The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for Firefighter's Supplemental Compensation should be granted?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner graduated from Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, Illinois in May of 1976 with a Bachelor of Science degree. His major was "Radio-Television." Petitioner is currently employed by the City of Delray Beach as a firefighter/paramedic, the job description for which reads as follows: JOB TITLE: FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC GENERAL DESCRIPTION: Skilled technical work in the City's Fire Department in the field of fire suppression, prevention and emergency medical services. Work is performed under the general direction of the Battalion Chief. ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS: Performs all duties in the Firefighter job description. Responds with necessary equipment to requests for medical assistance, where life is endangered by illness or injury. Administers basic and advanced life support at the scene of an emergency. Transports victims to the closest appropriate medical facility according to protocol, unless turned over to a licensed transport agency with equal or higher medical authority. Maintains basic and advanced life support apparatus and equipment. (These essential job functions are not to be construed as a complete statement of all duties performed. Employees will be required to perform other job related marginal duties as required.) FULL PERFORMANCE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, ABILITIES AND PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS: Knowledge of the positions of firefighter and driver engineer and the skills to perform the duties of each. Knowledge of the geography of the City with respect to streets, hydrants and building access information. Knowledge of the location and layout of all high risk and special hazard occupancies, and the problems encountered with each. Knowledge of the strategy and tactics of handling fire, rescue and medical emergencies and the ability to analyze and respond effectively under stress to each. Knowledge of the record keeping system in use, the components of the system, and the functions of each. Knowledge of paramedic principles, practices and techniques and how they are used in rescue operation. Ability to carry out orders and to see that department and City policies are adhered to. Ability to perform Firefighter and ALS duties effectively. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: High School graduation or possession of an acceptable equivalency diploma. Completion of minimum standards as required by the State of Florida. Successful completion of all medical and fitness requirements and examinations as described by the City. LICENSES, CERTIFICATIONS OR REGISTRATIONS: State of Florida Paramedic Certification. State of Florida Firefighter Certification. Protocol Certification issued by Department Medical Director. Class D Commercial Drivers License. ESSENTIAL PHYSICAL SKILLS: Meet physical requirement as indicated for State certification. Must endure sustained acts of physical exhaustion and endure periods of duty under unfavorable and life threatening situations. Heavy (45 pounds and over) lifting and carrying Reaching Acceptable eyesight (with or without correction) Acceptable hearing (with or without hearing aid) Ability to communicate orally Climbing (including ladders) Pulling Pushing Walking Standing Crawling Kneeling Bending Balancing Smelling Stooping Jumping Throwing Driving Running Swimming ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS: Hazardous conditions: flames, fire, chemicals, smoke, heat, gases, moving vehicles, falling structures and debris, electricity, poor ventilation, poor lighting and related hazards Stressful situations Bio-hazard infectious disease (Reasonable accommodations will be made for otherwise qualified individuals with a disability.) Because of his educational background in "Radio- Television," Petitioner has, on occasion, been requested by his supervisors to produce video tapes used for firefighter/paramedic training or for educating the public concerning the services offered by the City of Delray Beach Fire Department. The production of these video tapes, however, is not one of Petitioner's primary job duties.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that Respondent is not entitled to the supplemental compensation he is seeking pursuant to Section 633.382(2)(a)2., Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 1997.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (Department or Respondent), should pay Petitioner, Gulf Coast Development Service, Inc.'s (Petitioner or Gulf Coast Development), attorney's fees and costs under section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2012),1/ for initiating Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) Case No. 13-0798.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the following facts set forth in this paragraph: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees and corporate officers. Petitioner, a Florida corporation, was engaged in the Florida construction industry on February 12, 2013. On February 12, 2013, Leida Perez, workers' compensation compliance investigator for the Department (Investigator Perez), commenced an investigation at 577 Gulfshore Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34102 (job site), to determine whether the individuals performing construction industry work at the job site were compliant with the workers' compensation insurance coverage requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Quang Dinh is the owner and corporate officer of Gulf Coast Development. The Department issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment to Petitioner on February 12, 2013. The Department served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation to Petitioner on February 12, 2013. The calculations and the methodology applied by the Department's penalty auditor in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment that was issued to Petitioner by the Department on February 27, 2013, and revoked on May 3, 2013, are not in dispute. Petitioner does not owe any Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to the Department. Bob Simat, drywall supervisor for Advantage Plastering and Finish Carpentry, contacted Gilberto Zepeda directly to perform the drywall operations at the job site. Mr. Simat was under the impression that Mr. Zepeda and his brother both worked for Gulf Coast Development. Discovery in this matter concluded on April 29, 2013, when the Department received check images from Petitioner's bank account. The Department issued and served an Order Releasing Stop-Work Order (Revocation) to Petitioner on May 3, 2013. Petitioner is a bona fide "small business" and incurred legal fees and costs for this action. The Department revoked the February 12, 2013, Stop-Work Order, and, therefore, Petitioner is the prevailing party in the underlying action within the meaning of section 57.111(3)(c). On February 12, 2013, when Investigator Perez arrived at the job site, she observed Gilberto and Enrique Zepeda (Zepedas) performing drywall finishing work. Upon inquiry, the Zepedas informed Investigator Perez that they were performing the drywall finishing work for their employer, Gulf Coast Development, and provided her with Quang Dinh's cellular phone number. As previously noted, Investigator Perez is an investigator with the Department's Division of Workers' Compensation. When Investigator Perez arrived at the job site on February 12, 2013, a representative from the Department's Division of Insurance Fraud (Fraud Unit) was also present. In the presence of Investigator Perez, the representative from the Fraud Unit received from the Zepedas the same information that they provided to Investigator Perez regarding their employment status with Gulf Coast Development. While meeting with Investigator Perez and the representative from the Fraud Unit, the Zepedas memorialized their verbal statements by each executing an affidavit, and affirmatively stating therein that they were employed by Petitioner. Soon after receiving Mr. Dinh's phone number from the Zepedas, Investigator Perez phoned Mr. Dinh. When Mr. Dinh answered his phone, Investigator Perez identified herself and explained that she was with the Zepeda brothers. During the conversation with Mr. Dinh, Investigator Perez asked whom he used for workers' compensation coverage. Mr. Dinh replied "I am working on it," and the phone was disconnected. Investigator Perez immediately placed a second call to Mr. Dinh, and it was during this conversation that Mr. Dinh agreed to meet her at the job site. After speaking with Mr. Dinh, Investigator Perez contacted Advantage Plastering, a contractor at the job site, who informed her that they had hired Petitioner to perform the drywall finishing work. Following her conversation with the representative from Advantage Plastering, Investigator Perez, through the use of her mobile personal computer, searched the Department of State, Division of Corporations', website database (Sunbiz) for information on Gulf Coast Development. The information found on Sunbiz showed that Petitioner had been an active Florida corporation since May 9, 2007, that 27614 Imperial Shore Boulevard, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134, was the company's principal address, and that Quang Dinh was president of the corporation. Next, Investigator Perez checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) for information on proof of coverage and exemptions for Petitioner. CCAS revealed that Petitioner did not have any active coverage, but did have an exemption for Mr. Dinh. An exemption is a method by which a particular corporate officer can become exempt from the requirement to obtain workers' compensation insurance coverage, as authorized by section 440.05, Florida Statutes. When Mr. Dinh arrived at the job site, Investigator Perez again asked him about the company's current workers' compensation coverage, to which Mr. Dinh again replied, "I am working on it." Mr. Dinh then gave Investigator Perez a folder containing a blank application for workers' compensation insurance coverage. Based on her interviews with the Zepedas, Advantage Plastering, and Mr. Dinh, along with the information obtained from Sunbiz and CCAS, Investigator Perez determined that the Zepeda brothers were employed by Petitioner and that the Zepedas were not covered by workers' compensation insurance coverage. Given this information, Investigator Perez issued Petitioner a Stop-Work Order. Mr. Dinh testified that when he arrived at the job site, he informed Investigator Perez that the Zepedas were not his employees. Even if Mr. Dinh informed Investigator Perez that the Zepedas were not employees of Gulf Coast Development, his assertion was insufficient to negate the verbal and sworn statements given to Investigator Perez by the Zepedas and, moreover, conflicted with his previous statements to Investigator Perez that he was "working on" getting workers' compensation coverage for the Zepedas. In March 2013, the Zepedas recanted their earlier statements that they were employed by Gulf Coast Development. On May 3, 2013, Respondent issued an Order Releasing Stop-Work Order (Revocation). The facts uncovered in Investigator Perez's investigation on February 12, 2013, provided the Department with a reasonable basis to issue the Stop-Work Order to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Vernon St. Charles is a radio teletype operator I with the Florida Highway Patrol and is a career service employee with appeal rights with the Career Service Commission. On or about November 1, 1977, St. Charles was the radio teletype operator on duty at the Florida Highway Patrol Tampa District Office. While he was on duty, an accident occurred involving a young child. St. Charles dispatched a Florida Highway Patrol trooper to the scene of the accident who reported that the child was very seriously injured. The trooper requested a homicide investigator be dispatched which St. Charles did. G. Ronald Stroud is a sergeant with the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department assigned the duty of investigating accidents involving school-age children as a part of the Department's safety program. Sergeant Stroud received notification from the radio dispatcher of the sheriff's department that an accident had occurred near a school involving a child which Florida Highway Patrol Units were investigating. Sergeant Stroud called the Florida Highway Patrol District Office and spoke with St. Charles. Sergeant Stroud identified himself and asked about the accident and how old the child was to determine whether he should follow up the accident for the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department. St. Charles had received calls from the medical examiner's office, the U.S. Post Office, whose vehicle was involved in the accident, and Sergeant Stroud from the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department. At the hearing, St. Charles was uncertain which call had been Stroud's; however, St. Charles explained that he had tried to contact troopers at the scene to get additional information and that they were away from their vehicles. St. Charles did not have the information requested by Sergeant Stroud and therefore referred him to the hospital where they had taken the child. Sergeant Stroud identified Exhibit 2, a complaint letter he had written to Lieutenant Lowman of the Florida Highway Patrol. Stroud stated in the letter that an unknown male dispatcher, later determined to be St. Charles, had told Stroud that "He wasn't really concerned how old the child was and that if I (Stroud) wanted to know I could call the Brandon Hospital." At the hearing, Sergeant Stroud reconfirmed his recollection of St. Charles' comments to him. Without regard to the exact language used by St. Charles, it is clear that St. Charles did not provide Sergeant Stroud with the information which he sought and did not explain the existing situation which prevented him from giving Stroud the information. The position of radio teletype operator is an important one because the operator is responsible to transmit calls to and from the troopers by radio, perform certain law enforcement checks for the troopers by telephone or teletype, and respond to telephone calls from the public and other law enforcement agencies. The radio teletype operator's duties contribute to the overall enforcement effort of the Florida Highway Patrol and to the relationship of the Florida Highway Patrol with the public and other law enforcement agencies. This requires that the radio teletype operator perform his duty in a professional manner, using good personal judgment and diplomacy. St. Charles had been counseled previously about the manner in which he conducted his duties which at times bordered upon rudeness. St. Charles explained that he spoke loudly and in short sentences because his mother had been deaf and that in the pressure situations which sometimes developed, his manner of speech and abruptness might appear to be discourteous and rude to those with whom he was speaking.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer finds that the agency took the disciplinary action for good cause and therefore should be sustained. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. St. Charles 1401 North Forbes Road Plant City, Florida 33566 Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator, CSC 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Edwin Strickland, Esquire John Whitney, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida Mr. Maurice Helms Personnel Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations of misconduct set forth in a four-count Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint charges the Respondent with violation of the following statutory provisions: Sections 489.129(1)(g), 489.129(1)(h)2, 489.129(1)(k), and 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Allen Fader, is, and has been at all times material, a licensed Certified General Contractor, having been issued license number CG C007504 by the State of Florida. At all times material, the Respondent was licensed to contract as an individual. The Respondent, by virtue of his license, advertised construction services for Gold Coast Construction Services, Inc., during 1997. The Respondent presented a business card, with the name of Gold Coast Construction Services, Inc., to Ruby M. Shepherd, a customer, in April of 1997. On April 14, 1997, the Respondent, doing business as Gold Coast Construction Services, Inc., contracted with Ruby M. Shepherd to enclose a patio and to install hurricane shutters at Ms. Shepherd's residence located at 12325 Northwest 19th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The contract was conditioned on Ms. Shepherd being able to obtain financing to pay for the construction described in the contract. The exact amount Ms. Shepherd was required to pay under the original April 14, 1997, contract cannot be determined from the evidence in this case.4 The Respondent assisted Ms. Shepherd in obtaining a loan for the financing of the construction work described in the contract. It took several months to obtain a loan. Ultimately, through the efforts of the Respondent, and of a person engaged by the Respondent to help obtain a loan, Ms. Shepherd received a loan through Town and Country Title Guaranty and Escrow. The check from Town and Country Title Guaranty and Escrow was in the amount of twelve thousand nine hundred seventy-nine dollars and fifteen cents ($12,979.15). The check was made payable to Ms. Shepherd and to Gold Coast Construction Services, Inc. At the request of the man who helped obtain the loan, Ms. Shepherd endorsed the loan check and agreed for the check to be delivered to the Respondent. The Respondent, doing business as Gold Coast Construction Services, Inc., negotiated the loan check and received all of the proceeds in the amount of twelve thousand nine hundred seventy-nine dollars and fifteen cents ($12,979.15). The Respondent received the proceeds of the loan on or about September 12, 1997. The Respondent did not take any action on Ms. Shepherd's construction project until November 14, 1997. On that day, the Respondent placed an order for the material for the hurricane shutters on Ms. Shepherd's project. Nothing more was done on Ms. Shepherd's project for quite some time. Towards the end of February of 1998, the Respondent had some health problems, which caused him to be unable to work for several weeks. Eventually, the Respondent attempted to pick up the shutter materials he had ordered for Ms. Shepherd's project. As a result of the delay, those materials had been returned to stock and had been sold to someone else. The Respondent ordered the materials again. Eventually, in June of 1998, the Respondent had the shutter materials delivered to Ms. Shepherd's residence, and began the process of installing the hurricane shutters. In the meantime, from September of 1997 until January of 1998, the Respondent did not contact Ms. Shepherd. During this period of time, Ms. Shepherd called the Respondent's office numerous times and left numerous messages asking the Respondent to return her calls. From September of 1997 until January of 1998, the Respondent did not return any of Ms. Shepherd's calls. In January of 1998, Ms. Shepherd was finally able to speak with the Respondent. From January of 1998 until the installation work began in June of 1998, Ms. Shepherd spoke to the Respondent on numerous occasions in an effort to find out when the Respondent was going to begin work or return the money he had been paid. During this period of time, the Respondent repeatedly made false assurances to Ms. Shepherd that the work would be performed within two weeks. On or about June 12, 1998, the Respondent obtained a building permit for Ms. Shepherd's project from the Miami-Dade Department of Planning, Development, and Regulation. Installation of the hurricane shutters began that same week. The installation process was delayed because some of the materials did not fit and had to be returned to the manufacturer for modifications. Following the modifications, the installation process resumed. After a few more days, the Respondent told Ms. Shepherd the hurricane shutter work was finished and that he was not going to do the patio construction work, because the loan Ms. Shepherd had received was not enough money to pay for both projects. After the Respondent told Ms. Shepherd that the installation of the hurricane shutters was complete, the Respondent never did any further work on Ms. Shepherd's construction project. The hurricane shutters installed at Ms. Shepherd's property by the Respondent were not installed correctly. Several of the hurricane shutters will not open and close properly. Several of the hurricane shutters are insufficiently fastened. A necessary shutter over the storage room door was never installed. The problems with the subject hurricane shutters can be corrected. The cost of the corrections necessary to make the shutters operate properly and to fasten them securely is approximately one thousand dollars ($1,000). The Respondent never called for an inspection of the installation of the hurricane shutters at Ms. Shepherd's residence. In their present condition, those hurricane shutters will not pass inspection, because they were installed improperly. If corrections are made, those hurricane shutters will pass inspection. By reason of the facts stated in paragraphs 12 and 13 above, the Respondent failed to properly and fully complete the hurricane shutter portion of the contracted work. The Respondent never did any work on the patio portion of the contracted work. At some point in time between September of 1997 and June of 1998, Ms. Shepherd and the Respondent agreed to a modification of their original contract due to the fact that the proceeds of the loan obtained by Ms. Shepherd were insufficient to pay for both the hurricane shutters and the enclosure of the patio. The essence of their modified agreement (which was never reduced to writing) was that the Respondent would not do the patio enclosure portion of the contracted work; the Respondent would do the hurricane shutter portion of the contracted work; the Respondent would be paid for the hurricane shutter portion of the contracted work; and any remaining balance of the loan proceeds that had been paid to the Respondent would be paid back to Ms. Shepherd. Implicit, but apparently unstated, in this modified agreement, was the notion that the Respondent would charge a fair price for the hurricane shutter portion of the contracted work. A fair price for the hurricane shutter portion of the contracted work at Ms. Shepherd's residence, including all materials, labor, overhead, and profit, would be approximately four thousand dollars ($4,000).5 The price of four thousand dollars presupposes properly installed hurricane shutters that will pass inspection. As previously mentioned, it will cost approximately one thousand dollars ($1,000) to make the corrections to the subject hurricane shutters which are necessary for the shutters to function properly and pass inspection. Accordingly, the fair value of the work performed by the Respondent at Ms. Shepherd's residence is three thousand dollars ($3,000). Ms. Shepherd has paid $12,979.15 to the Respondent, doing business as Gold Coast Construction Services, Inc. The fair value of the work performed by the Respondent at Ms. Shepherd's residence is $3,000. Therefore, the Respondent has been paid $9,979.15 more than he is entitled to keep. As of the date of the final hearing, the Respondent has not paid back any money to Ms. Shepherd.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case concluding that the Respondent is guilty of the violations charged in each of the four counts of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing the following penalties: For the violation of Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), an administrative fine in the amount of $100.00. For the violation of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000.00. For the violation of Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. For the violation of Section 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00, and placement of the Respondent on probation for a period of one year. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order require the Respondent to pay restitution to Ms. Shepherd in the amount of $9,979.15, and to pay costs of investigation and prosecution in the amount of $266.55. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 1999.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, the Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, (Commission), was and is the state agency responsible for the certification of law enforcement officers in this state. The Respondent, Douglas E. Szczepanik, was and is certified in Florida as a law enforcement officer. Late on the evening of August 22, 1988, Respondent was employed as a police officer with the Delray Beach, Florida, Police Department, (Department). While at the hospital with Officer Eberhart collecting a blood specimen from a third person for use in another police matter, he heard a police radio call relating to the hot pursuit of a felony suspect. He and Eberhart went to the scene of the expected apprehension and found that the suspect had been apprehended after a high speed chase by several police cars including one driven by Officer Thomas A. Whatley. It was subsequently determined that the suspect had lost control of his vehicle, a stolen car, and had ended up abandoning it on the city's municipal golf course adjacent to West Atlantic Avenue. He then ran off on foot across the course with Officer Whatley in pursuit in his police cruiser. The suspect ran up a hill and down the other side. Whatley, surmising that the hill was no more than that, and that the other side of the hill was a down slope, drove up the hill after the suspect at a speed of approximately 45 to 50 mph. As he reached the crest, he found that he was on the lip of a sand trap and since he could not stop, his car became airborne, coming to rest some 25 - 30 feet further along, in the sand trap. Though it did not bear significant outward signs of damage, the vehicle was, in fact rendered inoperable as a result of the impact. Fortunately, the suspect was apprehended by other officers on the scene. As a result of the serious nature of the suspect's alleged crimes, suspected murder of an officer and car theft, many Delray Beach officers were involved in the chase and were, therefore, on the scene at the time of the apprehension and Whatley's vehicular mishap, including his Lieutenant, Woods, and his patrol sergeant, then Sergeant Musco. Lt. Woods directed Sgt. Musco to block traffic on Atlantic Avenue and another officer to get the damaged vehicles towed away. He directed Respondent, then at the scene, to write the traffic accident report relating to Whatley's car. There is some indication that initially Woods did not think a report was necessary, but he ultimately became convinced it was and gave the job to Respondent. Since both Respondent and Eberhart were traffic investigators, Eberhart indicated he would do it and Respondent acquiesced. Respondent and Eberhart both discussed the accident and both developed their own theory as to how it happened. Neither, however, bothered to question Whatley who remained at the scene for some time before being directed to resume patrol, using Respondent's cruiser. Even when that was being set up, Respondent did not question Whatley as to what had happened, speaking to him only to caution him not to lose his keys when he turned them over to him. Based on their examination of the scene on Atlantic Avenue, and without even looking at Whatley's vehicle and where it ended up, Eberhart concluded that the accident occurred when the suspect lost control of his vehicle and ran into Whatley's forcing him to lose control and run up the side of and into the sand trap. Had Eberhart bothered to look at the vehicle, he would have seen no body damage consistent with collision. Eberhart was subsequently convinced by Respondent, who did look at Whatley's vehicle, that an alternative theory, indicating that the suspect lost control of his vehicle and prompted Whatley to lose control of his in an effort to avoid a collision, was what happened. In any event, Respondent claims that later that evening, back at Police Headquarters, he saw Whatley attempting to write out his report. Whatley allegedly asked Respondent for help in writing it since he was relatively new to the force and this was his first accident. Respondent also claims that he merely told Whatley the format for the report and the type of information to put in it. He admits that, as an example of what to say, he told Whatley his theory of the accident. When Whatley indicated that was not how it happened, Respondent allegedly told him, then, to write in what did happen as he, Whatley, recalled it, and he denies suggesting that Whatley use his scenario if it was not correct. Whatley, on the other hand, claims that while they were still at the scene of the accident he talked with Respondent and told him what had happened. Respondent supposedly walked around the wreck and then told Whatley to put in his supplement to the accident report that he had been taking evasive action. When Whatley told him that was not the way it happened, Respondent is alleged to have said that the people "upstairs" wanted police accident reports to reflect no fault on the part of the officers. Whatley claims that Sgt. Musco was present at the time but Musco does not profess to have heard that and Respondent categorically denies that Whatley told him at the scene how the accident occurred or that he went to the sand trap to look at the vehicle. In a statement made to Captain Schrader in November, 1988 as a part of the Internal Affairs investigation, Respondent again denied he spoke with Whatley at the accident scene. No evidence was presented by the Petitioner as to what benefit Respondent would gain or what detriment he would avoid by telling Whatley to falsify his supplement. Musco claims that when he first saw Whatley, he appeared depressed about the incident and Musco told him to write it up as it had happened and not to worry about it because he, Musco, was not worried about the car. When Respondent, who Musco had assigned to write up the report, said he was going to show it had happened when Whatley attempted to avoid an accident, Musco told him to write the report honestly as he had been trained to do, and as Whatley had reported it. Musco did not follow up to see if the report or Whatley's supplement thereto was prepared properly. Since he had assigned the duty to a trained traffic/homicide investigator, (Respondent), he presumed it was done correctly. He knows of no policy to falsify reports of police accidents and in fact has had an accident himself, in which he was at fault, and which was written up accurately. Respondent claims that after he spoke with Whatley at Police headquarters and told him to write the report honestly, he left and met Lt. Woods outside. He told Woods that Eberhart was going to write the accident report and that Whatley was going to write his supplement honestly. Woods reportedly responded that was no good because he had already told everyone it had happened because of Whatley's attempt to evade the suspect's car. Because of that, even though Woods did not give him any instructions to do so, Respondent claims he went back inside and told Whatley to write his supplement the way he remembered it. Respondent claims that at no time did he ever tell Whatley to write a false report. He also claims that he never made the statement attributed to him regarding the people "upstairs." He would have nothing to gain or to lose by convincing Whatley to falsify his supplement. After getting advice from Respondent and from Sgt. Musco, Officer Whatley, for some reason, wrote his supplement indicating he had the accident in an attempt to evade the suspect's out of control vehicle. Whatley cites two meetings with Respondent that evening, as does Respondent, but their stories of what transpired differs radically. Whatley claims that Respondent told him to make sure his supplement conformed to what was in Eberhart's report. He did, and when he gave it to Lt. Woods to read, Woods rejected it because it was false and Woods knew it to be false. Woods then told him to hold off on the supplement and about a week later, Whatley was told by Captain Cole to write another supplement which was accurate. Respondent, on the other hand, claims he had little contact with Whatley at the scene of the mishap and denies any direct conversation with him about the accident. All he said, he claims, was, "it doesn't look too bad." Respondent asserts that at no time did Whatley tell him how the accident occurred. Later that evening, when, at the station he saw Whatley writing his report, Whatley asked him for advice as to how to construct and what to put into his supplemental report. Respondent claims he told Whatley to go back and tell the story as it happened. He admits to telling Whatley how he felt the accident occurred but when Whatley said that was not how it was, Respondent again told him to write it as it happened. This whole conversation took no more than a minute or a minute and a half. The only direction he gave Whatley was as to the format of the supplement, not the substance, other than that it be the truth. When, a few minutes later, Respondent saw Woods and told him that Whatley was having trouble, Woods told Respondent how he felt the accident had occurred. At that time, Woods gave Respondent no directions, but Respondent went back into the station and again told Whatley to write up his supplement the way he, Whatley, recalled the accident happening. The following day, according to Respondent, Woods pulled him aside and told him he had just spoken to Major Lincoln who said the report was to be written as Respondent had originally said the accident had occurred, incorrectly. At no time did Respondent speak directly with Lincoln about the accident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case by the Commission dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 17th day of January, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, regarding the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner in this proceeding. FOR THE PETITIONER: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 14. Not phrased as Findings of Fact but more as restatements of testimony. However, the substance of the restatements is correctly stated and has been accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19. - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein as an accurate recitation of Whatley's story. 24. & 25. Again, not phrased as Findings of Fact. Here, however, the substance of Whatley's statement is rejected as not proven. 26. & 27. Rejected as not supported by evidence of record. - 30. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Whatley and Respondent did meet at the station that evening, but the allegation that Respondent told Whatley to falsify his report is not supported by credible evidence. & 34. These are restatements of testimony but are accepted. 35. - 37. An accurate restatement of the testimony, but the testimony is rejected as unsupported. Even Lincoln denied making the statement. 38. - 40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41. - 43. Accepted and incorporated herein. 44. & 45. Accepted as accurate recitations of the testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney Gaddy, Esquire Michael R. Ramage, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles Salerno, Esquire 242 Plaza Office P.O. Box 1349 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long Director CJSTC Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue By this action Petitioner seeks to recover costs, expenses and damages associated with state response to an oil spill incident occurring February 26, 1987, within three miles of the Florida shoreline. Respondent's vessel was responsible for that spill. In particular the costs, expenses and damages claimed are related to salaries, per diem allowances, Federal Express charges, beach sand replacement, equipment, use of a cellular phone, and consulting work at the shore and off site. Petitioner also seeks damages for bird mortality resulting from the spill. See Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 16N- 16, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact On the evening of February 26, 1987, the motor vessel Fernpassat struck the south jetty at the entrance to the St. Johns River at a location within three miles of the Florida shoreline. In doing so it ruptured the hull and spilled a substantial amount of heavy fuel oil. The type of the oil was No. 5 or 6 Bunker C. A preliminary estimate placed the amount of oil in excess of 100,000 gallons. While the true amount may have been somewhat less, it was a significant spill in that it substantially threatened the public's welfare and the environment and generated wide public interest. Petitioner's exhibit 3 is a map which depicts the basic location where the vessel collided with the jetty with an "X" mark. The area impacted by the discharge ran from roughly Atlantic Beach, Florida, to Guana State Park in St. Augustine, Florida. This is approximately 25 miles of beach front. Beach property over which Petitioner has regulatory and proprietary responsibility had oil deposited upon it. The oil spill killed or injured a number of birds. The event was responded to by the "Federal Region IV Regional Response Team" (RRT). The federal on-scene coordinator (OSC) was Captain Matthew Woods, U.S. Coast Guard. The RRT, through management and control provided by the OSC, took necessary steps to combat the effects of the spill. Respondent immediately accepted responsibility for the cleanup through the use of a consultant and cleanup contractor. Under this arrangement the OSC monitored the contractor's cleanup efforts to make certain that the job was done satisfactorily. Florida officials were part of the RRT. Rule 16N-16.009(21), Florida Administrative Code, calls for personnel from Petitioner; the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER); and the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to represent state interests as members of the RRT. Each of these agencies participated as members of the RRT. This furthered the legislative intent expressed at Section 376.021(6), Florida Statutes, to support the RRT through implementation of the "Federal Water Pollution Control Act," which is also known as the "Clean Water Act," 33 U.S.C. ss. 1251-1376. By its efforts the RRT promoted the removal of the oil in accordance with a national contingency plan. Pursuant to Section 376.021(6), Florida Statutes, the state is expected to complement applicable provisions within the "Federal Water Pollution Control Act" as well as render the support previously described. Both the support and complementary functions of the state are part of Florida's "Pollutant Spill and Prevention Control Act," Sections 376.011-376.17, 376.19-376.21, Florida Statutes. Chapters 16N-16, Florida Administrative Code, more completely identifies the role played by the state agencies in this instance. This chapter was adopted pursuant to authority set out in Section 376.07, Florida Statutes, which, among other things, empowered Petitioner to make rules which developed and implemented criteria and plans to respond to spills such as the one at issue. In its complementary role the state has established a "State Response Team" (SRT). This organization in defined at Rule 16N-16.009(13), Florida Administrative Code. It is constituted of predesignated state agencies available continually to respond to a major spill. This incident was a major spill or discharge as defined in Rule 16N-16.009(18), Florida Administrative Code. The predesignated state agencies, pursuant to the rule defining the SRT and Section 376.07(2)(e), Florida Statutes, act independently of the federal authorities, although they are expected to cooperate with the federal authorities in the efforts at cleanup. What that meant here is that notwithstanding the concerns which Captain Woods had and the state participation in the RRT through Petitioner, DER and DCA, there was a parallel function by the SRT which had its own mandate. This allowed the SRT to pursue an independent agenda in the spirit of cooperation with the OSC in an attempt to protect the resources over which the state has jurisdiction, including the beach front and birds. Both Captain Woods and the consultant to the spiller, James L. O'Brien, who is a man of considerable credentials in giving advice about oil spill problems, expressed their understanding of the interests which the state might have in carrying out its functions and did not find that reality a hindrance in performing their duties. As a result, even though state employees and equipment and consultants to the state had limited utility for the OSC and the consultant to the spiller in carrying out their duties, it does not follow that claims by the state for reimbursement in categories set out in the statement of issues must fail unless found to support the OSC or spiller's choice in attempts at cleanup. The question is whether the costs, expenses and damages are reasonably related to support for the RRT or complementary of that function through the SRT and owed or expended from the Florida Coastal Protection Trust Fund (Fund) for recoverable items. See Section 376.11, Florida Statutes. Petitioner's exhibit 15 is a copy of the state contingency plan. See Section 376.07(2)(e), Florida Statutes. It identifies the membership of Petitioner, DER and DCA. Other claimants for costs, expenses, and damages who were involved in the response to this incident as predesignated agencies are the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (Commission), the State of Florida, Department of Transportation (DOT), and the Attorney General. The state contingency plan explains the operational responsibilities of state agencies when responding to the incident. This is a more specific reference to those responsibilities as envisioned by the general guidelines announced in the "Pollution Spill Prevention and Control Act." Having considered the testimony and exhibits in the context of the state support and complementary role in responding to the spill contemplated by the aforementioned laws, regulations and contingency plans, the costs, expenses and damages sought by the Petitioner are reasonably related to those purposes. Those costs, expenses and damages are detailed in Petitioner's exhibit 16 and summarized in Petitioner's exhibits 8 and 9. With the exception of $15,654.37 in costs and expenses for Petitioner's Executive Office and Division of Law Enforcement and $3,336.16 for salaries for the Commission, DOT and DCA, all claims for expenses and costs have been paid from the Fund. Petitioner wishes to impose the costs, expenses and damages in the state response whether or not claims were disbursed from the Fund. The damage claim associated with future beach re-nourishment by replacement of sand that had been befouled by oil and needed to be removed is a reasonable claim in the amount of $10,222.50. It has been paid from the Fund and is held in the Erosion Control Trust Fund until needed. The on-scene consulting fee of $3,525.00 and the oil spill assessment study fee of $9,880.00 commissioned by Petitioner through Jacksonville University are reasonably related to the Department's role in response to the spill. As Petitioner's exhibit 8 depicts, $30,312.53 has been disbursed from the Fund in costs, expenses and damages reasonably related to the response to the spill. There remains unpaid from the Fund the aforementioned costs and expenses in the amount of $18,990.53 which are reasonably related to the response to the spill. Those latter amounts, although presented for payment from the Fund by the agencies in question, were not paid, based upon some fiscal anomaly. By inference, it does not appear from this record that the Fund owes the agencies for these claims. According to Section 376.13, Florida Statutes, on February 27, 1987, Governor Martinez declared a state of emergency in response to the oil spill. That proclamation was withdrawn on March 25, 1987. The activities for which claims for costs and expenses are advanced transpired in the time frame of the state of emergency declaration. The amount which Respondent has expended in the cleanup effort is $700,000 plus or minus $200,000. None of this money has been paid to satisfy claims for costs, expenses and damages previously described. While it has been found that costs, expenses, and damages are reasonably related to the state's purposes in responding to the spill, not all items are recoverable. They are only recoverable if recognized for recovery by Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 16N-16, Florida Administrative Code, and owed or expended from the Fund. Petitioner's claims in its exhibit 8 in the amount of $12,901.30 and DOT claims for $675.19 in that exhibit qualify for recovery as well as the on-scene consulting fee of $3,525.00. Other claims do not qualify with the exception of a limited recovery for bird mortality. Reasons for this fact finding are set forth in the conclusions of law. Petitioner has disbursed $176,058.00 to the Commission for damages related to alleged bird mortality. This money was disbursed from the Fund. Petitioner now concedes that the amount should be reduced by half. This recognizes that the cost estimate for damages dealt with pairs of birds not single birds. Petitioner now asks for $88,075.00. Two hundred fourteen (214) birds are said to have died as a result of the spill, according to Petitioner. Petitioner seeks damages for each of these birds. The number proven to have been killed by the event and the theory upon which the damage claim is predicated leads to a result which diminishes the claim for reasons to be explained. As with other claims, Section 376.021.(4)(c), Florida Statutes, anticipates the payment of damages from the Fund. Section 376.11(1), Florida Statutes, is in aid of recovery of damages, as is Section 376.11(4)(d), Florida Statutes. However, these claims must be susceptible to proof that readily identifies and explains valuation methods of the birds and recognizes the predicate of establishing the actual number lost in this episode. For the most part, Petitioner has failed in the endeavor. Mark Damian Duda is a wildlife biologist with the Commission. He earned a bachelor of science degree from West Virginia University and received his master's degree in natural resource policy and planning from Yale University, both with honors. He was assigned the task of trying to arrive at an acceptable method for valuing birds that had been killed. His assessment is generally set forth in a report, a copy of which is Respondent's exhibit 3. Having considered a number of options, he reached the decision to employ what he describes as the replacement value method. Quoting from his report concerning this method, he has this to say: Replacement Value Method We believe the replacement value method is the most useful and logical method to determine the value of wildlife lost in the February 27 Jacksonville oil spill. A replacement cost approach can avoid many of the problems involved in attempting to estimate the use of value of biological resources. Under the replacement cost approach, the resource is valued at what it would cost to replace it. If the resource is replaced, the problems of identifying all its uses, the monetary value of these uses, and the users affected by the resource loss are eliminated, except for the period between the initial loss and the replacement. Four Florida institutions were asked to estimate the cost of obtaining specimens of the birds killed in the Jacksonville oil spill, or the price at which they would be willing to sell members of each species. Their estimates are shown in Table 4. One problem with most of these estimates is that they are not true replacements costs; but rather the cost of collecting already existing specimens from the wild and redistributing them to the Jacksonville Area. This does not represent true replacement, since true replacement requires a complete recovery of the species population. This can be most clearly assured by using only captive breeding programs for replacement. However, many of the species in this list probably cannot be bred in captivity. Therefore, true replacement of these species through captive breeding is probably impossible. It is absurd to value them at zero since they cannot be replaced. Therefore, this section presents some calculations on the assumption that they could be redistributed or replaced. Table 1 presents the replacement costs for the birds. The numbers were derived by multiplying the number of dead birds times the average replacement costs given in Table 4. Using this approach, the total replacement costs for the birds estimated to have been killed in the Jacksonville oil spill is $176,058.00. It should be noted that we use a deliberately conservative approach, using body counts only, and thereby underestimating the total mortality. There is an increasing amount of scientific literature indicating that actual body counts appear to significantly underestimate the total mortality resulting from a spill. For example, there have been a variety of experiments that show only 5 percent to 25 percent of the birds that die at sea, wash in or beach themselves on shore. The percent of loons found is probably even lower because of their low buoyancy and wide-ranging distribution. An alternative approach to estimating replacement costs is to estimate the cost of creating new habitat or enhancing existing habitat to support enough nesting pairs of each species to replenish the population. Again, to represent true replacement costs, this should be new or enhances habitat, not just the cost of acquiring already existing habitat. Tables 1 and 4 within Respondent's exhibit 3 are replicated here for convenience as Appendix 2 and Appendix 3, respectively. The numbers of birds shown in Duda's table are not numbers about which he has direct knowledge. They are numbers purportedly obtained from Tim O'Meara and Peter Southall, biologists who work for the Commission who got their information from the Central Region and Northeast Region, respectively. In particular, they allegedly received their information from rehabilitators working in the two regions. Neither biologist testified at hearing, and the exhibits do not satisfactorily establish what involvement the biologists had in a direct inventory of birds, if any, or the other sources of their information which was then given to Duda in preparing his report. The rehabilitators in the Central Region did not testify nor were any exhibits presented which spoke to records kept by those individuals that set out bird deaths in that area. The only person who presented any reliable information concerning bird mortality was Cindy Mosling, rehabilitator in the Northeast Region. Any records which she maintained were not produced at hearing. Nonetheless, she did remember some details concerning bird mortality, and from this testimony 56 common loons, 3 gannets, 1 black skimmer and 2 hooded mergansers are found to have died as a result of the oil spill. The replacement value method by Duda speaks to the fact that his method does not constitute a complete recovery of the species population. Instead, what is shown in Respondent's exhibit 3 is averaging of estimates from Table 4 on costs for collecting existing specimens from the wild and releasing them back to the Jacksonville area after a period as opposed to a captive breeding program. That explanation is not correct, either, because there is no intention to release birds to the wild after raising them or rehabilitating them in captivity in one of the Florida institutions mentioned in Table 4. Moreover, only one of those programs has been relied upon by Petitioner in arriving at a cost estimate. That program is Sea World. As a consequence, the cost analysis in Table 1 related to hooded mergansers is incorrect in that it reflects an average of $150 and not the $200 quoted by Sea world. Again, the prices reflect pairs and not single birds. Robin Friday is the curator from Sea World who supplied cost estimates for pairs in Table 4 to Respondent's exhibit 3. He arrived at his price estimates in a 15 to 20 minute telephone conversation with Duda. To the extent he had no actual experience with price lists reflecting cost of a specie, he assumed that theoretical permits would be issued to collect live birds or eggs in the wild and that he would keep them in a captive environment, hoping they would breed while in captivity. In the latter category, the costs to promote the outcome of breeding in captivity formed his estimate. It can be seen that this departs from Duda's method for valuation. Notwithstanding this fact, Duda relied upon the price quotation by Friday. The main species of birds which Friday has had experience with are waterfowl. Of the species which have been verified as lost in this incident, he had had experience with common loons and hooded mergansers. The hooded merganser is a waterfowl with which he has close experience in breeding, acquisition and disposition. The common loon is a shore bird. In his career he has worked to rehabilitate two or three of those birds. He has had no experience with gannets and black skimmers, which are shore birds. As Friday identified, waterfowl may be sold, shore birds may not. Sale of the shore birds is prohibited by law. His price quotes for the hooded mergansers are from actual experience in sales. His quotations on the other species are matters of conjecture in collecting, housing, feeding and establishing a breeding program for them based upon limited experience in rehabilitating common loons and no experience with gannets and the black skimmer. The price estimate on the hooded merganser of $100 per bird is accepted. The price estimates for common loons, gannets and black skimmers are not. They are too speculative. Jean Benchinol is a curator in Gulf Breeze, Florida, who works for Animal Park, Inc. She testified at hearing. She was presented as a witness who could corroborate the Friday opinion on bird valuation. Her cost estimates may be found as Petitioner's exhibit 14, quotes for single birds. She has had direct involvement with hooded mergansers. She has sold those birds and quoted the price at hearing as being $100. This coincides with the price per bird quoted by Friday. For other birds in her price estimates that cannot be bought and sold and that remain at issue here, that is, common loons, gannets and the black skimmer, she categorized them as capable of surviving in captivity or not. The black skimmers can live in captivity and the common loon and gannet cannot, according to the witness. She had had a common loon in captivity before and noted that it did not do well, being more receptive to northern climes. At hearing her opinion about birds that could not survive in the Florida environment was rejected. In this final analysis, that refers to the common loons and gannets. Likewise, having considered her explanation concerning her valuation for the black skimmer, that opinion is rejected. In rejecting this method, the cross examination at hearing concerning valuation for the royal tern was significant in that it pointed out the inexact and unreliable nature of the method. This method contemplated receiving a live bird in her facility and the costs for medication, housing, feeding and staff time for approximately 60 days. In summary, on the subject of bird mortality, there is no inherent prohibition against valuation; birds do have a value that can be measured in monetary terms. Here the effort to arrive at that understanding fails in the inventory of casualties and method of valuation, with a limited exception. It is also observed that the Respondent had paid the rehabilitators to house, feed and nurse birds back to health that were injured, a similar activity to the theoretical exercise envisioned by Duda, Friday and Benchinol.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which requires the Respondent to reimburse the Fund in the amount of $17,301.58 and dismisses all other charges against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX 1 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties. Petitioner's Facts Paragraphs 1 and 2 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 3 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 4 and 5 are subordinate to facts found. The first two sentences of Paragraph 6 are subordinate to facts found. The last two sentences are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 7 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 8 is subordinate to facts found. The first two sentences of Paragraph 9 are subordinate to facts found. While it is agreed that the correspondence from Petitioner to Respondent did not indicate that claims for costs and expenses were only subject to collection if paid from the Florida Coastal Protection Trust Fund, in the administrative forum recoupment of costs, expenses and damages may only be permitted for monies owed or expended from the fund. Paragraphs 10-13 are subordinate to facts found. It is acknowledged as set forth in Paragraph 14 that money was transferred from Coastal Protection Trust Fund to the Erosion Control Trust Fund for future beach renourishment. The more relevant fact is whether the claim for damages of value under the renourishment is legitimate and that determination has been made favoring the Petitioner. The concept of using the funds that are being held for purposes of future renourishment is in keeping with a reasonable disposition of the damage claim. Paragraphs 15-24 are subordinate to facts found. The first sentence to Paragraph 25 is contrary to facts found. The second sentence is subordinate to facts found. The third sentence is an accurate statement of what Table 1 contributes but the findings in that table are rejected in part. The first sentence to Paragraph 26 is subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is accepted in the sense of recognizing that a list was maintained; however, that list was not produced at hearing as an aide in determining the number of birds that were killed. The third sentence is rejected. The fourth and fifth sentences are knowledged and those underlying facts were taken into account in accepting the representations by the witness Mosling concerning the number of birds that died as a result of the oil spill which she could recall. Paragraph 27 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 28 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 29 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. The first sentence to Paragraph 30 is subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. The first sentence to Paragraph 31 is subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is accepted with the exception that certain categories of water fowl are bought and sold in the free market. Concerning the third sentence, while it is acknowledged that curators are the better persons to attempt valuation, they must have sufficient understanding of the varieties on which they are commenting to have their opinions accepted and their methods of analysis of costs must stand scrutiny. This was not achieved in this instance. The last sentence in Paragraph 31 is not accepted in that the replacement value method was not adequately explained and does not allow a ranking of whether it is inexpensive, or cheaper or some where in the middle. Paragraph 32 is subordinate to facts found. The first sentence to Paragraph 33 is subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is subordinate to facts found as it references hooded mergansers. The other references are to species which have not been found to have been lost to the spill. The last sentence is accepted in the sense that the remaining species have limitations placed upon their use by state and federal law which prohibits the buying and selling. Paragraph 34 in its reference to the cost of hooded mergansers is accepted. The balance of the information was not utilized in that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that other species had been lost to the spill. In Paragraph 35 of the species that testimony was presented about, only the common loon, gannets and black skimmer pertain. While it is acknowledged that the method that the witness Friday used to estimate the value of those species is an accurate portrayal of his efforts, those efforts were rejected as were those of Ms. Benchinol described in Paragraph 36. In Paragraph 36 the explanation of her methods is correct. The methods were not accepted either in support of the testimony by Friday or in her own right. There is no significance to the discussion concerning the brown pelican and inadequate proof was made that the brown pelicans were lost. Respondent's Facts The first sentence to Paragraphs 1 is subordinate to facts found. The last two sentences are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. As to Paragraph 2, it is acknowledged that Mr. Healey served as the liaison to the RRT and OSC. In the second sentence to that paragraph it is accepted that the state supports the RRT. It also has the function to compliment the RRT and to act independent of the federal response. The first sentence to Paragraph 3 is subordinate to facts found. The second and third sentences are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. The fourth and fifth sentences are subordinate to facts found. While Paragraph 4 accurately describes the circumstance, this did not deter the state from pursuing its independent function in responding to the spill event. Paragraph 5 accurately portrays the OCS's idea of who was necessary to support the federal response. It does not preclude the activities of other state employees in carrying out their functions. Paragraph 6 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 7 is a correct statement but does not preclude the state's efforts in its own right at responding to the spill. Paragraph 8 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 9 while an accurate portrayal does not preclude the state in its efforts. The same pertains to Paragraph 10. Paragraph 11 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 12 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 13 is contrary to facts found as is Paragraph 14. Paragraph 15 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 16 is not relevant. Paragraph 17 is an accurate portrayal of the federal use of the state helicopter but does not preclude request for reimbursement for uses which the state had of that helicopter. Paragraph 18 is subordinate to facts found. The first two sentences within Paragraph 19 are subordinate to facts found. The third and fourth sentences are not relevant to the issue of whether the state was entitled to seek the assistance or Jacksonville University for its own purposes distinct from those of the federal response. The latter sentence is a correct portrayal of the outcome but for reasons different than contemplated by the Respondent. Paragraph 20 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 21 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 22 is subordinate to facts found in its first two sentences. The third sentence is not accepted beyond the fact that the Department of Interior using a nonconsumptive use technique, whether other federal agencies use that method was not subject to determination from the record. The first three sentences to Paragraph 23 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. The fourth sentence is not accepted. The fifth and sixth sentences are subordinate to facts found. As to the seventh sentence, it is not clear that there was the intention of redistributing to the Jacksonville area. The eighth sentence is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 24 is subordinate to facts found as are Paragraphs 25 and 26. The suggestion of the price for hooded mergansers as set out in Paragraph 27 is not accepted. The lesser scaup was not found to have been lost to the spill. The state price of $100.00 per bird for hooded mergansers is accepted. Paragraphs 28-31 are subordinate to facts found as it pertains to the species that were proven to have been lost. Paragraph 32 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 33 and 34 are subordinate to facts found, with the exception that it has been determined that the number of dead birds which Ms. Mosling can recall involvement with is accepted. Paragraphs 35 through 37 are subordinate to facts found in the species determined to have been lost, with the exception that the actual price for hooded mergansers was $100. COPIES FURNISHED: Tom Gardner, Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 Kenneth J. Plante, General Counsel Lynn M. Finnegan, Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 Robert B. Parrish, Esquire James F. Moody, Jr., Esquire Taylor, Moseley & Joyner 501 West Bay Street Jacksonville, FL 32202
