UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN ... - Bizjournals

Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 49 of 64a PBR of 29 [later increased to 30]....” The mean live capture for 2006-2010 was20.111. In claiming that issuance of an import permit to Georgia Aquariumwould violate 50 C.F.R. §216.34(a)(4), Defendants stated: “In particular, we reliedon the [IUCN] Committee’s recent report....” Despite stating this, Defendantsignored the conclusions of that report which found the collections from the Sea ofOkhotsk are sustainable. Defendants justified disregarding the report of theIndependent Scientific Review Panel of the IUCN because, in Defendants’ view,using PBR as a measure of sustainable removal levels “is only appropriate wherethe stock is increasing...” and there is no population trend data in GeorgiaAquarium’s permit application showing such an increase. Requiring that PBR canonly be used if there is population trend data showing the population is increasingis an unprecedented legal standard found nowhere in law or regulation.Application of an unsupportable, and heretofore unknown, legal standard isarbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with law.112. Defendants routinely approve permits and actions using PBR as ameasure of sustainability and do not require data showing that the relevantpopulation stock is increasing. As noted above, when Georgia Aquariumsubmitted a draft of the permit application to NMFS asking what additional data or49