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

Heading: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Text: 12 Sierra Club claims a right to judicial review of the Forest Service's formal actions under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 702. 11 As a procedural statute, the APA does not expand the substantive duties of a federal agency, but merely provides the framework for judicial review of agency action. Accordingly, [t]here is no right to sue for a violation of the APA in the absence of a 'relevant statute' whose violation 'forms the legal basis for [the] complaint.'  El Rescate Legal Servs., Inc. v. Executive Office of Immigration Review, 959 F.2d 742, 753 (9th Cir.1991) (quoting Lujan v. National Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 883, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 3186, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990)); see also Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. v. United States, 86 F.3d 789, 792 (8th Cir.1996) ([T]he plaintiff must identify a substantive statute or regulation that the agency action had transgressed and establish that the statute or regulation applies to the United States.). Section 706, which provides the scope of review, confirms this understanding. It provides, in relevant part, that a reviewing court shall: 13 (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be-- 14 (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. 15 5 U.S.C. § 706 (emphasis added). An agency's actions could only fail to be in accordance with law when that agency's actions are subject to that law. The issue then is whether the Forest Service's actions are subject to the MBTA. That is, the MBTA's prohibitions must be addressed to the Forest Service's formal actions in order for the Forest Service to be capable of violating the MBTA. See Chrysler v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 298-301, 99 S.Ct. 1705, 1716-17, 60 L.Ed.2d 208 (1979) (determining whether the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1905, addresses formal agency action). 16 The MBTA, by its plain language, does not subject the federal government to its prohibitions. The MBTA makes it unlawful to take or kill birds. The penalties for violating its prohibitions are set forth in 16 U.S.C. § 707, which provides that a person, association, partnership, or corporation will be guilty of a misdemeanor or felony and subject to fine or imprisonment or both for violating the MBTA. 12 Sierra Club nonetheless asserts that because the prohibitions are stated broadly--that is, it is unlawful to take or kill--it should be unlawful for anybody, including federal agencies, to take or kill migratory birds. The MBTA, however, should be read as a whole to derive its plain meaning. See Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368, 371-72, 114 S.Ct. 1669, 1671, 128 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). The MBTA is a criminal statute making it unlawful only for persons, associations, partnerships, and corporations to take or kill migratory birds. Moreover, there is no expression of congressional intent which would warrant holding that person includes the federal government, thus enabling the United States to prosecute a federal agency, or a federal official acting in his official capacity, for taking or killing birds and destroying nests in violation of the MBTA. Congress has demonstrated that it knows how to subject federal agencies to substantive requirements when it chooses to do so. For example, the term person in the Endangered Species Act is defined to include any officer, employee, agent, department, or instrumentality of the Federal Government. 16 U.S.C. § 1532(13). 17 The historical context of the MBTA's enactment further demonstrates that it does not apply to the federal government. In 1897, Congress established the National Forest System  '[t]o conserve the water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the people.'  United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696, 707, 98 S.Ct. 3012, 3017-18, 57 L.Ed.2d 1052 (1978) (quoting 30 Cong.Rec. 967 (1897)). In light of that purpose, it is difficult to imagine that Congress enacted the MBTA barely twenty years later intending to prohibit the Forest Service from taking or killing a single migratory bird or nest by any means or in any manner given that the Forest Service's authorization of logging on federal lands inevitably results in the deaths of individual birds and destruction of nests. The application of the MBTA to the federal government would have severely impaired the Forest Service's ability to comply with the congressional directive to manage the national forests for timber production. 18 Congress's subsequent enactment of legislation relating to management of the National Forest System buttresses the conclusion that the MBTA does not apply to the federal government. In the NFMA, Congress expressed its intent that the Forest Service manage forests for multiple uses, including timber production. See 16 U.S.C. § 528 (It is the policy of the Congress that the national forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.). Through the NFMA, Congress has prescribed the procedures the Forest Service is to follow and the factors it is to consider in making land management decisions. See 16 U.S.C. § 1604. In the process of complying with the NFMA, NEPA, and their implementing regulations, the Forest Service ensures that the impact of land management on migratory bird populations is considered in the context of ensuring viability of native species. 36 C.F.R. § 219.19. The viability regulation requires that, in the context of multiple use planning, habitat be provided within the forest to support a minimum number of reproductive individuals in order to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area. Id. The Forest Service's compliance with the viability regulation is subject to judicial review in actions challenging timber sales brought under the APA. See, e.g., Inland Empire Public Lands Council v. United States Forest Service, 88 F.3d 754, 759-63 (9th Cir.1996); Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Moseley, 80 F.3d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir.1996). 13 Congress intended that the Forest Service follow the NFMA's regulatory process, rather than the MBTA's criminal prohibitions, in addressing conservation of migratory birds.