C.F.R. » Title 50 » CHAPTER I—UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › SUBCHAPTER B—TAKING, POSSESSION, TRANSPORTATION, SALE, PURCHASE, BARTER, EXPORTATION, AND IMPORTATION OF WILDLIFE AND PLANTS › PART 18—MARINE MAMMALS › Subpart J—Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and Production Activities in the Beaufort Sea and Adjacent Northern Coast of A…

50 C.F.R. § 18.123

How the FWS will evaluate a request for an LOA

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

We will evaluate each request for an LOA based on the specific activity and the specific geographic location. We will determine whether the level of activity identified in the request exceeds that analyzed by us in considering the number of animals estimated to be taken and evaluating whether there will be a negligible impact on the species or stock and an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock for subsistence uses. If the level of the operator's activity is within the level of activity already analyzed by us, we will grant the LOA without further analysis. If the level of activity is greater, we may request further information but will not require additional data requirements beyond those required by § 18.22(d). We will reevaluate our findings to determine if those findings continue to be appropriate based on the combined estimated take of the greater level of activity that the applicant has requested and all other activities proposed during the time of the activities in the LOA request. Depending on the results of the evaluation, we may grant the LOA, add further conditions, or deny the LOA request.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2009–2009 · leading case: Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, 588 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, 588 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009). “50 C.F.R. § 18.123 . The plaintiffs argue that these are too broad to qualify as a “specified activity” under the MMPA.”
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Dirk Kempthorne, No. 08-35402 (9th Cir. Dec. 2, 2009). “50 C.F.R. § 18.123 . The plaintiffs argue that these are too broad to qualify as a “specified activity” under the MMPA.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.