Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-99-05309/USCOURTS-caDC-99-05309-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued May 9, 2000 Decided July 18, 2000

No. 99-5309

The Humane Society of the United States, et al.,

Appellees

v.

Dan Glickman, Secretary,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al.,

Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(98cv01510)

James C. Kilbourne, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,

argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were

Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, and Andrew

Mergen, Attorney.

Jonathan R. Lovvorn argued the cause for appellees.

With him on the brief was Katherine A. Meyer.

USCA Case #99-5309 Document #530249 Filed: 07/18/2000 Page 1 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Randolph and Garland,

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Randolph.

Randolph, Circuit Judge: The "International Convention

for the Protection of Migratory Birds," 39 Stat. 1702 (1916),

between the United States and Great Britain (acting for

Canada) sought to preserve, in the words of Justice Holmes,

"a national interest of very nearly the first magnitude,"

Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 435 (1920). The Treaty

"recited that many species of birds in their annual migrations

traversed certain parts of the United States and of Canada,

that they were of great value as a source of food and in

destroying insects injurious to vegetation, but were in danger

of extermination through lack of adequate protection." Id. at

431. Legislation implementing the Treaty--the Migratory

Bird Treaty Act of 1918--"prohibited the killing, capturing or

selling any of the migratory birds included in the terms of the

treaty except as permitted by regulations" now administered

by the Department of the Interior.1 252 U.S. at 431. In this

appeal from the district court's order enjoining the Department of Agriculture from violating the statute, the question is

whether the Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits federal

agencies from killing or taking migratory birds without a

permit from the Interior Department.

I

At the center of the controversy is the Canada goose--

Branta canadensis. With its black-stockinged neck and head

and distinctive white cheek patch, its loud resonant honking

calls, and its V-shaped flight formations, the Canada goose is

a familiar sight throughout most of North America. See

Frank C. Bellrose, Ducks, Geese and Swans of North America

142 (3d ed. 1980). The Mid-Atlantic population of Canada

__________

1 The Act originally delegated regulatory authority to the Department of Agriculture. The 1939 Reorganization Plan No. II,

s 4(f), 53 Stat. 1433, transferred the functions of the Secretary of

Agriculture relating to the conservation of wildlife, game, and

migratory birds to the Secretary of the Interior.

USCA Case #99-5309 Document #530249 Filed: 07/18/2000 Page 2 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

geese, one of eleven recognized races, winters in the coastal

areas of Virginia, Delaware, and New Jersey, and returns in

the spring to the tundra zone of the Ungava Peninsula in

Quebec, its traditional summer breeding grounds. See id. at

144-45. In recent years, however, large flocks of Canada

geese have stopped migrating, preferring to breed, nest and

rear their young in the coastal states of the middle Atlantic

region. The Commonwealth of Virginia has become a host to

many of these full-time residents. In 1991, an estimated

66,169 Canada geese lived year round in Virginia. By 1998

Virginia's resident goose population had quadrupled to

254,000. See Wildlife Services, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, Environmental

Assessment for the Management of conflicts associated with

non-migratory (resident) Canada geese, migratory Canada

geese, and urban/suburban ducks in the Commonwealth of

Virginia s 2.1, at 6 (Mar. 30, 1999) ("Environmental Assessment"). In the same year, only 70,000 migratory Canada

geese wintered over in Virginia, see id. tbl.5, at 18, a number

not much larger than the migratory population in the 1970s,

see Bellrose, supra, at 148.

Residential owners, farmers, government officials and

many others are deeply concerned about the exploding population of Canada geese. Browsing by Virginia's resident

geese has reduced state-wide yields of cereal grains, peanuts,

soybeans and corn. Goose droppings have spoiled water

quality around beaches and wetlands, and interfered with the

enjoyment of parks and ball fields. The geese have damaged

gardens, lawns and golf courses. Their fecal deposits threaten to contaminate drinking water supplies. See Environmental Assessment s 2.1.1, at 6; s 2.1.2.1, at 7; s 2.1.3.1, at 11;

s 2.1.4, at 12. And they pose a hazard to aircraft. Resident

geese are found at most of Virginia's airports and military

bases. In 1995, a passenger jet hit ten Canada geese at

Dulles International Airport, causing $1.7 million of wing and

engine damage. See id. s 2.1.2.5, at 10. Collisions have also

occurred at other Virginia airports. And "Langley Air Force

Base and Norfolk Naval Air Station have altered, delayed,

aborted, and ceased flight operations because of

USCA Case #99-5309 Document #530249 Filed: 07/18/2000 Page 3 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Canada geese on their field." Id.2

In response to these problems and others, the Department

of Agriculture, through its Animal Health and Inspection

Service's Wildlife Services division, instituted an "Integrated

Goose Management Program" in conjunction with Virginia

state agencies. The plan called for various measures such as

harassment, biological control, habitat alteration, repellents,

nest and egg destruction, and capture and killing. The

killings were to take place during the "summer molt"--

between mid-June and late-July--when the resident geese

cannot fly (the migratory geese are in Canada at this time of

year). An Environmental Assessment, issued on January 29,

1997, reflected the Interior Department's longstanding position that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act restricted not only

private parties and states, but also federal agencies. Hence a

"federal Migratory Bird Depredation Permit ... would be

required and obtained for the proposed action." Animal

Damage Control, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, Environmental Assessment

for the Management of conflicts associated with nonmigratory (resident) Canada geese and urban/suburban mallard ducks in the State of Virginia 22 (Jan. 29, 1997).

Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is authorized to

issue such depredation permits for migratory birds that

"bec[o]me seriously injurious to the agricultural or other

interests in any particular community." International Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds, art. VII, 39

Stat. 1702, 1704 (1916) ("International Convention"), referenced in 16 U.S.C. s 704; see also 50 C.F.R. pt. 21.

In 1997, the Director of FWS issued a memorandum to

regional directors stating that federal agencies no longer

__________

2 Resident Canada geese and the problems they cause are not

confined to the east coast. The Washington Post reported that the

Agriculture Department, having obtained a permit from FWS, is

rounding up resident Canada geese and killing them in twelve

counties surrounding Puget Sound in Washington State. See Ben

White, Honk if You Hate Goose Droppings, Wash. Post, June 29,

2000, at A29.

USCA Case #99-5309 Document #530249 Filed: 07/18/2000 Page 4 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

needed to obtain a permit before taking or killing migratory

birds. The Humane Society of the United States, Citizens for

the Preservation of Wildlife, the Animal Protection Institute,

and three individuals thereupon filed suit against the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior and other officials in those

departments seeking to enjoin implementation of the Goose

Management Plan. The district court ruled that s 703 of the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act restricted federal agencies. The

court therefore enjoined the defendants "from conducting the

Canada Goose Plan until such time as they shall obtain valid

permits to do so pursuant to the" Act. Humane Soc'y v.

Glickman, No. 98CV-1510, memorandum opinion at 21-22

(D.D.C. July 6, 1999).

II

Although Virginia's Canada geese are year-long residents,

they are members of a species that migrates and therefore

fall within the category of "migratory birds" protected by the

1916 Treaty and the Act. See 50 C.F.R. s 10.13. Protected

from whom? The district court thought s 703 of the Act

gave the answer--from everyone in the United States, including federal agencies. The provision reads:

Unless and except as permitted by regulations made as

hereinafter provided in this subchapter, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to

pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture,

or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter,

offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship,

export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported, deliver for transportation, transport or cause to be

transported, carry or cause to be carried, or receive for

shipment, transportation, carriage, or export, any migratory bird, any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, or any

product, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or

is composed in whole or in part, of any such bird or any

part, nest, or egg thereof, included in the terms of the

conventions between the United States and Great Britain

for the protection of migratory birds concluded August

16, 1916 (39 Stat. 1702)....

USCA Case #99-5309 Document #530249 Filed: 07/18/2000 Page 5 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

16 U.S.C. s 703. As legislation goes, s 703 contains broad

and unqualified language--"at any time," "by any means," "in

any manner," "any migratory bird," "any part, nest, or egg of

any such bird," "any product ... comprised in whole or part,

of any such bird." The one exception to the prohibition is in

the opening clause--"Unless and except as permitted by

regulations made as hereinafter provided in this subchapter...." For migratory game birds, of which the Canada

goose is one, the exception gives the Interior Department

authority to regulate hunting seasons and bag limits. Article

II of the Treaty itself required a closed season--no hunting of

these birds--between March 10 and September 1, the typical

period when the birds breed, molt and raise their young. In

addition to issuing hunting regulations, see, e.g., 50 C.F.R. pt.

20; id. s 20.105, the Secretary of the Interior may issue

permits for killing Canada geese and other migratory birds if

this is shown to be "compatible with the terms of the [Migratory Bird] conventions."3 16 U.S.C. s 704. As we have said,

Article VII of the Treaty contemplated that permits allowing

the killing of migratory birds would be available in "extraordinary conditions" when the birds have "become seriously

injurious to the agricultural or other interests in any particular community," International Convention, art. VII, 39 Stat.

1704.

As s 703 is written, what matters is whether someone has

killed or is attempting to kill or capture or take a protected

bird, without a permit and outside of any designated hunting

season. Nothing in s 703 turns on the identity of the perpetrator. There is no exemption in s 703 for farmers, or golf

course superintendents, or ornithologists, or airport officials,

or state officers, or federal agencies. In that respect, s 703

is rather like the statute in United States v. Arizona, 295 U.S.

__________

3 "Subject to the provisions and in order to carry out the

purposes of the conventions ... the Secretary of the Interior is

authorized and directed, from time to time ... to determine when,

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

the terms of the conventions to allow hunting, taking, capture, [or]

killing ... of any such bird ... and to adopt suitable regulations

permitting and governing the same...."

USCA Case #99-5309 Document #530249 Filed: 07/18/2000 Page 6 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

174, 183-84 (1935), which also framed its prohibition in terms

of the forbidden acts without mentioning the identity of the

transgressor: there shall be no "construction of any bridge,

dam, dike or causeway over or in any port, roadstead, haven,

harbor, canal, navigable river or other navigable water of the

United States until the consent of Congress shall have been

obtained and until the plans shall have been submitted to and

approved by the Chief of Engineers and by the Secretary of

War." Id. at 184 (citing 33 U.S.C. s 401). The Court viewed

the provision as restricting not only private parties, but also

state and federal agencies, so that the Secretary of the

Interior could not order the building of a dam without congressional authorization. "The plaintiff maintains that the

restrictions so imposed apply only to work undertaken by

private parties. But no such intention is expressed, and we

are of opinion that none is implied. The measures adopted

for the enforcement of the prescribed rule are in general

terms and purport to be applicable to all. No valid reason

has been or can be suggested why they should apply to

private persons and not to federal and state officers." Id. at

184.

The defendants here, in order to promote their position

that federal agencies are exempt from s 703, seek to introduce structural ambiguity into the Act, citing the criminal

penalty provision of s 707(a):

Except as otherwise provided in this section, any person, association, partnership, or corporation who shall

violate any provisions of said conventions or of this

subchapter, or who shall violate or fail to comply with

any regulation made pursuant to this subchapter shall be

deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction

thereof shall be fined not more than $15,000 or be

imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

16 U.S.C. s 707(a). Federal agencies, they say, cannot be

considered "persons" who may be held criminally liable for

violating the Act or the Treaty. (They do not discuss whether federal officers carrying out the extermination of migratory birds could be considered "persons.") The defendants'

USCA Case #99-5309 Document #530249 Filed: 07/18/2000 Page 7 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

reading of s 707(a) gains support from the canon that the

term "person" does not ordinarily include the sovereign. See

United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941).4 And

so we are willing to assume that the criminal enforcement

provision could not be used against federal agencies. From

this the defendants reason that Congress could not have

intended to have s 703 restrict federal agencies because there

would have been no means to enforce the restrictions; at the

time of its enactment, they tell us, there was no provision in

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for injunctive relief.5

The argument goes nowhere. Even without a specific

review provision, there still could have been a suit against the

appropriate federal officer for injunctive relief to enforce

s 703. Missouri v. Holland, for instance, was a "bill in

equity brought by the State of Missouri to prevent a game

warden of the United States from attempting to enforce the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act." 252 U.S. at 430. The Supreme

Court had already recognized the "equity injunction as a

method for review of administrative action" in Noble v. Union

River Logging Co., 147 U.S. 165 (1893), affirming an injunction against the Secretary of the Interior although the underlying statute contained no provision for judicial review. 4

Kenneth Culp Davis, Administrative Law Treatise s 23:6, at

149 (2d ed. 1983). By 1903 the Court had determined that

the "acts of all of [an agency's officers] must be justified by

some law, and in case an official violates the law to the injury

of an individual the courts generally have jurisdiction to grant

relief." American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U.S. 94, 108 (1902); see also U.S. Dep't of Justice,

Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure

__________

4 The canon applies not only to the federal government but also

to the States. See Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United

States ex rel. Stevens, 120 S. Ct. 1858 (2000). Yet defendants

maintain that States and state agencies are subject to the Act's

restrictions.

5 Today, the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. s 702,

authorizes suits in federal courts naming the United States as a

defendant and specifying in any injunctive decree the federal officers "personally responsible" for compliance.

USCA Case #99-5309 Document #530249 Filed: 07/18/2000 Page 8 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Act 97 (1947); Richard H. Fallon et al., Hart and Wechsler's The Federal Courts and The Federal System 1015-17

(4th ed. 1996). Defendants are, in short, quite mistaken in

supposing that s 703 could not be enforced against federal

agencies except through the criminal provision contained in

s 707(a).

Defendants' argument, and our assumption, that federal

agencies are not "persons" within s 707(a)'s meaning therefore does not lead to the conclusion that Congress meant to

exempt federal agencies from s 703. Indeed it would be odd

if they were exempt. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act implements the Treaty of 1916. Treaties are undertakings between nations; the terms of a treaty bind the contracting

powers. After ratification of the Treaty, President Woodrow

Wilson affixed his signature to it and made it public, "to the

end that the same and every article and clause thereof may

be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United States

and the citizens thereof." 39 Stat. 1705 (italics added). If one

year later, in 1917, Canadian authorities had started slaughtering eider ducks, no one would doubt that Canada would be

guilty of violating Article IV of the Treaty, which protects

these ducks. If some agency of the federal government did

the same in Alaska, the United States too would be in

violation of the Treaty. There is no reason to treat the Act

differently from the Treaty since the legislation was meant to

"give effect to the convention between the United States and

Great Britain for the protection of migratory birds," ch. 128,

40 Stat. 755, 755 (1918). The Act incorporates the terms of

the Treaty in determining, among other things, two critical

issues: which birds are covered, see 16 U.S.C. s 703, and

under what conditions the Interior Department may issue

exemptions, see id. s 704. See also id. ss 708, 709a, 712 (all

referencing the conventions). In short, the fact that the Act

enforced a treaty between our country and Canada reinforces

our conclusion that the broad language of s 703 applies to

actions of the federal government.

Canada too understood that legislation implementing the

Treaty applied to the sovereign. If Canadian authorities kill

migratory birds without a permit they violate not only the

USCA Case #99-5309 Document #530249 Filed: 07/18/2000 Page 9 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Treaty, but also Canada's Migratory Birds Convention Act.

That Act "is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a

province."6 R.S.C., ch. 22, s 3 (1994). The Canadian Act,

like its American counterpart, derives from Article VIII of

the Treaty, which obligated both Contracting Powers to "propose to their respective appropriate law-making bodies the

necessary measures for insuring the execution of the present

Convention." International Convention, art. VIII, 39 Stat.

1704. That Canada treated this joint obligation to mean that

implementing legislation would be binding on the sovereign

indicates still further that s 703 restricts the actions of

federal agencies in this country.

This too had been the longstanding conclusion of the Department of the Interior, which until 1997 had "historically

interpreted the provisions of the MBTA as applying to actions

of FWS employees themselves." Letter from Frank K. Richardson, Solicitor, U.S. Dep't of the Interior, to the Secretary

of the Interior at 3 (May 31, 1985); see also 50 C.F.R.

s 21.12. Although FWS has now changed its mind, neither

Interior nor Agriculture asks us to defer to their interpretation of the Act, and for good reason. The Agriculture Department does not administer the Act and so its view of

s 703's meaning is entitled to no special respect. For its

part, the Interior Department conceded that the 1997 FWS

change of heart, in a letter to regional offices, was not "a

policy call on the part of the Service," nor "a 'filling in' of the

'gaps' in the" statute. Federal Defendants' Opposition to

Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Compel Defendants to File

an Administrative Record at 2 (June 4, 1999). Christensen v.

Harris County, 120 S. Ct. 1655, 1657 (2000), holds that:

__________

6 See also R.S.C., ch. 22, s 6:

Exemptions for law enforcement activities

(5) For the purpose of investigations and other law enforcement activities under this Act, the Minister may, on any terms

and conditions the Minister considers necessary, exempt game

officers who are carrying out duties or functions under this Act,

and persons acting under their direction and control, from the

application of any provisions of this Act or the regulations.

USCA Case #99-5309 Document #530249 Filed: 07/18/2000 Page 10 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

"Interpretations such as those in opinion letters--like interpretations contained in policy statements, agency manuals,

and enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of

law--do not warrant Chevron-style deference." See also

EEOC v. Arabian Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 257 (1991).

For many of the reasons we have mentioned, we disagree

with the "tentative conclusion" in Newton County Wildlife

Ass'n v. United States Forest Service, 113 F.3d 110, 115 (8th

Cir. 1997), and the holding in Sierra Club v. Martin, 110 F.3d

1551, 1555 (11th Cir. 1997), that s 703 does not apply to

federal agencies. Both opinions rest on the mistaken idea

that in 1918, s 703 could be enforced only through the

criminal penalty provision in s 707(a). The Martin opinion

adds the thought that Congress could not have wanted the

Act to apply to the Forest Service in the early 1900s because

whenever it cut trees it might be destroying migratory birds

or their nests, in violation of the Act. See 110 F.3d at 1555.

The Martin court's assumption that timber harvesting could

violate the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is not shared by

others. The Eighth Circuit in Newton County, following the

lead of the Ninth Circuit in Seattle Audubon Society v.

Evans, 952 F.2d 297, 302 (1991), held that s 703 does not

prohibit "conduct, such as timber harvesting, that indirectly

results in the death of migratory birds." 113 F.3d at 114.

Even if the Martin court were correct about timber harvesting, its observation about the Forest Service ignores the facts

that it was not until 1997 that the Interior Department

asserted immunity for federal agencies; that before then the

Fish and Wildlife Service interpreted the Act to apply to all

federal agencies; that during the pre-1997 period the Forest

Service, like other federal agencies, could obtain permits; and

that--as the documents submitted in this case show--it was

the Martin case and other pending litigation that "spurred"

Interior to adopt the "new" interpretation.7

__________

7 Nor did the Martin court acknowledge the Supreme Court's

dictum in Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society, 503 U.S. 429

(1992), that the Act applies to federal agencies.

USCA Case #99-5309 Document #530249 Filed: 07/18/2000 Page 11 of 12
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

We conclude that because the Wildlife Services division of

the Department of Agriculture did not obtain a permit from

the Department of the Interior, its implementation of the

Integrated Goose Management Plan by taking and killing

Canada Geese violates s 703 of the Migratory Bird Treaty

Act.

Affirmed.

USCA Case #99-5309 Document #530249 Filed: 07/18/2000 Page 12 of 12