## Facts

- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers historically used multiple open-water dredged-material disposal sites in Long Island Sound, but most were later closed for environmental reasons, leaving no disposal site in the western Sound.
- Twenty-three non-federal dredging applicants sought permits expecting to use a federally designated disposal site; their combined dredged material totaled about 86,000 cubic yards, with each applicant proposing less than 25,000 cubic yards.
- The Corps also planned federal dredging projects expected to generate about 560,000 cubic yards of dredged material.
- The Ocean Dumping Act (ODA) imposes more stringent testing and permitting for ocean dumping, including a statutory exemption from certain testing for “small dumpers” disposing of less than 25,000 cubic yards, while the Clean Water Act continued to apply.
- The Corps designated a new open-water disposal site in Long Island Sound known as Western Long Island Sound III (WLIS III) and modified the applicants’ permits to authorize disposal at WLIS III.
- The Corps prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the WLIS III designation, but the EIS relied largely on general studies of the Sound and did not include site-specific chemical sediment data or a site-specific analysis of WLIS III water-quality impacts.
- Municipalities and organizations bordering the western Sound sued, challenging (1) the Corps’ reliance on the ODA’s less-than-25,000-cubic-yard exemption for the private applicants and (2) the adequacy of the EIS under NEPA.
- The district court held that the ODA applied, found the EIS inadequate, and enjoined authorization of dumping at WLIS III until completion of a supplemental EIS; the Corps and the Secretary of the Army appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Corps could treat each of 23 related dredging proposals as separate “small dumper” projects under the ODA’s less-than-25,000-cubic-yard exemption, or instead had to aggregate the related dumping activity.
2. Whether the Corps’ EIS for a newly designated open-water disposal site satisfied NEPA where it omitted reasonably available site-specific sediment chemistry and water-quality analysis for the site.
3. Whether injunctive relief barring use of WLIS III pending compliance with NEPA and the ODA was proper, and how broadly such relief should be framed.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit largely affirmed the district court.
- The court held that the ODA’s “small dumper” exemption could not be used to avoid ODA requirements by segmenting related dumping activity into multiple sub-25,000-cubic-yard permits.
- The court held the WLIS III EIS inadequate under NEPA because it failed to include reasonably obtainable site-specific information central to evaluating environmental effects at the new disposal site.
- The court upheld injunctive relief halting authorization of dumping at WLIS III until the Corps prepared an adequate supplemental EIS and complied with applicable ODA requirements, while noting the injunction should be limited to what was necessary to cure the violations.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings.

## Legal Principles

- Under the ODA, agencies may not evade statutory testing and permitting requirements through artificial segmentation of an integrated dredging/dumping program into multiple “small” projects below a volume threshold.
- NEPA requires an agency to take a “hard look” at environmental consequences; an EIS for a new disposal site must include reasonably available site-specific data needed to assess core environmental risks, not merely generalized regional studies.
- An EIS is deficient where omissions of site-specific sediment chemistry and water-quality analysis prevent informed agency decision-making and meaningful public review on the environmental acceptability of the proposed action.
- Courts may grant injunctive relief for NEPA and ODA violations to prevent environmentally harmful actions from proceeding before required analyses and statutory conditions are met, and equitable relief should be no broader than necessary to secure compliance.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit required the Corps to treat related dredging and disposal activity as a combined operation for ODA purposes and held that NEPA demanded a supplemental, site-specific EIS for WLIS III before dumping could be authorized, affirming an injunction pending compliance and remanding for further proceedings.


Town of Huntington v. Marsh, 859 F.2d 1134 (2d Cir. 1988)