3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION1 

Claim Number: UCGP922019-URC001 

Claimant: Gateway Marina, LLC

Type of Claimant: Small Business Owner

Type of Claim: Removal and Loss of Profits 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $181,174.00 

Action Taken: Denied

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

On February 14, 2022, the National Response Center (NRC) notified United States Coast Guard 

(USCG) Sector St. Petersburg Incident Management Division (IMD) that the recreational vessel, 

CHEROKEE, caught fire while docked at Gateway Marina in Suwannee, Florida, and discharged an 

unknown quantity and type of oil into the Suwannee River, a navigable waterway of the United States.2

 

In its role as Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSCR), Sector St. Petersburg conducted a telephone 

investigation with Gateway Marina personnel and the Oil Spill Response Organization (OSRO), Warren 

Environmental (Warren).

3

 On February 15, 2022, the FOSCR issued a Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) 

to Mr. and generated an enforcement summary on March 30, 2022.4

 

 

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA),5

 Mr. , the owner and 

operator6 of the vessel CHEROKEE, was identified as a potential responsible party (RP).7

 Mr. 

asserted that he did not have pollution insurance coverage for his vessel and could not pay for the cleanup 

costs.8

 

On February 14, 2022, Dixie County Fire & Rescue responded to the fire at 0413 local time and 

extinguished the fire within the hour.9

 Gateway Marina hired Warren to provide removal activities. 

On September 29, 2022, the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) received Gateway Marina’s 

claim submission for $181,174.00. Gateway Marina sought $161,174.00 in removal costs and $20,000 in 

loss of profits and earning capacity.10 Later, on October 24, 2022, Gateway Marina sent an invoice to the 

1 This determination is written for the sole purpose of adjudicating a claim against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 

(OSLTF). This determination adjudicates whether the claimant is entitled to OSLTF reimbursement of claimed 

removal costs or damages under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This determination does not adjudicate any rights or 

defenses any Responsible Party or Guarantor may have or may otherwise be able to raise in any future litigation or 

administrative actions, to include a lawsuit or other action initiated by the United States to recover the costs 

associated this incident. After a claim has been paid, the OSLTF becomes subrogated to all of the claimant’s rights 

under 33 U.S.C. § 2715. When seeking to recover from a Responsible Party or a Guarantor any amounts paid to 

reimburse a claim, the OSLTF relies on the claimant’s rights to establish liability. If a Responsible Party or 

Guarantor has any right to a defense to liability, those rights can be asserted against the OSLTF. Thus, this 

determination does not affect any rights held by a Responsible Party or a Guarantor. 2 NRC Report Numbers 1328935 and 1329036. 3 USCG Sector St. Petersburg Pollution Responder Statement dated March 28, 2022. 4 See, Notice of Federal Interest dated February 15, 2022, and Enforcement Summary dated March 30, 2022. 5 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32).

6 See, Dixie County Fire & Rescue Fire Investigation Report Case # 22F00118 dated February 14, 2022. See also, 

Email from RP to NPFC regarding the boat fire and his loss dated October 15, 2022. 7 USCG Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) dated February 15, 2022. 8 Statement by RP indicating that he cannot pay for cleanup dated March 28, 2022. 9 Dixie County Fire & Rescue Fire Investigation Case Report # 22F00118 dated February 14, 2022. 10 See, Optional OSLTF Claim Form dated September 19, 2022.

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
4

NPFC that outlined the nature of its costs in the amount of $178,493.57 which included a reference to 

“Misc. Invoices/loss of revenew (sic).”11 

Before it adjudicated the claim, the NPFC notified the claimant that the claimed costs had not yet 

been presented to the RP as required by law. 12 On December 19, 2022, Gateway Marina presented their 

costs to the RP.13 Additionally, on multiple occasions during this period, the NPFC notified the claimant 

that it was required to submit documentation to evidence that it actually incurred the costs in their 

submission.14 Despite these requests, the claimant did not provide any documentation to the NPFC 

supporting its claimed costs. 

The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all documentation that was submitted with the claim, analyzed 

the applicable law and regulations, and after careful consideration, has determined that the claim must be 

denied because the claimant has not provided sufficient evidence proving it incurred any of the costs that 

are subject of this claim.15 

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS

Incident

At approximately 2:00 a.m. on February 14, 2022, an anonymous caller notified the NRC that a

recreational vessel docked in the marina caught fire and released an unknown quantity and type of oil into 

Gateway marina’s waterway, which created a rainbow sheen. The caller also reported that the release 

caused a strong petroleum odor in the neighborhood.16 On February 16, 2022, a second caller contacted 

the NRC reporting a vessel that caught fire and discharged an unknown quantity and type of oils into the 

Suwannee River.17 

Dixie County Fire & Rescue responded to the boat fire and extinguished it on February 14, 2022 at 

5:00 a.m. Dixie County HAZMAT crews deployed containment buoys to control fuel and oil 

displacement. At the time of the fire, the CHEROKEE contained 50 gallons of fuel in its tanks and the 

amount of fuel that was recovered from the tanks, after the fire was extinguished, was estimated to be 35 

gallons.18 The CHEROKEE also had two (2) five-gallon plastic fuel containers that were full at the time 

of recovery.19

The CHEROKEE’s upper and main decks were consumed by fire. The fire direction was from the 

centerline outward towards bow and stern. The wheelhouse deck collapsed onto the main deck.20 

Responsible Party 

11 The amount of loss of profits or earning capacity was not clearly articulated in the invoice submitted. However, 

the NPFC adjudicated the request for loss of profits or earning capacity and it is denied based on the claimant’s 

inability to meet the elements required to claim these damages as explained later in the determination. 12 33 U.S.C. § 2713(a). See, Email from NPFC to Ms. and Mr. dated December 15, 2022. 13 Gateway Marina, LLC Demand for Payment letter with invoice # 2022 dated December 15, 2022. 14 See, various emails from NPFC to Claimant seeking evidence that it incurred the costs claimed in its submission. 15 33 CFR 136.105(a); 33 CFR 136.105(e)(6); 33 CFR 136(e)(13). 16 NRC Incident Report # 1328935. 17 NRC Incident Report # 1329036. 18 Dixie County Fire & Rescue Fire Investigation Case Report # 22F00118 dated February 14, 2022. 19 Id. 20 Dixie County Fire & Rescue Fire Investigation Case Report # 22F00118 dated February 14, 2002. 

(b) (6) (b) (6)
5

Both the owner and operator of a vessel that discharges oil is a Responsible Party (RP) as defined by 

OPA.21 Mr. , was the owner and operator of the CHEROKEE at the time of the incident.22 

On October 6, 2022, the NPFC issued an RP Notification Letter to Mr. via certified 

mail.23 An RP Notification letter notifies the owner/operator that a claim was presented to the NPFC 

seeking reimbursement of uncompensated removal costs incurred as a result of a discharge of oil to 

navigable waters of the United States. 

After receiving the RP Notification Letter, Mr. emailed the NPFC indicating that Gateway 

Marina had not presented their costs to him and stated in his email that he only saw a cost summary that 

Ms. of Warren Environmental had prepared and reviewed with him at the early stages of 

the response.24 

Recovery Operations

 On February 14, 2022, Dixie County Fire and Rescue extinguished the vessel fire. Its investigation 

concluded that the cause of the fire was “Accidental/Electrical.”25 Warren responded to the vessel fire 

with their equipment, marina push boat, sock boom and absorbent pads.26 Warren provided 17 hours of 

emergency response, materials, water and sediment sampling, deployed six cases of 5” sock boom, 12 

cases of oil Pigs mat pads, and provided disposal.27 Warren removed the vessel from the water. Response 

efforts concluded on February 16, 2022.28

II. CLAIMANT AND RP: 

Absent limited circumstances, the federal regulations implementing the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

(OPA)29 require all claims for removal costs or damages must be presented to the responsible party before 

seeking compensation from the NPFC.30 

On March 28, 2022, Mr. provided a written statement to Gateway Marina indicating that he 

did not have a pollution policy covering his vessel and did not have the financial means to pay for the 

cleanup at Gateway Marina.

31 

In accordance with 33 U.S.C. § 2713(a), Gateway Marina presented its claim to Mr. for 

$178,493.57 on December 15, 2022.32 

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

21 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32). 22 See, Dixie County Fire & Rescue Fire Investigation Report Case # 22F00118 dated February 14, 2022. Also see, 

Email from RP to NPFC regarding the boat fire and his loss dated October 15, 2022. 23 NPFC RP Notification Letter dated October 6, 2022. 24 Email from RP to NPFC dated October 24, 2022. 25 Email from Dixie County Fire Marshal to the NPFC dated October 6, 2022. 26 Gateway Marina, LLC invoice # 2022 dated October 19, 2022. 27 Id. 28 USCG Sector St. Petersburg Pollution Responder Statement dated March 28, 2022. 29 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. 30 33 CFR 136.103. 31 Statement by RP indicating that he cannot pay for cleanup dated March 28, 2022. 32 See, Gateway Marina’s Demand for Payment letter dated December 15, 2022. 

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

7

strict, joint, and several.45 When enacting OPA, Congress “explicitly recognized that the existing federal 

and states laws provided inadequate cleanup and damage remedies, required large taxpayer subsidies for 

costly cleanup activities and presented substantial burdens to victim’s recoveries such as legal defenses, 

corporate forms, and burdens of proof unfairly favoring those responsible for the spills.”46 OPA was 

intended to cure these deficiencies in the law. 

OPA provides a mechanism for compensating parties who have incurred removal costs where the 

responsible party has failed to do so. Removal costs are defined as “the costs of removal that are incurred 

after a discharge of oil has occurred or, in any case in which there is a substantial threat of a discharge of 

oil, the costs to prevent, minimize, or mitigate oil pollution from an incident.”47 The term “remove” or 

“removal” means “containment and removal of oil [...] from water and shorelines or the taking of other 

actions as may be necessary to minimize or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare, including, 

but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and private property, shorelines, and beaches.”48 

The NPFC is authorized to pay claims for uncompensated removal costs that are consistent with the 

National Contingency Plan (NCP).49 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of regulations 

governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such claims.50 The claimant 

bears the burden of providing all evidence, information, and documentation deemed relevant and 

necessary by the Director of the NPFC, to support and properly process the claim.51

OPA defines “compensation allowable” to mean “the amount of compensation allowable is the total 

of uncompensated reasonable removal costs of actions taken that were determined by the FOSC to be 

consistent with the National Contingency Plan or were directed by the FOSC. Except in exceptional 

circumstances, removal activities for which costs are being claimed must have been coordinated with the 

FOSC.”52

OPA defines “removal costs” to mean “the costs of removal that are incurred after a discharge of oil 

has occurred or, in any case in which there is a substantial threat of a discharge of a discharge of oil, the 

costs to prevent, minimize, or mitigate oil pollution from such an incident.”53

OPA defines a “claim” to mean “a request made in writing for a sum certain, for compensation for 

damages or removal resulting from an incident.”54 An “incident” under OPA is defined as any occurrence 

or series of occurrences having the same origin, involving one or more vessels, facilities, or any 

combination thereof, resulting in the discharge or substantial threat of discharge of oil.

55

OPA defines “oil” as “oil of any kind or in any form, including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, 

and oil mixed with the wastes other than dredged spoil, but does not include any substance which is 

specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance under subparagraphs (A through (F) of section 

45 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 46 Apex Oil Co., Inc. v United States, 208 F. Supp. 2d 642, 651-52 (E.D. La. 2002) (citing S. Rep. No. 101-94 

(1989), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 722). 47 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 48 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 49 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 50 33 CFR Part 136. 51 33 CFR 136.105. 52 33 CFR 136.205. 53 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 54 33 U.S.C.§ 2701(14). 55 Id. 
8

101 (14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 USC § 

9601) and which is subject to the provisions of that Act [42 USCA Section 9601 et seq.].”56

No Evidence of Removal Costs Incurred by Claimant

The claimant bears the burden of providing all evidence, information, and documentation deemed 

necessary by the Director, NPFC, to support the claim.57 The claimant merely submitted its claim and a 

spreadsheet outlining the specifics of its claimed costs but provided no evidence such as cancelled checks 

or other proofs of payments as evidence to support those costs. Numerous requests were sent to the 

claimant between September 2022 and December 2022 requesting additional support documentation for 

its claimed costs.

58 The claimant did not provide any evidence supporting its claimed costs. Gateway 

Marina has not proven to the NPFC they have incurred any of the removal costs that are the subject of this 

claim and as such, the removal costs portion of this claim must be denied. 

Claim of Profits & Earning Capacity 

Gateway also claimed $20,000.00 in loss of profits and earning capacity damages. As discussed 

above, it later submitted a spreadsheet claiming a specified amount for ““Misc. Invoices/loss of revenew 

(sic).” However, Gateway did not provide detail as to how they came to its original claim for $20,000 or 

this later amount. However, despite the lack of granularity as to the amount of these costs, they must be 

denied because the claimant failed to meet its burden of proof to receive compensation for these claimed 

damages under the relevant regulations. 

In addition to meeting the criteria in other sections of 33 CFR 136, a claimant seeking 

damages for a loss of profits and earning capacity must establish the following:

(a) That real or personal property or natural resources have been injured, destroyed, or lost.

(b) That the claimant's income was reduced as a consequence of injury to, destruction of, 

or loss of the property or natural resources, and the amount of that reduction. 

(c) The amount of the claimant's profits or earnings in comparable periods and during the 

period when the claimed loss or impairment was suffered, as established by income tax 

returns, financial statements, and similar documents. In addition, comparative figures for 

profits or earnings for the same or similar activities outside of the area affected by the 

incident also must be established.

(d) Whether alternative employment or business was available and undertaken and, if so, 

the amount of income received. All income that a claimant received as a result of the 

incident must be clearly indicated and any saved overhead and other normal expenses not 

incurred as a result of the incident must be established.59 

If these criteria are established by a preponderance of the evidence, then a claimant could be entitled 

to compensation as indicated at 33 CFR 136.235: 

56 33 U.S.C. § 2701(23). 57 33 CFR 136.105(a); 33 CFR 136.105(e)(6); 33 CFR 136(e)(13). 58 See, various emails from NPFC to Claimant seeking evidence that it incurred the costs claimed in its submission. 59 See, 33 CFR 136.233.