Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng's

457 F.Supp.2d 198

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.; Raritan Baykeeper, Inc.; Andrew Willner; and Greenfaith, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; and Col. Richard Polo, Jr., in his official capacity as Commander and District Engineer, United States Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, Defendants.

No. 05 Civ. 762(SAS).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

March 8, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Mitchell Bernard, Lawrence Levine, Natural Resources Defense Council, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Carter H. Strickland, Jr., Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic, School of Law, Newark, Newark, NJ, for Plaintiffs Raritan Baykeeper, Inc. and Andrew Willner.

Edward Scarvalone, Assistant United States Attorney, Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for the Government Defendants.

Daniel Mclnerney, Hill Rivkin & Hayden LLP, New York, NY, for Intervenor Donjon Marine, Inc.

Martin Domb, Hill, Betts & Nash, LLP, New York, NY, for Intervenor New York Container Terminal, Inc.

OPINION AND ORDER

SCHEINDLIN, District Judge.

                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.    INTRODUCTION ............................................................202
II.   BACKGROUND...............................................................203
      A. August 5 Opinion .....................................................204
      B. Record Under Review During the Liability Phase........................204
      C. The Remedy Phase......................................................205
      D. The NBSA RIWP and Ongoing Deepening Projects..........................207
      E. The January 2006 Final Environmental Assessment.......................208
         1. Assessment of the Potential Impacts of the HDP on the RI/FS........208
         2. Cumulative Impact..................................................211

         3. Alternatives.......................................................212
         4. Mitigation.........................................................213
            a. Coordination............................ .......................213
            b. Monitoring......................................................215
III. APPLICABLE LAW............................................................216
     A. Ripeness...............................................................216
     B. Mootness...............................................................216
     C. NEPA Requirements......................................................217
        1. EIS ................................................................217
        2. SEIS................................................................217
        3. Environmental Assessment............................................218
        4. Cumulative Impact...................................................218
        5. Alternatives .......................................................219
        6. Mitigation..........................................................219
        7. Standard of Review..................................................220
     D. Curing a NEPA Violation................................................221
     E. Remedy ................................................................223
        1. Injunctive Relief...................................................223
        2. Remand..............................................................224
IV. DISCUSSION.................................................................225
    A. Ripeness................................................................226
    B. The Merits of Plaintiffs' NEPA Claim ...................................226
       1. Assessment of the Potential Impacts of the HDP on the RI/FS..........228
          a. Resuspension and the Amount of Contaminants Below the
              Surface..........................................................228
          b. Cumulative Impact.................................................230
       2. Alternatives ........................................................231
       3. Mitigation...........................................................233
       4. Conclusions Regarding NEPA Violations................................234
    C. Remedy..................................................................235
       1. Irreparable Harm.....................................................235
       2. The Balance of Effects and the Public Interest.......................235
       3. Adequacy of Legal Remedies ..........................................237
V.  CONCLUSION.................................................................238

I. INTRODUCTION

This opinion resolves the remedial phase of litigation stemming from the failure of the United States Army Corps of Engineers and Col. Richard J. Polo, Jr., as Commander and District Engineer of the Corps' New York District, (collectively the "Corps"), to take a "hard look" under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA")¹ at the consequences of a project to deepen shipping channels in the New York-New Jersey Harbor ("Harbor") through dredging and blasting of the Harbor floor.² Plaintiffs, a group of environmental organizations and concerned citizens, claimed that the Corps violated NEPA by not considering the impact of the Corps' Harbor Deepening Project ("HDP") on the United States Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") plan to study decades of industrial pollution and evaluate possible cleanup options for contamination in the Harbor. In an earlier opinion, I found that the Corps had violated both NEPA and the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA").³ Plaintiffs now request that the Court order the Corps to prepare NEPA-compliant documentation pursuant to a schedule, with specific instructions on the elements and process, for completing the documentation. Plaintiffs also request an injunction prohibiting future contracting in connection with the HDP until such time as the Court approves the Corps' final NEPA documentation.⁴

II. BACKGROUND

The facts underlying this case are comprehensively set out in my Opinion and Order of August 5, 2005 ("August 5 Opinion").⁵ Briefly, the HDP is intended to open the Harbor to the newer, larger, and deeper-bottomed cargo vessels on which the modern shipping industry depends. As part of the HDP, the Corps has been authorized to conduct the Kill Van Kull 45' Deepening Project, the Arthur Kill 41/40' Deepening Project, the Port Jersey 41' Deepening Project, and the 50' New York and New Jersey Harbor Deepening Project.⁶ In 2002, Congress ordered the Army Corps to consolidate each of these projects into one overall deepening project, known as the HDP.⁷

Part of the HDP will cut through highly contaminated sections of Newark Bay and surrounding waterways. This contamination is the result of years of heavy industrial use of the Bay and its tributaries. In particular, the Bay is contaminated with the by-products from the manufacturing of Agent Orange at the Diamond Alkali Chemical Plant,⁸ on the Passaic River, during the Vietnam War.

On February 13, 2004, the EPA entered into an AOC, which added Newark Bay to the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, as the "Newark Bay Study Area of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site" pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA").⁹ Under the direction of the EPA, Tierra Solutions, Inc. ("Tierra") is carrying out a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") on behalf of Occidental Chemical Corporation, successor to Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company, pursuant to the terms of the AOC. The RI will determine the extent and nature of contamination in the Bay, and the FS will evaluate possible cleanup options based on what is learned from the RI.¹⁰ This process also contemplates the preparation of a Natural Resources Damages Assessment for the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, in which natural resources trustees (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection) will determine the injury to the natural resources, establish a plan for restoration of the natural resources, and determine compensation to the public for loss of services from the resources.¹¹

A. August 5 Opinion

Plaintiffs claimed that the Corps acted arbitrarily and capriciously, in violation of NEPA and the APA, by proceeding with the HDP without preparing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("SEIS") to consider the possible detrimental effects of the HDP dredging on the RI/FS. The August 5 Opinion granted summary judgment to plaintiffs, holding that the "Corps failed to take a hard look at the potential impacts of dredging in the HDP on the RI and at methods of coordination with the EPA that might reduce those impacts, if any, and that the Corps' decision to proceed without an SEIS in the absence of such a hard look was arbitrary and capricious."¹² I found the Corps' NEPA review deficient for the following reasons:

• The Corps "failed to give serious consideration to the potential impacts of dredging on sampling for the RI/FS, or the means by which those impacts could be minimized before awarding the Arthur Kill dredging contract."¹³

• "[T]he record did not contain any substantive discussion of the form coordination between the EPA and the Corps will take, or how the effectiveness of that coordination would be monitored."¹⁴

• The Corps did not do any "further analysis of the possible impact of dredging on the RI/FS" before March 11, 2005 when the Corps awarded the first contract for dredging in the Kill van Kull Channel.¹⁵

Based on these findings, I concluded that "the Corps must assess the impact of its dredging on the sampling required for the RI/FS before committing to a particular method of dredging, rather than waiting until dredging interferes with the sampling and causes...