Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of Fawskin v. Marina Point Development Associates, Oko Development Co., Oko Investments Inc., Northshore Development Associates LP, Irving Okovita, Site Design Associates Inc., Ken Discenza, VDLP Marina Point LP, Venwest Marina Point Inc.
Published: Oct. 21, 2006 | Result Date: Aug. 21, 2006 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 04-7036 (r) RZx Bench Decision – $1,312,500
Court
USDC Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Michael A. Geibelson
(Robins Kaplan LLP)
Adam Keats
(Center for Food Safety)
Defendant
Robert D. Crockett
(Crockett & Associates)
Experts
Plaintiff
Peter Bloom
(technical)
Timothy B. Krantz
(technical)
Richard Horner
(technical)
Defendant
Carol Forrest
(technical)
Facts
Defendants Marina Point Development Associates and others were developing a condominium project in the north shore of Big Bear Lake a perching and foraging area for the bald eagle, which is a protected species under the Endangered Species Act. The plaintiffs, the Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of Fawskin, sued the defendants, along with the project contractor, engineer, and other companies involved in the development of the condominiums, for violation of the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act.
Contentions
PLAINTIFFS’ CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs contended that the defendants violated federal law by destroying federally protected bald eagle habitat, by conducting unauthorized construction work in federally protected wetlands, by failing to obtain necessary federal and state permits, and by failing to comply with interim and emergency remedial orders issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The plaintiffs’ engineering expert testified that the defendants failed to follow best management practices on the construction site, resulting in erosion from the site and adjacent jetties and substantial, impermissible runoff into Big Bear Lake. The plaintiffs’ environmental biology experts opined that the development would destroy one of the few remaining undisturbed bald eagle habitats at the lake, by eliminating perching and offshore foraging grounds. The plaintiffs’ geography expert testified that the defendants impermissibly dredged and filled historic wetlands located on the site.
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The defendants denied that the project would disturb the water or the bald eagle's habitat. The defendants' civil engineering expert testified that the pollution controls were adequate, and opined that the defendant exhibited proper best management practices. She emphasized that the defendants used basins over 100-feet wide to catch run-off.
Damages
The plaintiffs sought damages and injunctive relief under the Clean Water Act, and injunctive relief under the Endangered Species Act to prohibit construction on the site. They also demanded that the defendants repair damage done to the site.
Result
Judge Manual Real ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Civil penalties of $2,500 per day, totaling $1,312,500, were assessed under the Clean Water Act. The defendants were also ordered to immediately restore the shoreline and wetlands damaged by the development. A permanent injunction was granted barring any future activities on the site.
Other Information
Damages were not apportioned by defendant. Defendants have filed an appeal.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390