UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN ... - Bizjournals

Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 40 of 6478. Defendants determined the permit application met most but not all thecriteria set forth in 50 C.F.R. §216.34 and the MMPA for issuance of the permit.79. 50 C.F.R. §216.34(a)(1) requires that the proposed activity be humaneand not present any unnecessary risks to the health and welfare of marinemammals. Defendants found the proposed transport of beluga whales met thisstandard.80. 50 C.F.R. §216.34(a)(2) requires that the proposed activity beconsistent with the restrictions in 50 C.F.R. §216.35, which includes restrictionsrelated to humaneness, a prohibition on importing marine mammals that were“unweaned” or less than eight months of age when taken, and requirements that thepermit applicant possess the necessary qualifications to undertake the proposedactivity. Defendants stated these requirements duplicated other regulations andwould be addressed in the context of those other regulations.81. 50 C.F.R. §216.34(a)(3) requires that activities involving specieslisted under the Endangered Species Act be consistent with that Act. Since belugawhales are not so listed, Defendants found this criterion inapplicable.82. 50 C.F.R. §216.34(a)(4) requires that the proposed activity by itself orin combination with other activities will not likely have a significant adverseimpact on the species or stock. Defendants found this criterion was not met40