Fund for Animals v. Norton
Decision Date | 28 March 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 04 Civ. 959(PKC).,04 Civ. 959(PKC). |
Citation | 365 F.Supp.2d 394 |
Parties | The FUND FOR ANIMALS, Humane Society for the United States, Defenders of Wildlife, Animal Rights Foundation of Florida, Donald Feare, Gustav W. Verderber, Julie Baker, Kristi Gholson, Collette Adkins Giese, Marian Probst Plaintiffs, v. Gale NORTON, Secretary, U.S. Department of Interior, Steven Williams, Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Anne Veneman, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bobby Accord, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Howard M. Crystal, Meyer & Glitzenstein, Washington, DC, Leonard D. Egert, New York City, for Plaintiffs.
Sarah Sheive Normand, U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY, New York City, for Defendants.
The double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) is a water bird native to North America. It is a fish-eating bird with a hooked bill, turquoise eyes, a long tail, dark brown in color with two white crests of feathers that appear on its head during breeding season.
This lawsuit arises over federal efforts to manage the nation's population of double-crested cormorants. According to the administrative record, the species has been responsible for the loss of at least $25 million in annual catfish production, largely in the Mississippi Delta. The plaintiffs challenge two rules that they assert were adopted in violation of treaty obligations and a battery of federal statutes. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief.
Both sides have moved for summary judgment. For the reasons explained below, the plaintiffs' motion is denied, and the defendants' motion is granted.
According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (the "Agency," "Fish and Wildlife Service" or "FWS"), the double-crested cormorant is one of 38 cormorant species worldwide, and one of six found in North America. (FWS at 3161)1 Double-crested cormorants often live in flocks, and are sometimes confused with geese or loons. (FWS at 3161) Prior to 1970, the cormorant population was jeopardized by DDT and other organochlorine contaminants. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 3; Def. 56.1 at 11; Migratory Bird Permits; Regulation for Double-Crested Cormorant Management, 68 Fed.Reg. 12,653 (March 17, 2003)) The population recovered during the 1970s and 1980s, but its growth rate slowed during the 1990s. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 3; Def. 56.1 at 11; FWS at 5507, 5510-11) It is not a species protected by the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq. The estimated population of the bird is about 2 million. (FWS at 5540)
As the population expanded and the birds became more visible, fishermen and others complained that the birds were responsible for declining fish stocks. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 4; Def. 56.1 at 11-12; FWS at 9910) Cormorants also were drawn to the live fish raised in aquaculture facilities for human consumption. Migratory Bird Permits; Regulation for Double-Crested Cormorant Management, 68 Fed.Reg. 58,022, 58,026 (Oct. 8, 2003). Specifically, the cormorants have proved detrimental to commercial catfish farms located near the Mississippi Delta. Id. The birds' eating habits prompted the aquaculture industry to seek curbs on the cormorant population.2 (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 5; Def. 56.1 at 12; FWS at 5493, 5511, 5515, 5566-68)
The Fish and Wildlife Service is the federal agency with primary responsibility for the regulation of migratory birds. 68 Fed.Reg. 12,653. Its authority to regulate the double-crested cormorant arises from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act ("MBTA"), 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq., which implements bilateral conventions that the United States signed with Great Britain, Mexico, Japan and Russia. The double-crested cormorant received federal protection under the 1972 amendment to the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals, Feb. 7, 1936, United States-Mexico, 50 Stat. 1311, T.S. No. 912. Under the statute's terms, protected birds may not be "take[n]" except as authorized by regulations implementing the MBTA. 16 U.S.C. § 703. According to 50 C.F.R. § 10.12: "Take means to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect." See also Newton County Wildlife Ass'n v. U.S. Forest Service, 113 F.3d 110, 115 (8th Cir.1997) (, )cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1108, 118 S.Ct. 1035, 140 L.Ed.2d 102 (1998).
In an attempt to address complaints about the double-crested cormorant's deleterious effects on aquaculture, the FWS adopted the Aquaculture Depredation Order ("ADO") in 1998. 50 C.F.R. § 21.47. Depredation is defined as "an act of plundering, despoiling, or making inroads." WEBSTER'S THIRD INT'L DICTIONARY UNABRIDGED (2002). The ADO permits landowners, operators and tenants of aquaculture facilities to utilize firearms to take double-crested cormorants when the birds are found committing or about to commit acts of depredation on the aquaculture stock. 50 C.F.R. § 21.47. It also permits the killing of double-crested cormorants only within the boundaries of aquaculture facilities in thirteen states. 50 C.F.R. § 21.47(c)(1).3
Our proposed action ... modifies the existing Aquaculture Depredation Order and establishes a new Public Resource Depredation Order to allow public resource managers greater flexibility in dealing with cormorant conflicts while ensuring Federal oversight via reporting and monitoring requirements.
Id. The publication of the Draft EIS was followed by a 100-day public comment period, including 10 public meetings. Notice of Availability; Final Environmental Impact Statement on Double-Crested Cormorant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv.
...within the agency does not render the decisionmaking process arbitrary and capricious." Id. at 659; accord Fund for Animals v. Norton, 365 F. Supp. 2d 394, 418 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (observing that "vigorous and thoughtful debate . . . does not equate to a lack of substantial evidence . . . "), a......
-
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv.
...agency does not render the decisionmaking process arbitrary and capricious.” Id. at 659, 127 S.Ct. 2518;accord Fund for Animals v. Norton, 365 F.Supp.2d 394, 418 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (observing that “vigorous and thoughtful debate ... does not equate to a lack of substantial evidence ...”), aff'd......
-
Fund for Animals v. Kempthorne
...determines "`when, to what extent, if at all, and by what means' the taking of [cormorants] is permissible." Fund for Animals v. Norton, 365 F.Supp.2d 394, 408-11 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (quoting 16 U.S.C. § 704(a)). To the extent that the MBTA requires a national approach to migratory bird manageme......
-
Friends Animals v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.
...in 16 U.S.C. § 704(a), which predominately relate to the incidence of the bird being taken,] when exercising authority." Fund for Animals, 365 F.Supp.2d at 419-20. Plaintiffs implicitly acknowledge as much. See Pls.' Reply to Mot. Summ. J. 2 ("the real purpose of the Conventions [is] to con......
-
CHAPTER 4 TAKING A HARDER LOOK AT DIRECT, INDIRECT, AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
...v. Andrus, 580 F.2d at 472-73. [135] 241 F.3d 722 (9th Cir. 2001). [136] Id. at 732 [137] Id. at 733. [138] Fund for Animals v. Norton, 365 F.Supp2d 394, 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting Stewart Park & Reserve Coal., Inc. v. Slater, 352 F.3d 545, 557 (2d Cir. 2003) (in turn quoting Sierra Club ......
-
CHAPTER 11 AVOIDING NEPA PITFALLS
...F. Supp.2d 226, 242 (D. D.C. 2005) (affirming range of alternatives for pipeline in light of objectives); Fund for Animals v. Norton, 365 F. Supp.2d 394, 428-429 (S.D. N.Y. 2005). [62] 62. See e.g. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service, 177 F.3d 800, 813 (9 Cir. 1999) (noting that......