UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN ... - Bizjournals

Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 45 of 6497. Subsequently, representatives of Defendants told representatives ofGeorgia Aquarium that the delay in announcing the final agency decision on thepermit application was caused by a disagreement among Defendants’ lawyersregarding whether an environmental assessment or an environmental impactstatement should be prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.Defendants would not have been considering the preparation of an environmentalimpact statement regarding the permit decision with its attendant costs and delaysif the agency’s decision was to deny the permit application.98. Subsequent to these events, representatives of Defendants toldrepresentatives of Georgia Aquarium on June 20, 2013 that Defendants wereconcerned that granting the permit to Georgia Aquarium would “open thefloodgates” to more permit applications to collect and/or import animals for publicdisplay. Despite Defendants’ concerns about considering future collection orimport permits for public display, the MMPA specifically authorizes public displayfacilities to submit permit applications for the collection and import of marinemammals for public display.99. The MMPA specifies that Defendants may not issue a permit for theimport or public display of marine mammals without first consulting with the U.S.Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors. The45