2

fuel tanks. Against the Trustees recommendations,5 on September 18, 2023, the Federal OnScene Coordinator (FOSC) determined not to take additional response measures as the FOSC 

concluded that attempts to remove the remaining residual oil may result in greater damage to the 

sensitive marine environment and species in the area than that posed by the remaining oil and 

therefore additional removal actions under OPA were not warranted.6

On September 20, 2023, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requested funding from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 

(OSLTF or Fund) on behalf of themselves and the PRDNER, to initiate a Natural Resource 

Damage Assessment (NRDA) and evaluate the need for Emergency Restoration actions to avoid 

irreversible loss of natural resources and prevent or reduce any continuing danger to natural 

resources. 

PRDNER staff visited the site on September 27, 2023, and reported the continued presence of 

the wrecked vessel, interior spaces with observable coating of oil, and excessive oil fumes 

emanating from the wreck - all indicating a concerning quantity of oil remaining on the vessel.7

As of September 29, 2023, PRDNER recorded 90+ turtle nests on Playa Mujeres.8

On October 2, 2023, the NPFC received a claim from NOAA for $448,080 to implement 

emergency restoration actions (the Claim). The actions include vessel removal, transport, and 

disposal, and the necessary supporting activities (i.e., in-water evaluation of extraction path and 

oversight, environmental compliance and implementation of BMPs, public notice, reporting and 

administration) to eliminate the threat of oil and related injury to nesting critically endangered 

hawksbill and threatened green sea turtles, their eggs and hatchlings; threatened coral in the 

nearshore; and other onshore and nearshore species.9

Claimant Eligibility 

Federal natural resource trustees are designated by the President pursuant to OPA. 33 U.S.C. 

§2706 (b)(2). Federal trustees designated under this section assess natural resource damages 

(NRD) for natural resources under their trusteeship (33 U.S.C. §2706(c)(1)(A)) and may present 

claims to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF or the Fund) for uncompensated natural 

resource damages. 

This claim for emergency restoration costs was submitted by NOAA on behalf of itself, the 

FWS, and PRDNER. NOAA and FWS under the authority of the Secretary of Commerce and 

Secretary of the Interior, respectively, are designated federal natural resource trustees pursuant to 

the President’s designation of federal trustees under OPA, Executive Order 12777 (56 Fed. Reg. 

54757, October 22, 1991), and Subpart G of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances 

Pollution Contingency Plan (40 C.F.R. §300.600). PRDNER is a designated natural resource 

5

 Various emails from FWS to USCG Sector San Juan IMD, September 6, 2023, and letter from PRDNER to the 

USCG Sector Commander, Sector San Juan, September 18, 2023. 

6

 FOSC Decision Memo, USCG September 18, 2023 

7

 Claim p. 9 and additional information received 8

 Claim p. 3 

9

 Claim p. 10 
3

trustee for Puerto Rico per Puerto Rican Law 23 (for natural resources generally) and Puerto 

Rican Law 147 (for coral resources specifically).10

Jurisdictional Information 

To be eligible for payment from the OSLTF, the claim must arise from an incident as defined by 

OPA, 33 U.S.C. §2701 et seq. The incident must involve a discharge, or a substantial threat of 

discharge, of oil from a vessel or facility into navigable waters of the United States. Based on the 

information summarized in the previous sections, the NPFC has determined that this incident 

resulted from the discharge of oil, and substantial threat of discharge, from the LPV Venezia, a 

vessel, into the Caribbean Sea, a navigable waterway, on or about August 31, 2023. The NPFC 

therefore finds that this is an incident as defined by OPA. 

General NRD Claim Requirements 

Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 2713(e), the President promulgated regulations for the presentation, 

filing, processing, adjudication, and settlement of claims against the Fund. The Claims 

Regulations are found at 33 C.F.R. Part 136. 

No responsible party (RP) has been identified for this incident; therefore, there is no RP 

presentment requirement. 33 C.F.R. §136.103. 

The NPFC received NOAA’s Claim on October 2, 2023. NOAA presented a sum certain claim 

in writing to the Director, NPFC. Additionally, Trustee claimants are required to provide certain 

certifications as to the integrity of the claim in accordance with 33 C.F.R. §136.105 and §209, 

including whether the assessment was conducted in accordance with applicable provisions of the 

NRDA regulations, 15 C.F.R. Part 990, promulgated under 33 U.S.C. §2706(e)(1). The Claim 

includes the requisite certifications. 

Because this is a claim for Emergency Restoration, NOAA is not required to submit a publicly 

reviewed plan. 33 U.S.C. §2712(h). However, NOAA must provide notice to the public, to the 

extent practicable, of the planned emergency restoration actions and meet certain post action 

public notice requirements, 15 C.F.R. §990.26(d). NOAA indicated their intent to provide public 

notice of the emergency restoration actions and results.11

NRD Claims to the NPFC must be presented within three years after the date on which the injury 

and its connection with the incident in question were reasonably discoverable with the exercise 

of due care, or within three years from the date of completion of NRDA under OPA (33 U.S.C. 

§2706(e)), whichever is later. 33 U.S.C. §2712(h)(2), 33 C.F.R. §136.101(a)(1)(ii). This Claim is 

for Emergency Restoration precedes completion of the assessment and was submitted less than 

one month from completion of response activities. The Claim was received within the time 

limitation for NRD claims. 

10 PR Law 23, Organic Act of the Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, June 20, 1972, as amended. 

PR Law 147, Coral Reef Conservation Act of 1999, July 15, 1999 

11 Claim presentment letter, October 02, 2023, and Claim, p. 10 
4

Accordingly, the NPFC has determined that NOAA met the above statutory and regulatory 

requirements for an NRD Emergency Restoration claim against the Fund.

The Trustees’ Burden of Proof and the NPFC’s Review Process 

Trustees bear the burden of providing all evidence, information and documentation deemed 

necessary by the Director, NPFC, to support the claim. 33 C.F.R. §136.105(a). 

The Trustees are pursuing emergency actions under 15 C.F.R. §990.26. As such, the NPFC 

evaluated the Trustees’ Claim according to those regulations along with the regulations for 

claims against the OSLTF at 33 C.F.R. Part 136. 

Ultimately, during the adjudication of claims against the OSLTF, the NPFC acts as the finder of 

fact. In this role, the NPFC considers all relevant evidence and weighs its probative value when 

adjudicating a claim. The NPFC is not bound by the findings or conclusions reached by other 

entities. If there is conflicting evidence in the record, the NPFC makes a determination as to what 

evidence is more credible or deserves greater weight, and finds facts based on the preponderance 

of the credible evidence. In its adjudication, the NPFC considered all the documentation 

provided by NOAA and independently conducted fact finding. As this determination is based on 

the unique facts giving rise to this claim, it should not be viewed as controlling over future NPFC 

claims determinations. 

Prohibition Against Double Recovery 

Under 33 U.S.C. §2706(d)(3), double recovery for natural resource damages is prohibited. This 

prohibition includes payment of duplicative costs for damage assessment or restoration, 

rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition for the same incident and natural resource. 

Interim Claim 

Payment of this emergency restoration claim may be considered an interim claim under 33 

U.S.C. §2713(d). 

II. Analysis of Proposed Emergency Restoration Action 

The NRDA regulations provide that trustees may take emergency restoration action before 

completing the NRDA process, provided that: (1) The action is needed to avoid irreversible loss 

of natural resources, or to prevent or reduce any continuing danger to natural resources or similar 

need for emergency action; (2) The action will not be undertaken by the lead response agency; 

(3) The action is feasible and likely to succeed; (4) Delay of the action to complete the 

restoration planning process established in this part likely would result in increased natural 

resource damages; and (5) The costs of the action are not unreasonable. 15 C.F.R §990.26 (a)(1)-

(5). The following summarizes NOAA’s claim with regard to each element of 990.26 (a) and the 

NPFC’s findings. 
5

Is the action needed to avoid irreversible loss of natural resources, or to prevent or reduce any 

continuing danger to natural resources? 15 C.F.R §990.26(a)(1). 

Resources at risk – As described in Section I of this determination, Mona Island has an 

assemblage of rare and endangered species, many of which are highly sensitive to oil pollution 

and are in the vicinity of the wrecked vessel. Per the Trustees’ Claim,12 

“The benthic habitat adjacent to Las Mujeres Beach is designated critical habitat for 

Acroporid and non-Acroporid coral and all species of listed corals have been observed in 

the area. Based on existing data for coral in this vicinity and multiple recent field visits 

during September, the hard corals are dominated by mountainous star coral (Orbicella 

faveolata) cavernous star coral (Montastrea cavernosa), starlet coral (Siderastrea spp), 

smooth brain coral (Pseudodiploria strigosa), mustard hill coral (Porites astreoides), 

finger coral (Porites porites) and pillar coral (Dendrogyra cylindricus), and elliptical star 

coral (Dichocoenia stokesii). Branching calcareous hydroids (Millepora spp) and other 

subdominant hard corals such as butterprint brain coral (Meandrina sp), grooved brain 

coral (Diploria labyrinthiformis), and Eusmilia fastigiata. Elkhorn corals (Acropora 

palmata), a federally threatened species, were observed in the shallow areas. There are 

also numerous branching soft corals at the site including the sea fan (Gorgonia 

flabellum), and several species of sea rods and sea plumes (Pseudopterogorgia sp, 

Pterogorgia sp, Plexaura sp, Plexaurella sp, Muricea sp, Eunicia sp). Biota cover in 

addition to hard and soft corals includes encrusting and branching sponges and coralline 

and crustose algae. Numerous large barrel sponges (Xestospongia muta) among others 

are scattered throughout the coral community. Based on existing data in this vicinity, 

other benthic invertebrates in the area likely include sea cucumbers, mollusks, brittle stars 

and small crustaceans.” 

Similarly, as described in the Claim,13 

“The sand beaches both north and south of the vessel are important habitat for nesting sea 

turtles, primarily the Endangered Hawksbill and the Threatened Green. The beaches of 

Mona Island, including Las Mujeres beach, are designated critical habitat for hawksbill 

sea turtles and have been proposed as critical habitat for Green sea turtles. Las Mujeres 

beach usually has over 140 sea turtle nests a year and data from DNER showed that there 

were over 50 active hawksbill and green sea turtle nests in this stretch of beach at the 

time of the grounding on August 31, 2023. As of September 29, over 90 nests had been 

established on the beach some of which have already hatched.” 

Danger presented by remaining situation - The Trustees contend that, left unattended, each 

passing tropical weather event increases the likelihood of vessel break-up,14,15 at which time any 

remaining oil, both diesel and engine oil, will discharge from the vessel. Diesel and used motor 

oil are both highly toxic, and Playa Mujeres is down-current from the grounded vessel. Free 

12 Claim pp. 4-6 

13 Claim, p. 3 

14 Claim, p. 9 

15 On August 11,2023, the National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center increased their prediction for the 

ongoing 2023 Atlantic hurricane season to an “above normal” level of activity. Current outlook includes 70% 

chance of 14-21 named storms, of which 6-11 could become hurricanes, and 2-5 could become major hurricanes. 
6

product and oil-soaked debris are expected to contaminate the beach and nearshore water 

column, further imperiling critically endangered hawksbill turtles and other species. As 

described by the local NOAA Scientific Support Coordinator (SSC) early during the response, 

“concerns for diesel would likely be local, short-lived, non-persistent but of concern to nearby 

water column resources that could be exposed as the diesel disperses.”16 This indicates an 

additional threat to shallow nearshore threatened coral and their critical habitat. The NPFC 

further recognizes that oil toxicity to shallow (or near surface) biota is exacerbated by UV 

radiation, further imperiling these sensitive nearshore coral species.17,18 Even more concerning, 

as described in the Claim,19

“For sea turtles, when oil comes ashore on turtle nesting beaches, females, eggs, 

hatchlings, and nesting habitat are at risk. Oil impacting nesting beaches can have a 

number of harmful effects on sea turtles depending on the timing of the spill relative to 

egg laying, incubation, and emergence of hatchlings. Oil can cause embryo mortality and 

adversely affect development (Fritts and McGehee 1982;20 Bell et al. 2006;21 Van Meter 

et al. 200622). Hatchlings can easily become mired in oil as they emerge from their nest 

and transit to the ocean or as they attempt to swim to offshore areas. Nesting females may 

be exposed as they crawl through contaminated areas or while they remain at sea near 

their nesting beaches between emergences. Due to the threatened and endangered 

status of the sea turtles and the designated critical habitat of the nesting beaches on 

Mona, even small spills have the potential to cause irreversible loss for these 

imperiled species.” (Emphasis added) 

The FWS expanded on the threats to turtles, explaining, “the impacts to wildlife here are subtle, 

would be the fuel being released and moving into the coarse grain coral sand beach, which can 

readily absorb the product, the concern being the impacts of the product on the sand beach and 

sea turtles moving through it, both adults and hatchling and possible contamination of nest cavity 

by contaminated adult flippers or cloaca.23 The NPFC has also learned that even the presence of 

diesel odor can impact sea turtles’ ability to navigate.24 This is concerning given that, as 

described by the SSC, “odor thresholds for diesel are very low so it is not surprising that there 

16 SSC SITREP September 2, 2023 from ResponseLink.orr.noaa.gov 

17 Barron, M. Oil and UV Interactions. SpillCon and Spill Master Class, Perth, WA, Australia, May 16-24, 2019. 

And Nordborg, F.M. 2021. Comparative sensitivity of the early life stages of a coral to heavy fuel oil and UV 

radiation. Science for the Total Environment. Vol 781, 2021, 146676, ISSN 0048-9697, 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146676.) 18 Yender, R.A and J. Michel, Eds. 2010. Chapter 3. Oil Toxicity to Corals; Oil Spills in Coral Reefs: Planning and 

Response Considerations. NOAA. 2nd Edition 19 Claim, p. 8 

20 Fritts, T.H. and M.A. McGehee. 1982. Effects of Petroleum on the Development and Survival of Marine Turtle 

Embryos. USFWS Biological Services Program. FWS/OBS-82/37. 41 pages 

21 Bell, B. et al. 2006. High incidence of deformity in aquatic turtles in the john Heinz national Wildlife Refuge. 

Environmental Pollution Volume 142, pp. 457-465 

22 Van Meter, R.J, et al. 2006. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons affect survival and development of common 

snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) embryos and hatchlings. Environmental Pollution, Volume 142, pp. 466-475 23 Email from FWS Alternate regional Emergency Coordinator to USCG, FWS, NOAA. September 2, 2023. 

Subject: Low Profile vessel on Mona Island: Urgent 

24 Shigenaka, Gary, Ed. 2010. Section: Indirect Effects of Oil on Sea Turtles; Chapter 4 Oil Toxicity and Impacts on 

Sea Turtles; Oil and Sea Turtles Biology, Planning, and Response. NOAA. 
7

are reports of diesel odors.”25 Diesel odors continue to persist at the site26 and would become 

more broadly pronounced if the vessel breaks up and oil and oily debris litter the shoreline.

Evidence that restoration action will reduce/eliminate risk of oiling – The Trustees are proposing 

vessel removal as the emergency actions that will reduce or eliminate the dangers to natural 

resources under their trusteeship. 27 The Trustees are selecting amongst proven methods and will 

be working with best management practices (BMPs) to assure continued protection of threatened 

and endangered species and their critical habitat.28 Extraction of the vessel in a controlled 

manner allows for immediate mitigation of any potential discharge,29 versus allowing the vessel 

to breakup over time distributing oil and oily debris across the shoreline, indiscriminately 

endangering sea turtles during the sensitive nesting season and the nearshore corals. 

NPFC Finding – The NPFC finds that the Trustees’ have sufficiently evidenced that the action is 

needed to avoid irreversible loss of natural resources from oil pollution, or to prevent or reduce 

any continuing danger of oiling to natural resources. The FOSC does not dispute the continued 

presence of oil in the vessel, and a recent site visit by PRDNER confirms continued presence of 

the vessel and residual oil. The condition of the vessel and the environment where the unsecured 

vessel sits assures its near future demise.30 The species of concern in the area have special 

protected status (many are threatened or endangered), are highly sensitive to injury from oil, and 

are extremely challenging to restore.31,32 Loss of any individuals of a critically endangered 

species constitutes irreversible loss of genetic diversity.33 Removal of the vessel in a controlled 

extraction will result in the least possible injury due to oiling and overall protection of the most 

imperiled of the species at risk. 

Will the action not be undertaken by the lead response agency? 15 C.F.R §990.26(a)(2). 

The FOSC issued a Decision Memorandum, dated September 18, 2023, stipulating that “any 

additional actions by the Coast Guard would be beyond my authority as the Federal On Scene 

Coordinator and beyond the authorities of the Coast Guard broadly.”34 The FOSC further issued a 

25 SSC SITREP September 2, 2023, from ResponseLink.orr noaa.gov and Email from NOAA SSC to FWS 

September 2, 2023, Subject: Low Profile vessel on Mona Island: Urgent 

26 PRDNER noted the persistence of strong diesel odor on September 27, 2023 

27 Claim, pp. 8-10 

28 Claim, p. 9 

29 Additional information received October 3, 2023 

30 The environmental conditions discussed in the Danger presented by Remaining Situation Section along with the 

FOSC’s assessment that further response action posed a significant threat of the vessel breaking apart are highly 

suggestive that left unattended, the vessel would break apart on its own. 

31 Elkhorn Coral, by example, form thickets in very shallow water providing important habitat for other reef 

animals. They live for hundreds of years, and the greatest recovery challenge is the lack of reproductive recruitment, 

requiring costly coral nursery establishment and out-planting. Elkhorn Coral Fact Sheet. NOAA Elkhorn Coral | 

NOAA Fisheries

32 Hawksbill Sea Turtles, by example, reach sexual maturity in 20-35 years and are estimated to live to 50-60 years 

and females return to nest on or near their hatching site every 1-5 years in remote beach locations. Hawksbill turtles 

are subject to many human threats at all stages of their lives. Restoration generally focuses on intensively policing 

human activity that kill turtles (bycatch, vessel strikes, nest destruction) and conserving remote beach nesting 

locations through land conservation. Hawksbill Sea Turtle Fact Sheet. NOAA. Hawksbill Turtle | NOAA Fisheries 33 https://education nationalgeographic.org/resource/endangered-species/ 34 FOSC Decision Memorandum to File. September 18, 2023 
8

final Pollution Report (POLREP) on September 21, 2023 indicating that response actions were 

completed.35 

NPFC Finding – The NPFC finds that the action will not be undertaken by the lead response agency. 

The USCG has issued its final Decision Memorandum and final Pollution Report, has ceased 

response activities. 

Is the action feasible and likely to succeed? 15 C.F.R §990.26(a)(3). 

As described above, the Trustees propose to remove the vessel and its contents to avoid the 

potential for future oiling. The Trustees are actively engaging various wreck removal companies, 

including the contractor for the USCG for the response operation. The trustees have received 

positive assurance of the ability to remove the vessel within the budget provided in their Claim 

with precautions to mitigate any potential for discharge during the process,36and the Trustees 

believe the risks associated with the emergency action are less than the potential impacts to the 

threatened and endangered natural resources from a discharge.37

In contrast, the FOSC stated in his Decision memorandum, 

“The U.S. Coast Guard reviewed three potential actions to address the remaining 

pollution threat, including: (1) wreck removal and scuttle in accordance with the General 

Permit found in 40 C.F.R. Part 229, (2) wreck removal and tow to Puerto Rico for 

disposal, (3) move the vessel higher up on shore. Additionally, the Coast Guard could 

choose to take no further action. All plans proposed by Resolve Marine were reviewed by 

the Coast Guard Salvage Engineering Response Team (SERT). Both Resolve and SERT 

stressed that any further response action posed a significant threat of the vessel breaking 

apart, resulting in loose debris impacting the shore.”38 

The NPFC is not privy to the particular assessments provided by the various contractors as 

asserted by the Trustees or the FOSC. However, as described previously, in the absence of a 

controlled extraction, the vessel condition and weather are such that the vessel will likely break 

up distributing oil, oil-soaked debris, and other wreck debris across the shoreline and shallow 

nearshore waters. The Trustees, authors of the best management practices for vessel groundings 

in Puerto Rico,39 have stipulated that they will adhere to BMPs for the specific situation and that 

precautions are being taken to mitigate any potential for discharge during the vessel removal 

process. NOAA and PRDNER have extensive experience removing vessels and have the 

experience necessary to manage this project. NOAA manages the federal government’s Marine 

Debris Program40 and PRDNER conducts extensive vessel salvage and wreck removal following 

hurricane events. Finally, NOAA does not argue that there is no potential for the vessel to break 

up during extraction (as suggested by the FOSC), but NOAA does make a compelling case that 

35 POLREP 4 and Final, September 21, 2023 

36 Additional Information received from NOAA October 3, 2023. 

37 Additional information received from NOAA October 4, 2023. 

38 FOSC Decision Memorandum to File. September 18, 2023. 

39 Sector San Juan Area Contingency Plan 2020, Annex J – CRRT Grounded Vessel in Coral Reef & Seagrass 

Habitats Guidance 

https://homeport.uscg mil/Lists/Content/Attachments/2349/2020%20PR%20and%20USVI%20ACP.pdf 40 OR&R's Marine Debris Program | (noaa.gov)
9

left unmitigated, the potential adverse impacts from oil are greater than the risks posed by a 

controlled extraction. 41

NPFC finding – The NPFC finds that NOAA’s proposal to extract the vessel has reasonable 

likelihood of success and is the best solution for eliminating the risk of injury from unmitigated 

oil pollution, which presents a greater threat to hawksbill turtles and other species than the most 

likely impacts from a controlled vessel extraction. 

Would delay of the action to complete the restoration planning process likely result in increased 

natural resource damages? 15 C.F.R §990.26(a)(4). 

As noted by the Trustees, each passing tropical weather event increases the likelihood of vessel 

break-up that would result in oil and oily debris impacting threatened and endangered sea turtles 

and corals. Turtles continue to build nests on the adjacent beaches and baby turtles are currently 

hatching and making their way back to the water. When the vessel was discovered, there were 50 

nests on the Playa Mujeres. As of September 29, there were over 90 nests, and new nests 

continue to be added. In essence, the number of animals in danger is increasing, therefore, any 

delay may compound the potential injury. 

Additionally, completing the restoration planning process requires a full assessment of the 

injuries. Trustees would need to assess the injuries that have already resulted from past discharge 

of oil and the FOSC’s response actions along with injuries caused by any oil pollution until and 

upon breakup of the vessel in order to develop a restoration plan that compensates for the total 

injuries caused by the incident. Assessing injury (including differentiating between injury caused 

by oil (or exacerbated by oil) and injury from marine debris is costly and restoring injured 

resources – sea turtles and coral – is very costly and time consuming42 (and any genetic diversity 

lost in the sea turtle population cannot be restored). 

NPFC Finding - The NPFC finds that waiting to complete the restoration planning process will 

not only likely increase the natural resources damages but would also increase the cost and 

complexity of a damage assessment, and unnecessarily further imperil species with special 

protected status. 

Are the costs of the action not unreasonable? 15 C.F.R §990.26(a)(5). 

The Trustees’ Claim for $448,080 includes plan and site evaluation, extraction, transport and 

disposal of the vessel, environmental compliance, public notice requirements, and administrative 

costs for the project and for the Claim. Wreck removal operations in remote sensitive 

environments are more costly than operations in populous or less environmentally sensitive areas 

and these costs are well within wreck removal costs experienced for similar sized vessels in 

41 Likely impact from vessel extraction are described in the Sector San Juan Area Contingency Plan, Annex J and 

generally involve danger to coral from cables, prop wash, and vessel strikes. BMPs help to eliminate these and other 

potential dangers. 

42 Although individual species restoration and recovery projects vary in cost, green sea turtle recovery topped the list 

for estimated cost for recovery of selected high-priority species in a 1996 Government Accountability Office Report 

(estimated at $1.6B to recover). Report 96-34r. Coral restoration projects range from $6,000-$4M USD/ha with a 

median of $400,000 USD/ha according to Bayraktarov et al. 2019. Motivations, success, and cost of coral reef 

restoration. Restoration Ecology pp 981-991 
10

remote or sensitive environments.43 Additionally, the cost of the proposed emergency action as 

compared to the potential natural resource damages44 that could result from the incident further 

evidence the reasonableness of the emergency action. Two comparable examples include the F/V 

Jin Shiang Fa which grounded and broke apart at Rose Atoll in 1993 and the grounding of the 

Won Yang fishing fleet in Pago Pago Harbor in America Samoa in 1999. In the case of the F/V 

Jin Shiang Fa, the Trustees pursued restoration in the form of wreck debris removal following 

breakup of the vessel (to remove toxic levels of iron) at a cost over $1.4M to pursue coral 

restoration for coral reef impacts from the discharged oil from the vessel.45 As of 2022, the coral 

reef had not fully recovered from the damage caused by the oil pollution. In Pago Pago the 

trustees pursued emergency restoration actions to remove the nine fishing vessels at a cost of 

~$6.8M (or $750K each) to avoid devastating harm to the sensitive coastal environment.46

NPFC finding – The NPFC finds the costs of the proposed emergency action not unreasonable in 

the context of the estimated cost of similar actions in similar situations and the potential resulting 

damages if the emergency actions are not pursued. 

III. Conclusion 

After careful review of the claim and supporting documents, the NPFC finds that the Trustees 

followed 15 C.F.R. §990.26 and met the requirements for an emergency restoration claim to the 

Fund under 33 C.F.R. Part 136. The NPFC further finds that the actions are necessary to avoid 

irreversible loss of natural resources and to reduce continuing danger to natural resources. The 

costs are reasonable and appropriate given the facts of the incident and the proposed action has a 

reasonable likelihood of success. The NPFC has, therefore, determined that the claimed amount 

of $448,080 is compensable from the Fund. 

Revolving Trust Fund and Return of Unused Funds to the OSLTF 

As established by OPA (33 U.S.C. §2706(f)) and the NRDA regulations (15 C.F.R. §990.65), 

sums recovered by trustees for natural resource damages must be retained in a non-appropriated 

revolving trust account for use only to implement the assessment and restoration activities 

addressed in this determination in accordance with NOAA’s Plan. Upon receipt of the signed 

Acceptance/Release from the Authorized Official for NOAA, the NPFC will deposit $448,080 

into NOAA’s Damage Assessment and Restoration Revolving Fund (DARRF). NOAA has 

demonstrated that the DARRF is a non-appropriated account that meets these requirements. 

NOAA shall reimburse the Fund for any amounts received from the Fund in excess of that 

amount required to accomplish the activities for which the claim was paid. 33 U.S.C. §2706(f) 

and 33 C.F.R. 136.211(b). 

43 The NPFC’s Oil Pollution Act Limit of Liability in 2020 Report to Congress indicates a fairly common 

occurrence of relatively small vessel OPA incident costs exceeding the limit of liability under OPA (~$1M). 

44 Including the complexity and additional cost of differentiating between oil caused impacts and debris caused 

impacts. 

45 NPFC Determination, Claim 144002-OI2, July 7, 2003 

46 NPFC Determination, Claim H99024-DN1, September 17, 1999 
11

Cost Documentation, Progress Reporting, and Final Report 

As the claimant, NOAA shall ensure that all expenditures of OSLTF funds for future activities 

are documented appropriately and spent according to the claimed activities and this 

determination. Any funds not spent, not appropriately documented, or which constitute doublerecovery, shall be returned to the Fund. 33 U.S.C. §2706(f). 

NOAA shall submit a final report within 120 days from the date all claim approved activities are 

complete. This report should include: 

1. Certification by NOAA that all expenditures of OSLTF funds were in accordance with 

this Determination. 

2. A description of work accomplished, any unexpected problems which arose, and any 

future actions that the Trustees may take with regard to the incident or emergency 

response actions. 

3. Documentation of OSLTF funds remaining in the DARRF for this claim, including 

account balance and any interest earned. 

4. A copy of the public notice under §990.26(d). 

5. Documentation of all expenditures as follows: 

a. Labor: For each employee – 

i. A narrative description of the work accomplished by each individual and 

how that work fit into the actions taken. Enough detail should be included 

to determine reasonableness of costs; and 

ii. The number of hours worked, labor rate, and indirect rate. An explanation 

of indirect rate expenditures, if any, will be necessary. 

b. Travel: Paid travel reimbursement vouchers and receipts. 

c. Contract: Activities undertaken, lists of deliverables, and contract invoices and 

receipts. 

d. Purchases/Expendables: Invoices and receipts, along with an explanation of costs. 

e. Government Equipment: Documentation of costs, including the rate (i.e., hourly, 

weekly) and time for all equipment used for which costs were incurred. 

Upon receipt of the final report and associated cost documentation, the NPFC will reconcile 

costs, and all remaining funds and/or inadequately documented costs will be returned to the 

OSLTF. 

The NPFC has prepared standardized templates with instructions to facilitate final cost reporting 

(available on request).