473 F.Supp.3d 115
E.D.N.Y2020Background
- Long Island Sound requires frequent dredging; Congress extended the MPRSA (Ambro Amendment) in 1980 to cover dredged-material disposal in the Sound and set statutory criteria for site designation and permitting.
- EPA and the Army Corps developed a Sound-wide Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP) and, after NEPA scoping and public comment, proposed an Eastern Long Island Sound Disposal Site (ELDS) in 2016 (NL‑Wa and NL‑Wb areas) with a Site Management and Monitoring Plan.
- EPA used a 25‑nautical‑mile Zone of Siting Feasibility (ZSF) from eastern dredging centers to screen candidate sites, concluding more distant sites (Central, Western, Rhode Island) were economically/operationally infeasible for many eastern projects.
- New York (and intervenors Southold, Suffolk) objected, arguing EPA overstated disposal need (miscounted sand reuse), ignored capacity at other historic sites (esp. Rhode Island), failed to consider navigation impacts (Cross Sound ferries), and improperly treated small non‑federal dredging under CWA rather than MPRSA; New York also asserted CZMA inconsistency.
- The district court reviewed the administrative record under the APA and rejected plaintiffs’ challenges, holding EPA’s designation was supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary and capricious; plaintiffs’ summary judgment motions were denied and defendants’ were granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Need for a new eastern site (capacity; sand reuse; use of distant sites) | EPA overstated need by not crediting beneficial reuse of sand and by ignoring capacity at other sites (Rhode Island, Central). | EPA reasonably used ZSF and Corps DMMP projections; Corps updated study supported ~20 mcy need and showed many projects cannot practically use distant sites. | Court upheld EPA: ZSF and Corps analyses were reasonable; EPA’s conservative assumptions and reliance on updated Corps projections were not arbitrary. |
| Interference with shipping/navigation (Cross Sound ferries) | ELDS lies on/near ferry routes and will interfere with heavy commercial navigation; EPA failed to respond to traffic concerns. | Ferry operators and Coast Guard data show routes are flexible; site restrictions (seasonal timing, notice) and depth minimize interference. | Court held EPA adequately considered navigation; record (including ferry industry support) shows no undue interference. |
| Considering historically‑used or farther sites (requirement to designate historic sites) | EPA should have designated historically used sites (e.g., New London portion, Rhode Island) or relied on Central/Western sites instead of a new site. | Regulations require considering historic sites "wherever feasible," but feasibility includes economic/operational factors; EPA balanced criteria and modified boundaries in response to objections. | Court found EPA reasonably weighed historic‑use preference against other criteria; no mandate to pick historic site regardless of feasibility. |
| Treatment of non‑federal <25,000 cy projects and testing regimes (MPRSA vs CWA) | EPA failed to account for smaller non‑federal projects that would be governed by CWA testing, risking lower protection and segmentation. | Ambro Amendment and statutes leave <25,000 cy non‑federal projects subject to CWA/404 process and regional testing manuals; permits and NEPA/permit review guard against segmentation. | Court concluded EPA appropriately explained the regulatory framework; EPA responded to comments and did not act arbitrarily. |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (standards for arbitrary and capricious review)
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989) (agency must consider relevant factors and explain its decision)
- Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (1999) (substantial evidence standard for agency factfinding)
- Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 462 U.S. 87 (1983) (deference where agency expertise applies)
- Town of Huntington v. Marsh, 859 F.2d 1134 (2d Cir. 1988) (Ambro Amendment / MPRSA context)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. Jewell, 815 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (definition of substantial evidence standard)
- Karpova v. Snow, 497 F.3d 262 (2d Cir. 2007) (reasonableness of agency explanations)