United States v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.

No. 00-12002 (259 F.3d 1300) (11th Cir. July 30, 2001)

ELR Digest

The court affirms a district court's holding that a dredge and dock company is liable under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) for damages to the Florida Keys Marine Sanctuary caused by a grounded tugboat and a dredge pipe, but vacates and remands the district court's approval of no action as the primary restoration plan for the grounding site. A towing company hired by the dredge and dock company ran a tugboat aground and left a pipe scar on the sanctuary seabed, which ultimately healed on its own. The district court held that the company was liable under the NMSA, and the company appealed.

The court first holds that the government may still have a claim for damages even though the property at issue is state owned. The NMSA plainly authorizes the United States to recover damages for injuries to seagrass resources. The court then holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding damages based on the habitat equivalency analysis. The use of the habitat equivalency analysis was appropriate, and the underlying scientific data satisfied Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 23 ELR 20979 (1993). The court also holds that the district court correctly held that the dredge and dock company's conduct gave rise to strict liability under the NMSA. The dredge and dock company was responsible for helping the towing company maneuver the tows and the pipe rafts and preparing the pipe rafts and making sure they were safe and seaworthy; failed to test the pipes before the trip or send a welder or crane operator with the flotilla to make repairs; and failed to provide the towing company with any direction once notified about the sinking pipes. These facts are supported by the record evidence, are not clearly erroneous, and are sufficient to demonstrate causation and to impose liability under the NMSA. Additionally, the court holds that the district court correctly denied the dredge and dock company a third-party defense.

The court, however, then holds that the district court erred in holding that the government's no action restoration plan was appropriate for the grounding site. The district court misinterpreted evidence before it, specifically that natural recovery without any interference would take approximately 70 years. The evidence clearly indicated that this 70-year period upon which the district court relied is the amount of time the grounding site is expected to achieve full biological recovery after implementing the government's primary restoration plan. Therefore, the court vacates and remands that portion of the district court's decision.

The full text of this decision is available from ELR (20 pp., ELR Order No. L-384).

Counsel for Plaintiff
Robert H. Oakley
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 514-2000

Counsel for Defendant
John W. Keller III
Keller & Houck
200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 300, Miami FL 33131
(305) 372-9044

[31 ELR 20880]

[OPINION OMITTED BY PUBLISHER IN ORIGINAL SOURCE]