NPFC DETERMINATION

 Claim Number and Name: N10036-OI23, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Assessment

 Claimant: U.S. Department of the Interior

 Type of Claim: Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Upfront 

Assessment Costs (Reconsideration)

 Claim Amount: $2,262,694

 Offer Amount: $1,967,560

 Determination Date: December 17, 2014

 Reviewing Official: Jim Hoff, Ph.D., Chief NRD Claims Division

Claim History

On April 14, 2014, the Department of the Interior (DOI) presented a claim to the Oil Spill 

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF or the Fund) seeking $2,262,694 for contractors to provide 

technical and logistical support to DOI staff involved in the Deepwater Horizon NRDA1

. 

The claim was based on DOI’s Technical and Logistical Support Plan, which was 

presented by letter to BP and included in the claim submission to the NPFC. DOI’s Plan 

briefly described three implementation tasks: (1) technical and logistical support, (2) data 

quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), and (3) peer review of reports and findings2.

During a meeting with DOI to review the claim on May 6, 2014, the NPFC explained that 

the submission lacked specific detail, failed to tie the various supporting documents 

together clearly, did not provide a context within the greater Deepwater Horizon NRDA 

framework, and did not clearly distinguish this work from previously funded work to 

ensure that the claimed costs do not constitute double recovery, particularly where costs 

associated with these activities were paid by the NPFC and/or BP in previous claims3. 

Following this meeting, on May 23, 2014, the NPFC sent DOI a written request for the 

additional information needed to determine that claimed costs are compensable under 

OPA4. Specifically, the NPFC requested a more comprehensive and clear explanation of 

the work DOI planned to perform.

DOI did not respond to the request for additional information, and, on September 24, 

2014, the NPFC denied the claim on the grounds that DOI did not meet its burden of 

proving its claim for implementation costs with relevant and necessary information to 

determine that the work planned and associated costs were reasonable and appropriate. 

More specifically, the NPFC found that the claim submission did not include sufficient 

information to determine:

1

 The Department of the Interior (DOI) leads aspects of the Deepwater Horizon natural resource damage 

assessment (NRDA) that are focused on resources for which they have trust responsibilities (i.e., birds, 

sea turtles, sturgeon, etc.). The purpose of these assessments is to evaluate damages to natural resources 

resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in order to develop a damage assessment restoration plan 

(DARP). 2

 January 31, 2014, letter from DOI to BP providing additional information 3

 May 14, 2014, email from Mark Wilcox to Debora McClain summarizing May 6, 2014, meeting 4

 May 23, 2014, letter from NPFC to DOI requesting additional information

 
1. When DOI made its Technical and Logistical Support Plan available for public 

review;

2. What information would be collected or analyzed;

3. The appropriate level of effort and cost (i.e., labor, travel, contractor, indirect rates);

4. How the information will be used to determine injury or to plan appropriate 

restoration and fits into the overall assessment strategy; and

5. How the activities in the claim relate to assessment and restoration planning efforts 

previously funded by BP and/or the OSLTF, including work carried out by NOAA. 

The NPFC’s determination to deny the claim issued the following findings:

1. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is an OPA incident that resulted in damages to 

natural resources. 33 U.S.C. §2702(b)(2)(A).

2. DOI is a federal trustee designated by the President with responsibilities to assess 

natural resource damages under its trusteeship and to develop and implement plans to

restore, rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the equivalent of the natural resources under 

its trusteeship. 33 U.S.C. §2706(b)(2)); 33 U.S.C. §§2706(c)(1)(A) and (C), and 33 

C.F.R. §136.207.

3. DOI has jurisdiction to pursue restoration for this incident under OPA and the Natural 

Resource Damages Assessments Regulations (15 C.F.R. §990.41). 

4. DOI presented its claim for assessment costs to BP on October 10, 2013. The claim 

was based on its Technical and Logistical Support Plan, with total implementation 

costs of $1,967,560. The contingency costs ($295,134) were not presented to BP. 

The claim presented to BP for implementation costs was not settled within 90 days by 

payment by any party, allowing presentment to the NPFC as a claim for 

uncompensated natural resource damages. 33 U.S.C. §§ 2713(a) and (c)(2). 

5. DOI presented its claim for uncompensated costs to implement its Technical and 

Logistical Support Plan to the Fund within the period of limitations for claims. 33 

U.S.C. §2713(h)(2); 33 C.F.R. §136.101(a)(1)(ii), 

The NPFC denied the claim on September 24, 2014, noting that if DOI sought 

reconsideration it should provide the additional information listed above. 

On October 10, 2014, DOI requested that the NPFC reconsider its determination to deny 

its claim for implementation costs. DOI’s request included the following information: 

responses to the NPFC’s May 23, 2014, request for additional information, a letter from 

BP agreeing to provide partial funding5

, and DOI’s comprehensive 2014 Assessment 

Plan6. 

5

 June 10, 2014, letter from BP to DOI agreeing to fund $700,000 for data QA/QC, one of the three tasks 

described in the Technical and Logistical Support Plan, and denying funds for the remaining two tasks 

(Technical and Logistical Support ($800,000), and Peer Review ($467,560)). As noted in the 

September 24, 2014 determination, the NPFC notified BP on April 18, 2014, that it had received claim 

number N10036-OI23 for costs to implement the Technical and Logistical Support Plan. As of this 

determination, BP has not informed the NPFC of any payments for this claim and DOI states that BP 

has not provided any funds identified in the Technical and Logistical Support Plan. 6

 DOI’s comprehensive 2014 Assessment Plan describes 14 assessment activities that DOI wants to 

implement in 2014. One of these activities is the Technical and Logistical Support work that was 

initially presented to BP on October 10, 2013, and submitted to the NPFC support of claim number 

N10036-OI23 on April 14, 2014, as a separate Plan. 

Page 2 of 7

 
Requirements for Reconsideration of Claim Determinations

Pursuant to 33 C.F.R. §136.115(d), claimants may make a written request for 

reconsideration of NPFC claim determinations. The request must be received by the 

NPFC within 60 days of the date of the NPFC determination and must include the factual

or legal basis for the request for reconsideration and provide any additional support for 

the claim. Reconsideration is based on the information provided and a claim may only be 

reconsidered once. Disposition of the reconsideration constitutes final agency action. 

DOI’s request for reconsideration was received on October 10, 2014, within 60 days of 

the date of the NPFC determination.

NPFC’s Analysis on Reconsideration

When reconsidering the denial of a claim, the NPFC reviews the claim de novo. It 

incorporates the initial denial by reference. Thus, the NPFC adopts the findings (1-5) 

issued in its initial denial and analyzed the additional information submitted by DOI in its 

request for reconsideration.

1. DOI explained that its Technical and Logistical Support Plan is a component of its 

comprehensive 2014 Assessment Plan 6

. DOI states the Plan, dated October 9, 2013, 

forms the basis of the claim that was published on the DOI Deepwater Horizon

Response & Restoration website on October 9, 20137. DOI also provided a link to 

the website location8.

2. DOI clarified that its claim does not request funds to collect or analyze any additional 

data, but rather to provide funding for contractor support to manage and validate data 

previously collected. For instance, DOI’s response to NPFC’s request for additional 

information submitted with the reconsideration request lists other assessment 

activities that previously generated data, for which DOI now seeks funding to manage 

and validate9. 

3. DOI’s reconsideration request described the planned work by linking claimed 

contractor costs to specific assessment activities10. DOI further added that the 

claimed costs were derived from an estimate of the level of effort and travel costs 

based on previous experience, and current published labor rates for the contractors.

4. DOI clarified how the information collected will be used to determine injury and/or to

plan appropriate restoration. As noted above, DOI submitted its comprehensive 2014 

Assessment Plan11, which presents the Technical and Logistical Support work in the 

7

 DOI’s response to NPFC’s request for additional information submitted with the reconsideration request 

8

 http://www.interior.gov/deepwaterhorizon/upload/FINAL-Technical-and-Logistical-AssessmentSupport-Work-Plan-1092013.pdf 9

 See comprehensive 2014 Assessment Plan, pgs 38-41. 10 Comprehensive 2014 Assessment Plan and DOI’s response to NPFC’s request for additional 

information submitted with the reconsideration request 11 DOI’s request for reconsideration also states that they provided this comprehensive 2014 Assessment 

Plan to BP on October 4, 2014. 

Page 3 of 7

 
context of other assessment activities and offers additional detail on the work DOI 

wants to implement in 2014 and how the costs relate to overall assessment effort for 

DOI12. More specifically, the Plan describes contractor work to coordinate ongoing 

and planned assessment, facilitate third party data verification and validation, and 

peer review of reports and findings. DOI states that the claimed costs for the work 

described will lead to a comprehensive and integrated injury case and will provide the 

framework for developing the Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan13.

DOI provided documentation that further describes its three proposed tasks (with 

associated costs): (1) technical and logistical support ($800,000); (2) QA/QC 

($700,000) for third party data verification and validation14, and (3) peer review of 

reports and findings ($467,560)15.

Technical and logistical support includes coordinating ongoing and planned 

assessment activities with cotrustees and BP, as appropriate. It includes developing 

agendas and coordinating participation by relevant individuals or parties16. Data 

review includes third party QA/QC and data verification/validation to ensure the 

Trustees and the public that the data are accurate and complete. Peer review support 

services include the development and incorporation of a rigorous peer review process 

for reports and findings developed as part of the assessment. A consistently applied 

peer review process with specific requirements will improve reliability and ensure 

standardized methods and analyses that are defensible. Each of these tasks will be 

implemented by contractors during the January 2014 through December 2015 period. 

5. DOI’s reconsideration request included an accounting of all funds provided by BP 

and the NPFC17. DOI also certified that: (a) funds claimed are for different work not 

included in previous claims to BP and the NPFC, and (b) DOI has not received 

payment from any source for costs claimed to implement the Technical and Logistical 

Support Plan. For example, costs previously paid to DOI for claims that included 

QA/QC activities were for the principle investigators (PI) to review specific aspects 

of their data collection process, whereas costs claimed in this claim are for a third 

party contractors to conduct QA/QC activities and to verify and validate the PIs’ data.

12 DOI’s comprehensive 2014 Assessment Plan, pg. 38 13 DOI’s comprehensive 2014 Assessment Plan, pg. 38 14 DOI’s response to the NPFC’s request for additional information submitted with the request for 

reconsideration and the comprehensive 2014 Assessment Plan (pg. 40-41) included a list of funded 

assessment activities (2011-2013) that DOI has implemented and is now seeking funding in this claim 

for the Data QA/QC, including data verification and validation task. 15 DOI states that this task will continue beyond 2014 into 2015 and end no later than December 31, 2015

because DOI must wait for the completion of other assessment activities planned in 2014 and results 

from studies implemented from 2011-2013 to complete this work. 16 As stated above, DOI leads and is implementing several assessment activities for several areas of the 

Deepwater Horizon NRDA; thus, this support is needed to continue to participate in technical work 

groups, trustee council meetings, etc. that address and discuss DOI’s assessment activities. 

Additionally, DOI is responsible for managing and maintaining the incident-wide Administrative 

Record; therefore, participation in meetings is appropriate to carry out their responsibilities. 17 DOI’s response to NPFC’s request for additional information submitted with the reconsideration 

request. 

Page 4 of 7

 
In summary the additional information submitted by DOI, clarified that the proposed 

work and claimed costs fit within the overall strategy to integrate individual assessment 

activities – some of which were implemented in 2011-2014 – into a comprehensive and 

integrated injury case that will result in a DARP. 

After reviewing the additional information, the NPFC, upon reconsideration, finds that 

the claimed costs are reasonable for the proposed level of effort given the complexity of 

the incident relating the nature and extent of oiling, geographic extent of exposure of 

natural resources to oil and study area, and magnitude of potential injury, and are not 

duplicative. 

Therefore, the NPFC offers $1,967,560 to implement the Technical and Logistical 

Support Plan. As noted above, the requested $295,134 in contingency funding was 

denied because it was not properly presented to the responsible party prior to submitting 

the claim to the Fund18.

Summary

The NPFC has reviewed the claim submitted by DOI for costs to implement its Technical 

and Logistical Support Plan for the Deepwater Horizon incident in accordance with OPA 

(33 U.S.C. §2701 et seq.), its implementing regulations (33 C.F.R. Part 136) and the 

Natural Resource Damage Assessments regulations (15 C.F.R. Part 990.). Through this 

determination, the NPFC offers $1,967,560 to implement the Technical and Logistical 

Support Plan. This offer constitutes full and final payment.

Revolving Trust Fund and Return of Unused Funds to the OSLTF

As established by OPA (33 U.S.C. §2706(f)) and the Natural Resource Damage 

Assessments regulations (15 C.F.R. §990.65(a)), sums recovered by trustees for natural 

resource damages must be retained in a non-appropriated revolving trust account for use 

only to implement the Technical and Logistical Support Plan activities addressed in this 

determination. For this claim, the NPFC will deposit $1,967,560 into DOI’s Natural 

Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration (NRDAR) Fund. DOI has demonstrated 

that the NRDAR Fund is a non-appropriated account that meets these requirements19. 

Any amounts in excess of those required for these reimbursements and costs shall be 

deposited in the Fund. 33 U.S.C. §2706(f), 33 C.F.R. §136.211 (b), and 15 C.F.R.

§990.65(f).

18 The NPFC previously denied these costs and DOI did not submit any additional information in their 

reconsideration request to show that the claimed contingency was properly presented to BP. 

19 The Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1992 (H.R. 2686/ P.L. 102-

154) permanently authorized receipts for damage assessment and restoration activities to be available 

without further appropriation until expended. The Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for 

Fiscal Year 1992 <http://www.doi.gov/restoration/hjres157.cfm> (H.J.RES. 157 /P.L. 102-229) 

provides that the fund's receipts are authorized to be invested and available until expended. 

Additionally, the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1996

<http://www.doi.gov/restoration/upload/pl104-134.pdf> (P.L. 104-134) provides authority to make 

transfers of settlement funds to other Federal trustees and payments to non-Federal trustees. 

Page 5 of 7

 
Cost Documentation. Progress Reporting, and Final Report

As the claimant, DOI shall ensure that all expenditures of OSLTF funds are documented 

appropriately and spent according to the Technical and Logistical Support Plan as 

approved in this determination. Any funds not spent or appropriately documented shall 

be returned to the Fund. 

One year from the date of this determination, and annually thereafter until the Plan is 

completed, DOI shall provide the NPFC with a report on the status of implementation 

and expenditures. These annual progress reports should include:

1. Certification by DOI that all assessment activities have been conducted in accordance 

with the Technical and Logistical Support Plan, as approved in this determination;

2. A progress report that includes a description of work accomplished, timeline for 

future activities, and any unexpected problems incurred during implementation; 

3. A summary of expenditures by category (i.e., labor, consultant/contractors, and 

travel); and

4. A narrative description of the work accomplished by each individual and how that 

work fits into the overall progress for the year. Enough detail should be included to 

determine reasonableness of costs for each employee when cost documentation is 

received with the final report. 

DOI shall provide the NPFC with a final report 120 days after completion of these 

activities. The report should include: 

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

the Plan as approved by the NPFC; 

2. A summary of findings; 

3. Copies of final reports; 

4. Documentation of OSLTF funds remaining for this claim; and 

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 Plan. 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 or other proof of payment; 

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

or justifications for high-value purchases; and 

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

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

With the final report(s), the NPFC will reconcile costs and all remaining funds and/or 

inadequately documented costs will be returned to the OSLTF. 

Page 6 of 7
The NPFC has prepared a standardized template (enclosed) with detailed instructions to 

facilitate annual progress and final cost reporting. We highly recommend using this 

template or a similar format with the elements found in the template to ensure supporting 

documentation is organized for expeditious processing.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss this determination, please contact me 

by phone (703-872-6051) or email (james.g.hoff@uscg.mil). 

Enclosure: (1) NPFC reporting forms

Page 7 of 7
U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security

United States

Coast Guard

Director

National Pollution Funds Center

US COAST GUARD MS 7100

4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1000

Arlington, VA 20598-7100

Staff Symbol: (CN)

Phone:

.mil

16480 

Claim Number: N10036-OI24 Claimant Name: U.S. Department of the Interior

 

On April 14, 2014, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) presented a claim to the Oil 

Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF or the Fund) in the total amount of $2,262,694 for 

upfront costs for technical and logistical support to assess injuries resulting from the 

discharge of oil on or about April 20, 2010, from a facility located on an area of land 

leased by BP (the Deepwater Horizon incident). 

DOI accepts the settlement offer of $1,967,560 as full compensation for the Technical 

and Logistical Support Plan as described in the December 17, 2014 determination 

(N10036-OI23). The settlement does not include any additional funding for contingency. 

This settlement represents full and final release and satisfaction of all damage assessment 

costs described in the December 17, 2014 determination, Claim Number N10036-OI23. 

DOI agrees to provide annual and final reports to the NPFC as directed in the 

determination. DOI agrees to comply with 33 U.S.C. §2706(f) and 33 C.F.R. §136.211 by 

depositing into a revolving trust account the amounts awarded in the December 17, 2014 

determination and any amounts in excess of those required to accomplish the activities 

for which the claim was paid and approved in the determination shall be deposited into 

the OSLTF. 

DOI hereby assigns, transfers, and subrogates to the United States all rights, claims, 

interest and rights of action under any other law that it may have against any party, 

person, firm, or corporation for compensation paid from the Fund for this claim. DOI 

authorizes the United States to sue, compromise, or settle in the name of DOI, and that 

the NPFC be fully substituted for DOI and subrogated to all DOI rights arising from the 

December 17, 2014 determination. 

DOI acknowledges that the United States has pending legal actions associated with the 

Deepwater Horizon incident in federal district court but warrants that no settlement will 

be made by any person on behalf of the DOI with any other party for costs that are the 

subject of the claim against the OSLTF without consultation with the NPFC. DOI will 

cooperate fully with the NPFC in any claim and/or action by the United States against 

any person or party to recover the compensation paid by the OSLTF. The cooperation 

shall include, but not be limited to, immediately reimbursing the OSLTF any 

compensation received from any other source for the same claim, and providing any 
documentation, evidence, testimony, and other support, as may be necessary for the 

NPFC to recover from any other party or person. 

DOI certifies that to the best of its knowledge and belief the information contained in this 

claim represents all material facts and is true, and understands that misrepresentation of 

facts is subject to prosecution under federal law, including but not limited to 18 U.S.C. 

§§287 and 1001. 

Title of Person Signing Date of Signature

Typed or Printed Name of Claimant or Name of Signature

Authorized Representative

Title of Witness Date of Signature

Typed or Printed Name of Witness Signature

 ALC Required for Payment Bank Routing Number Bank Account Number