Opinion ID: 739361
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The MBTA Claim

Text: 5 The Chattahoochee is home to numerous species of neotropical migratory birds, which typically winter in Mexico or the Caribbean and spend the nesting season in the Chattahoochee. These birds include species designated for protection under the MBTA. Sierra Club asserted that the Forest Service's timber contracts violate the MBTA because they allowed timber cutting during the migratory bird nesting season and that tree cutting during nesting season would directly kill at least 2,000 to 9,000 neotropical migratory birds. 6 The Forest Service did not dispute that cutting down a tree with an active nest directly killed migratory birds. 7 The district court held that the Forest Service's actions violated the MBTA because thousands of migratory birds will be killed directly by cutting down trees with nests and juvenile birds in them. Relying on Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 99 S.Ct. 1705, 60 L.Ed.2d 208 (1979), the district court concluded that Sierra Club could obtain injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, for the Forest Service's violation of the MBTA, even though the MBTA does not create a private right of action. 8 The district court's preliminary injunction extended only through September 15, 1996, the date a Forest Service memorandum identified as the time after which timber cutting would have no significant effect on the nesting success of migratory birds. 9 6 On appeal, the Forest Service asserts that the MBTA is a criminal statute which does not address formal agency action; therefore, notwithstanding the APA's provisions for judicial review, there is no statutory violation for which a remedy would be appropriate. Sierra Club counters that it states a claim under the APA, with the MBTA serving as the predicate law with which the Forest Service's actions are not in compliance. 10