In the lawsuit, Greenpeace alleged that the Service 

 violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to: 

 (a) prepare either an environmental assessment or an environ- 

 mental impact statement on the permit application; (b) develop 

 alternatives to the proposed taking that would involve less 

 impact on the affected animals; and (c) provide a reasoned 

 explanation for the decision not to prepare an environmental 

 impact statement or environmental assessment. The plaintiff 

 also alleged that the Service violated the Marine Mammal Pro- 

 tection Act by failing to obtain sufficient evidence to make 

 findings on whether the permit would be consistent with the 

 purposes and policies of the Act and that it would advance a 

 bona fide scientific purpose. 



The National Marine Fisheries Service contended that scien- 

 tific research permits, in general, do not have a significant 

 effect on the human environment and argued that the agency had 

 properly excluded the issuance of such permits from the require- 

 ment to prepare an environmental impact statement or an environ- 

 mental assessment. Although there are certain exceptions to 

 the "categorical exclusion" for scientific permits, the Service 

 argued that none were applicable in this instance. 



The U.S. District Court held a hearing on this matter on 

 5 June 1987 and issued a preliminary injunction invalidating 

 the permit. On 17 June, the court filed its order in the 

 case, ruling in favor of the plaintiff. While acknowledging 

 the existence of the general exclusion for scientific research 

 permits from the requirement to prepare an environmental docu- 

 ment, the Court found that Greenpeace had raised substantial 

 questions about whether the research may have significant 

 environmental effects and that the Service had not adequately 

 explained why the exceptions to its categorical exclusions were 

 not applicable. 



180 



