST TERM 2015

No. 14‐4071‐cv

FRIENDS OF ANIMALS,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM CLAY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A DEPUTY

ADMINISTRATOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ANIMAL AND

PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICES, AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED

STATES, AND UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, AN AGENCY

OF THE UNITED STATES,

Defendants‐Appellees.

________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of New York

________

ARGUED: DECEMBER 10, 2015

DECIDED: JANUARY 26, 2016

________

Before: CABRANES, POOLER, and LYNCH, Circuit Judges.

Case 14-4071, Document 66-1, 01/26/2016, 1691244, Page1 of 14
    

2

________

Plaintiff‐appellant Friends of Animals appeals an October 3,

2014 order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District

of New York (John Gleeson, Judge) granting summary judgment in

favor of defendants‐appellees William Clay, in his official capacity

as a Deputy Administrator in the Department of Agriculture, the

United States Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the

United States Fish and Wildlife Service.  Friends of Animals brought

this action challenging the Fish and Wildlife Service’s issuance of a

“depredation permit” to the Port Authority of New York and New

Jersey, which authorizes the emergency “take” of migratory birds

that threaten to interfere with aircraft at John F. Kennedy

International Airport.    Friends of Animals argues that federal

regulations prohibit the Fish and Wildlife Service from issuing such

a permit.  We disagree, and accordingly AFFIRM.

________

MICHAEL RAY HARRIS, Friends of Animals,

Centennial, CO, for Plaintiff‐Appellant.

MARGARET M. KOLBE (Varuni Nelson and Sandra

L. Levy, on the brief), Assistant United States

Attorneys, for Robert L. Capers, United States

Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn,

NY, for Defendants‐Appellees.

________

Case 14-4071, Document 66-1, 01/26/2016, 1691244, Page2 of 14
    

3

JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff‐appellant Friends of Animals (“FOA”) appeals an

October 3, 2014 order of the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of New York (John Gleeson, Judge) granting

summary judgment in favor of defendants‐appellees William Clay

(“Clay”), in his official capacity as a Deputy Administrator in the

Department of Agriculture, the United States Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”), and the United States Fish and

Wildlife Service (“FWS”).    FOA brought this action challenging

FWS’s issuance of a “depredation permit” to the Port Authority of

New York and New Jersey (the “Port Authority”).    The permit

authorizes the emergency “take” of migratory birds that threaten to

interfere with aircraft at John F. Kennedy International Airport

(“JFK”).    FOA argues that FWS’s own regulations unambiguously

prohibit it from issuing such a permit and that the permit should

therefore be set aside as the product of agency action that was

“arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

accordance with law.”    5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).    FWS argues that its

regulations unambiguously authorize the issuance of such a permit.  

On our de novo review of the District Court’s grant of summary

judgment, see Karpova v. Snow, 497 F.3d 262, 267 (2d Cir. 2007), we

agree with FWS, and accordingly AFFIRM.

Case 14-4071, Document 66-1, 01/26/2016, 1691244, Page3 of 14
    

4

BACKGROUND

The taking1 of migratory birds is governed by the Migratory

Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”), 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq., and regulations

promulgated thereunder.  The MBTA, which implements a series of

treaties as federal law, see Fund for Animals v. Kempthorne, 538 F.3d

124, 126‐28 (2d Cir. 2008), prohibits the taking of any bird protected

by those treaties “[u]nless and except as permitted by regulations”

promulgated under the statute, 16 U.S.C. § 703(a).  The Secretary of

the Interior is charged with “determin[ing] when . . . it is compatible

with the terms of the conventions to allow” the taking of migratory

birds and with “adopt[ing] suitable regulations” in accordance with

those determinations.  Id. § 704(a).  One such regulation is 50 C.F.R.

§ 21.41.  Under § 21.41, FWS may issue “depredation permits” that

authorize the taking (or possession or transport) of migratory birds

that are causing injury to certain human interests.  50 C.F.R. § 21.41.2

 

1 To “take” a bird is “to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect,

or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” it.    50

C.F.R. § 10.12 (2014).

2 Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 21.41 (“Depredation

permits”), provides:

(a) Permit requirement.  Except as provided in §§ 21.42 through

21.46, a depredation permit is required before any person may

take, possess, or transport migratory birds for depredation control

purposes.  No permit is required merely to scare or herd

depredating migratory birds other than endangered or threatened

species or bald or golden eagles.

(b) Application procedures.  Submit application for depredation

permits to the appropriate Regional Director (Attention:

Case 14-4071, Document 66-1, 01/26/2016, 1691244, Page4 of 14
    

5

 

Migratory bird permit office).  You can find addresses for the

Regional Directors in 50 C.F.R. 2.2.  Each application must contain

the general information and certification required in § 13.12(a) of

this subchapter, and the following additional information:

(1) A description of the area where depredations are

occurring;

(2) The nature of the crops or other interests being injured;  

(3) The extent of such injury; and

(4) The particular species of migratory birds committing

the injury.

(c) Additional permit conditions.  In[ ]addition to the general

conditions set forth in part 13 of this subchapter B, depredation

permits shall be subject to requires [sic], in this section:

(1) Permittees may not kill migratory birds unless

specifically authorized on the permit.

(2) Unless otherwise specifically authorized, when

permittees are authorized to kill migratory birds they may

do so only with a shotgun not larger than No. 10 gauge

fired from the shoulder, and only on or over the

threatened area or area described on the permit.

(3) Permittees may not use blinds, pits, or other means of

concealment, decoys, duck calls, or other devices to lure or

entice birds within gun range.

(4) All migratory birds killed shall be retrieved by the

permittee and turned over to a Bureau representative or

his designee for disposition to charitable or other worthy

institutions for use as food, or otherwise disposed of as

provided by law.

(5) Only persons named on the permit are authorized to

act as agents of the permittee under authority of the

permit.

Case 14-4071, Document 66-1, 01/26/2016, 1691244, Page5 of 14
    

6

Migratory birds that congregate near airports pose a well‐

known threat to human safety.  Indeed, “bird strikes” have resulted

in several near‐catastrophes at JFK and nearby LaGuardia Airport

(“LaGuardia”).    See J.A. 396 (describing a 1975 collision between

herring gulls and a DC‐10, which caused the aircraft’s engine to

explode and the aircraft itself to catch fire); id. (describing a 1995

collision between two Canada geese and a Concorde jet, which

caused “major damage” to the aircraft); J.A. 405 (describing a 2009

incident in which a pilot was compelled to land a jetliner on the

Hudson River after it collided with a flock of geese).3   In order to

reduce the risks associated with such bird strikes, the Port

Authority—which operates JFK, as well as LaGuardia—has

maintained a depredation permit since 1994, renewing it each year.   

The permit of which FOA complains was issued by FWS on

June 11, 2014.4  It identifies eighteen species of migratory birds that

 

(d) Tenure of permits.  The tenure of depredation permits shall be

limited to the dates which appear on its [sic] face, but in no case

shall be longer than one year.

3 References to “J.A.” are to the joint appendix.

4 FOA initially directed its challenge at a depredation permit issued in 2013,

under the authority of which three snowy owls were killed in December of that

year.  The 2013 permit was renewed in June 2014 and its terms lightly altered.  

See Friends of Animals v. Clay, No. 13 Civ. 7293 (JG), 2014 WL 4966122, at *6 n.5

(E.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2014); J.A. 1590.   Observing that the 2014 permit, though not

identical to the 2013 permit, “authorizes the essential activities challenged in the

original Complaint,” the District Court concluded that “the case [was] not moot.”  

Friends of Animals, 2014 WL 4966122, at *6 n.5.  The parties have not discussed

whether the mootness doctrine precludes our adjudicating the legality of the

Case 14-4071, Document 66-1, 01/26/2016, 1691244, Page6 of 14
    

7

have, in the past, compromised public safety at JFK, and authorizes

the Port Authority to take a quota of birds of each species.  See J.A.

1590.

In addition to setting out these species‐specific quotas, the

challenged permit contains an “emergency‐take” provision.    This

provision empowers the Port Authority, “in emergency situations

only,” to take any migratory bird (except bald eagles, golden eagles,

or endangered or threatened species) that poses a “direct threat to

human safety”—defined as a “threat of serious bodily injury or a

risk to human life”—even if it is of a species not listed on the

permit.5  J.A. 1591 (emphasis in original).  FWS “rarely includes an

emergency take provision in its migratory bird permits,” but—

mindful of the “grave risks” that arise when birds congregate near

aircraft—it makes an exception for airports.  J.A. 1569–70.

 

superseded 2013 permit; thus, we will focus, as the District Court apparently

determined was proper, on the operative 2014 permit.  

5 When the Port Authority takes a migratory bird pursuant to its emergency‐take

authority, it is obliged to file within 72 hours a report that (1) “include[s] the

species and number of birds taken, the method of take, and a complete narrative

description of the circumstances under which [it] determined an emergency

existed,” and (2) “discuss[es] species behaviors that created the hazard or risk

being addressed; location of the birds relative to the aircraft or airport

operations; duration of bird presence in the area where the emergency existed;

[and] timing and amount of practical non‐lethal measures attempted prior to the

lethal take, as well as results.”  J.A. 1591.

Case 14-4071, Document 66-1, 01/26/2016, 1691244, Page7 of 14
    

8

DISCUSSION

FOA directs its challenge at the 2014 permit’s emergency‐take

provision.  According to FOA, 50 C.F.R. § 21.41 does not authorize

FWS to issue a permit that allows the emergency take of a migratory

bird irrespective of its species.    Instead, FOA argues, permit

applicants like the Port Authority must “provide species[‐]specific

information” to FWS, and FWS may authorize the taking of only

those species specifically listed on the permit.    Contending that

FWS’s alleged failure to abide by the requirements of § 21.41 has

resulted in the Port Authority’s unlawful taking of a number of

migratory birds, including three snowy owls killed in December

2013, FOA asks us to invalidate the operative permit as the product

of agency action that was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”    5 U.S.C. §

706(2)(A).

FOA concedes that if we read § 21.41 as it urges, situations

might arise in which (1) a migratory bird, of a species not listed on

the Port Authority’s permit because its presence at JFK was

unforeseen, poses a direct threat to an aircraft, and (2) Port

Authority officials are not empowered by permit to take the bird

because its species is not listed.6    It notes that, should such a

 

6 FOA argued in the District Court that a separate regulation, 50 C.F.R. § 21.42,

empowers FWS to authorize such takings through a depredation order (not a

permit).  But § 21.42 was removed from the Code of Federal Regulations in April

2015, and at all events it never authorized the issuance of a depredation order

based on migratory birds’ posing a threat to aircraft.    See 50 C.F.R. § 21.42

Case 14-4071, Document 66-1, 01/26/2016, 1691244, Page8 of 14
    

9

situation come to pass, it would likely be best for Port Authority

officials to take the bird notwithstanding their apparent lack of

authority to do so.  FOA posits that these officials might be shielded

by an affirmative defense of necessity, and at all events the

government would probably decline to prosecute such conduct.  

We conclude that § 21.41 does not place Port Authority

officials in the untenable position of having to choose between

violating federal law and deliberately ignoring serious threats to

human safety.    Rather, the regulation plainly authorizes FWS to

issue depredation permits that contain non‐species‐specific

emergency‐take provisions.

FWS’s authority to issue depredation permits under § 21.41 is

limited in certain respects by subsections (c) and (d) of that

provision.    Subsection (d) provides, for instance, that a permit’s

duration is limited to one year.  Subsection (c) sets forth conditions

common to all permits, such as the prohibition of certain hunting

practices and mandatory steps for disposing of birds that have been

killed; it also states that depredation permits are subject to the

general conditions set forth in 50 C.F.R. Part 13.  Various provisions

in Part 13, in turn, further hem in the agency’s permitting authority.  

 

(authorizing issuance of depredation orders “[u]pon the receipt of evidence

clearly showing that migratory game birds have accumulated in such numbers in

a particular area as to cause or about to cause serious damage to agricultural,

horticultural, and fish cultural interests” (emphasis supplied)), abrogated by

Migratory Bird Permits; Removal of Regulations Concerning Certain

Depredation Orders, 80 Fed. Reg. 15689 (Mar. 25, 2015) (noting removal of the

former 50 C.F.R. § 21.42).

Case 14-4071, Document 66-1, 01/26/2016, 1691244, Page9 of 14
    

10

See, e.g., 50 C.F.R. § 13.21(a) (“No permit may be issued prior to the

receipt of a written application therefor . . . .”); id. § 13.21(c)(1)

(providing that no permit may be issued to a person who has been

convicted of a felony under, inter alia, the MBTA, absent waiver of

disqualification by the Director of FWS).    But among the express

limitations on FWS’s discretion imposed by § 21.41(c)–(d) and Part

13, we find nothing to indicate that FWS may not issue a permit that

contains an emergency‐take provision.    Accordingly, unless some

other feature of the regulatory regime counsels otherwise, we must

conclude that FWS has authority to issue permits of the type

challenged here.   

FOA argues that this other feature is found in 50 C.F.R.

§ 21.41(b).    This provision states that an application for a

depredation permit must contain the following information: “(1) A

description of the area where depredations are occurring; (2) The

nature of the crops or other interests being injured; (3) The extent of

such injury; and (4) The particular species of migratory birds

committing the injury.”   According to FOA, that regulation, when

read in connection with § 21.41(c)(1)—which provides that

“[p]ermittees may not kill migratory birds unless specifically

authorized on the permit”—makes clear that a depredation permit

may not authorize the taking of bird species not listed on the

permit’s face.7   

 

7 FOA also argues that, in its 2013 and 2014 permit applications, the Port

Authority failed to comply with § 21.41(b)(4) by not identifying “[t]he particular

species of migratory birds committing the injury” at JFK.  FOA Br. 12 (quoting 50

Case 14-4071, Document 66-1, 01/26/2016, 1691244, Page10 of 14
    

11

We disagree.    Section 21.41(b) by its terms governs the

conduct of applicants, not FWS, and specifies what information must

be included in the permit application, not the permit itself.  Indeed,

the provision is styled as a direct address to applicants, to whom it

gives point‐by‐point instructions for seeking a permit.  See 50 C.F.R.

§ 21.41(b) (“Submit application for depredation permits to the

appropriate Regional Director (Attention: Migratory bird permit

office).    You can find addresses for the Regional Directors in 50

C.F.R. 2.2.    Each application must contain the . . . following

additional information . . . .”).  FOA identifies no particular reason

why we should read this subsection, contrary to its plain language,

as a limit on FWS’s authority to issue permits rather than as a means

to ensure that applicants provide FWS with information germane to

the permitting determination.    See Florez v. Callahan, 156 F.3d 438,

444–45 (2d Cir. 1998) (a court must give effect to a regulation’s plain

language).  Section 21.41(b) is a hopelessly slender reed on which to

rest the argument that FWS is powerless to authorize the Port

Authority to take migratory birds that threaten air safety.

 

C.F.R. § 21.41(b)(4)).  FOA contends that snowy owls, particularly, should have

been, but were not, identified in the applications.    But the record shows that

snowy owls were identified in both the 2013 and 2014 applications.  See J.A. 350–

51 (document entitled “Supplemental Information—Renewal Depredation

Permit MB816581‐1,” dated January 25, 2013, listing “Snowy owl” as a “bird[ ]

involved in [aircraft] strikes”); J.A. 1551 (document entitled “Supplemental

Information—Renewal Depredation Permit MB816581‐1,” dated January 28,

2014, listing “Snowy owl” among “Species of migratory birds causing

problems”).  

Case 14-4071, Document 66-1, 01/26/2016, 1691244, Page11 of 14
    

12

Nor does the language of § 21.41(c)(1) alter this conclusion.  

True, this subsection provides that permittees must “not kill

migratory birds unless specifically authorized on the permit.”    50

C.F.R. § 21.41(c)(1).  But this is in no way inconsistent with the 2014

permit’s emergency‐take provision.  The permit authorizes the Port

Authority, in emergency situations, to “take . . . any migratory birds

. . . when the migratory birds . . . are posing a direct threat to human

safety” (that is, a “threat of serious bodily injury or a risk to human

life”).  J.A. 1591.  The permit thus “specifically authorize[s],” see 50

C.F.R. § 21.41(c)(1), the “tak[ing]” of migratory birds if certain

conditions are met—and one method of “tak[ing]” a bird is

“kill[ing]” it, see ante note 1.   

It might reasonably be argued that the term “take” embraces

both lethal and non‐lethal actions, see id., and is therefore by itself

insufficiently precise to satisfy § 21.41(c)(1)’s requirement that the

permit “specifically authorize[ ]” the killing of migratory birds.  We

need not resolve this question.  It is clear in context that, as used in

the 2014 permit’s emergency‐take provision, the term contemplates

(and thus implicitly authorizes) the use of lethal methods.  See J.A.

1591 (requiring that, following an emergency taking, the Port

Authority file with FWS a report including, among other elements, a

description of the “timing and amount of practical non‐lethal

measures attempted prior to the lethal take”); id. (authorizing

several “methods of take,” including “[s]hotguns” and “lethal”

traps).

Case 14-4071, Document 66-1, 01/26/2016, 1691244, Page12 of 14
    

13

It is therefore clear that when the Port Authority takes a

migratory bird “in [an] emergency situation[ ]” because the bird

“pos[es] a direct threat to human safety,” J.A. 1591, the taking

complies with § 21.41(c)(1)’s command that “[p]ermittees may not

kill migratory birds unless specifically authorized on the permit.”  In

arguing to the contrary, FOA reads into § 21.41(c)(1) words it does

not contain, producing a new regulation that says something like,

“Permittees may not kill migratory birds unless they belong to a

species specifically listed on the permit.”  But that language does not

appear in § 21.41(c)(1), and it is not our business to put it there.  We

accordingly reject the argument that § 21.41 prohibits FWS from

issuing depredation permits containing non‐species‐specific

emergency‐take provisions.8   

 

8 In its reply brief, FOA argues “that FWS did not make the findings required by

Section 704 of the MBTA before issuing the permit to the Port Authority.”  FOA

Reply Br. 8.    Section 704 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, “having due

regard to the zones of temperature and to the distribution, abundance, economic

value, breeding habits, and times and lines of migratory flight of such birds, to

determine when, to what extent, if at all, and by what means, it is compatible

with the terms of the conventions to allow . . . taking . . . of any such bird . . . and

to adopt suitable regulations permitting and governing the same.”    16 U.S.C.

§ 704(a).    To the extent FOA is arguing that § 704(a) limits FWS’s permitting

authority in ways not found in 50 C.F.R. § 21.41, it has waived the argument by

failing to include it in its opening brief, which relies only on § 21.41.  See EDP

Med. Comput. Sys., Inc. v. United States, 480 F.3d 621, 625 n.1 (2d Cir. 2007).  

Accordingly, we do not consider it here.

Case 14-4071, Document 66-1, 01/26/2016, 1691244, Page13 of 14
    

14

CONCLUSION

In sum, we hold that FWS did not run afoul of § 21.41 in

issuing to the Port Authority the 2014 depredation permit.    The

October 3, 2014 order of the District Court is accordingly

AFFIRMED.

Case 14-4071, Document 66-1, 01/26/2016, 1691244, Page14 of 14