UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN ... - Bizjournals

Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 46 of 64Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors were created, among otherthings, to provide scientific advice to Defendants. 16 U.S.C. §1401, et seq. Afterconsidering the scientific evidence and all of the applicable statutory andregulatory standards, the Commission recommended issuance of the permit. Inaddition, the Agriculture Department’s Animal and Plant Health InspectionService, which has responsibility for overseeing the care and maintenance ofmarine mammals in human care, recommended approval of the permit application.FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Violation of the MMPA and the APARegarding the Impact of the Import on Wild Populations)100. Plaintiff realleges, as if fully set forth herein, each and everyallegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 99.101. The regulations implementing the MMPA provide that the proposedaction (here the import of 18 previously collected beluga whales) by itself or incombination with other activities will not likely have a significant adverse impacton the species or stock. 50 C.F.R. §216.34(a)(4). Defendants claim the permit, ifissued, would violate this regulation. In applying this regulation, the permit denialstates “the relevant question under the MMPA becomes ‘Is the beluga whale tradein the Sea of Okhotsk sustainable?’”46