U.S. Department

of Homeland Sccurity

Unitcd States

Coast Guard

Director US Coast Guard Stop 7605

National Pollution Funds Center 2703 Manin Luthcr King Jr Avc. SE

Washington, DC 20593-7605

Staff Symbol: (CN)

Phone: 

E-mail:

16480

April24,20l8

CERTIFIED MAIL _ RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

7017 1450 0000 2456 6084

Assistant Director, Habitat Program

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

P.O. Box 43200

I I I lWashington Street SE

Olympia, WA 98504-3200

Dear :

On October 12,2017 , the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) received a claim from the

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife for Natural Resource Damages from the

F/V Deep Sea Oil Spill (S12020-W402). The claim totaled 5126,267 to compensate for lost

use of the recreational shellfisheries resulting from the F/V Deep,Sea oil spill.

Through the enclosed determination, the NPFC offers to pay 597,722. This determination

was made in accordance with the Oil Pollution Act (OPA, 33 U.S.C. $2701 et seq.), the OPA

claims regulations (33 CFR Part 136).

All costs that are not offered for payment are considered denied. Failure to accept this offer

within 60 days will void the offer. You may make a written request for reconsideration of this

claim. Instructions for accepting the offer or requesting reconsideration of the claim are

included in the determination.

If you have questions about this determination, please feel free to contact me a .

Sincerely,

Claims Manager

U.S. Coast Guard

Electronic Copy: , WDFW

Enclosures: (l) NPFC determination

(2) Acceptance/Release Form

(3) Progress and cost reporting template

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

b

) 

(

6

)

, 

(

b

) 

(

4

)

(b) (6), (b) 

(4)

(b) 

(6), 

(b) 

(4)

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

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

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

(b) (4)
National Pollution Funds Center Determination

Summary of the Incident and Claim

On May 12, 2012, the former commercial fishing vessel, Deep Sea, anchored in Penn Cove, 

Whidbey Island, Washington, burned and sank, resulting in the discharge of approximately 5,500 

gallons of diesel, hydraulic, and lube oils into Penn Cove, a navigable water of the United States. 

The U.S. Coast Guard records identify as owner of the vessel and a 

responsible party (RP). 

The Washington State Department of Health (DOH), in coordination with the Island County Public 

Health Shellfish Program, closed public beaches in Penn Cove to recreational and commercial 

shellfish harvesting on May 15, 2012, in response to the spill and the presence of visible oil sheens in 

the area. A combination of chemical and sensory panel testing was conducted to inform reopening of 

the closed beaches. San de Fuca, a portion of West Penn Cove, and Long Point beaches were 

reopened on June 6, 2012, and the southern portion of West Penn Cove and Madrona beaches were 

reopened on June 22, 2012.1

On October 12, 2017, the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) received a claim from 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for $126,267 to compensate for lost use of 

the recreational shellfishery.2 This determination presents the NPFC's findings with respect to this 

claim.

Jurisdictional Information

The NPFC first considered whether the claimed damages arose from an incident as defined by the 

Oil Pollution Act (OPA). 33 U.S.C. §2701 et seq. To be covered, 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 after August 18, 1990. Based on the information summarized in the previous 

section, the NPFC has determined that this claim is for natural resource damages resulting from an 

OPA incident.

Claimant Eligibility

The NPFC next considered whether the claimant is eligible to submit a claim for compensation. 

Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 2706(b) natural resource trustees may present claims to the Oil Spill Liability 

Trust Fund (OSLTF or the Fund) for uncompensated natural resource damages, which include the cost 

of restoring, rehabilitating, replacing, or acquiring the equivalent of, the damaged natural resources. 33 

U.S.C. §2706(d)(l)(A). 

The governor of each State designates trustees for natural resources pursuant to OPA [33 U.S.C. 

§2706 (b)(3)], with responsibility to assess damages to natural resources under their trusteeship and

1

 Washington State Department of Health, After Action Report: F/V Deep Sea Oil Spill – Penn Cove Shellfish Growing 

Area Closure, June 2012 

2

 State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Claim for Natural Resource Damages, September 26, 2017 

Claim Number and Name: S12020-WA02, F/V Deep Sea Oil Spill Restoration Costs 

Claimant: State of Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife

Claim Type: Natural Resources Damages

Amount Requested: $126,267

Offer Amount: $97,722 Denied Amount: $28,545 

Determination Date: April 24, 2018 

(b) (6), (b) (4)
develop and implement plans to restore, rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the equivalent of those injured 

natural resources. 33 U.S.C. §2706(c)(2). 

This claim for natural resource damages was submitted by the WDFW. WDFW, under the authority 

of the Governor of the State of Washington, is the designated state natural resource trustee and the 

designated agency to conduct the damage assessment and pursue appropriate remedies. Pursuant to 

the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.48.368(4), RCW 77.04.012, Subpart G of the National 

Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan [40 CFR 300.605], and Section 1006(b)(3) 

of OPA. 33 U.S.C. §2706(b)(3). The NPFC has determined that the WDFW is the authorized 

claimant. 

General Claim Presentment Requirements

Period of Limitations for claims: Claims to the Fund must be presented in writing to the Director, 

NPFC 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 in the case of natural 

resource damages under 33 U.S.C. § 2702(b)(2)(A) of this title, if later, within three years from the 

date of completion of the natural resource damage assessment under section 2706(e) of this title. 33 

U.S.C. §2712(h)(2) and 33 CFR 136.101(a)(l)(ii). 

This claim is for lost use of the recreational shellfisheries. The Washington State Resource Damages 

Assessment Committee3 approved the Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan (DARP, or the 

Plan) on March 8, 2017, and WDFW submitted the DARP (after an initial withdrawal, March 29, 

2017) to the Fund following adjudication of public comments in September 2017. In this case, the 

damage assessment and the restoration plan were completed on March 8, 2017 and the NPFC 

received the claim on October 12, 2017. The WDFW timely presented its claim to the Fund. 

Notice and opportunity to be heard: The measure of natural resource damages is the cost of 

restoring, rehabilitating, replacing or acquiring the equivalent of the damaged natural resources, the 

diminution in value of those natural resources plus the reasonable costs of assessing the damages. 33 

U.S.C. §2706(d)(1). Costs shall be determined with respect to plans. 33 U.S.C. §2706(d)(2). Plans 

shall be developed and implemented only after adequate public notice, opportunity for hearing, and 

consideration of all comments. 33 U.S.C. §2706(c)(5). WDFW states that the Plan that forms the 

basis of this claim was posted on the WDFW website at 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/habitat/oil_spill/damage.html and advertised via a statewide press 

release on August 3, 2017.4 Two comments were received and adjudicated during the open comment 

period from August 3, 2017 through September 5, 2017; neither comment required an adjustment to 

the draft Plan.5 

Order of presentment: With certain exceptions, claims to the NPFC for damages must be presented 

first to the RP. 33 U.S.C. §2713(a). If a claim is presented in accordance with §2713(a) and is not 

settled by payment by any person within 90 days after the date upon which the claim was presented, 

the claimant may elect to commence an action in court or present the claim to the OSLTF. 33 U.S.C. 

§2713(c)(2).

As indicated in the incident summary, the U.S. Coast Guard determined the responsible party to be 

the owner of the F/V Deep Sea, . 

The Plan developed by WDFW and presented to the RP proposes increasing recreational shellfish 

harvest use through planting oyster seed to increase the biomass/number of available oysters for 

3

 WA State Interagency committee responsible for overseeing the protection and restoration of natural resources injured 

by oil spills. WA Department of Ecology publication Number: 02-08-004 (Rev. 1/13) 

4

 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, News Release: WDFW seeks comments on a restoration plan for lost-use of 

recreational shellfish harvest due to the 2012 F/V Deep Sea oil spill. July 26, 2017 

5

 Assessment of Natural Resource Damages F/V Deep Sea Oil Spill – Public Comment Responsiveness Summary, 

September 2017 

(b) (6), (b) (4)
•

harvest. The cost to implement the bivalve seeding program, as presented to , was 

$126,267. WDFW verified that all has provided no funding for assessment 

restoration activities for this claim. DFW has not commenced an action in court to recover costs that 

are the subject of this claim.

According to the record, the Attorney General of Washington, Fish Wildlife and Parks Division, 

representing WDFW, sent a demand for payment of Natural Resource Damages 

on July 11, 2016, via U.S, Mail and Certified Mail.6 The demand was sent again on August 29, 2016, 

upon telephonic request by . did not provide a written 

response to the demand nor submit payment by October 13, 2016.7 Subsequently, WDFW sent a 

letter on August 1, 2017, to soliciting his input/comments on the Plan.8 The 

WDFW received no response from .

9

 On October 12, 2017, more than 90 days 

after presenting its claim to , WDFW presented the same claim to the NPFC. The 

NPFC notified on October 26, 2017 via Certified Mail10 that this claim had been 

received. The notification was returned to the NPFC as “unclaimed”. 

The NPFC has determined that presentment requirements to the Fund have been met in accordance 

with OPA.

Claimant’s Burden of Proof and Adherence to NRDA Regulations 

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

deemed necessary by the Director, NPFC, to support the claim. 33 CFR 136.105(a) and 33 CFR 

136.209. To satisfy this requirement, the claimant must submit their plan, which forms the basis of 

their claim, along with other supporting information so the NPFC can determine that work and 

associated costs are reasonable and appropriate. The following section of this determination 

summarizes the NPFC’s review of the Plan and supporting information submitted by WDFW. 

WDFW certified that the assessment was conducted in accordance with applicable provisions of 

the NRDA regulations promulgated under section 1006(e)(1) of OPA. 33 U.S.C. §2706(e)(1). 

Adherence to specific provisions of the Natural Resource Damage Assessments regulations [15 

CFR Part 990] not corresponding with provisions addressed above are addressed below. The noted 

omissions are WDFW’s failure to open a publically available administrative record for the 

restoration planning phase11 and not providing the RP the option of implementing the final 

restoration plan with Trustee oversight.12

NPFC Review of Claim Activities and Associated Costs 

Injury Assessment – injury determination13: The Washington State DOH closed the recreational 

shellfishery in Penn Cove on May 14, 2012 in response to visible oil sheen resulting from the 

discharge from the F/V Deep Sea. Of the nine specified beaches within the area identified as closed in 

response to the spill, five had been open to recreational shellfishing at the time of closure (the others 

were closed due to potential for other contamination). The Washington State DOH followed criteria 

from NOAA’s “Managing Seafood Safety After an Oil Spill” in determining when to reopen 

commercial and recreational shellfishing. Based on the reopening criteria, the northern portion of Penn 

Cove was opened to recreational harvest on June 5, 2012, and Madrona Beach and West Penn Cove 

south of Mueller Park were reopened on June 22, 201214. NOAA’s “Managing Seafood Safety after 

6

 Letter to from Attorney General of Washington, July 11, 2016 

7

 Email letter to (WDFW) from Attorney General of Washington, October 21, 2016 

8

 Letter to from (WDFW), August 1, 2017 

9

 Letter to NPFC from , WDFW, September 26, 2017 

10 Notification Letter to from NPFC, October 26, 2017 

11 15 CFR 990.45 Administrative record 

12 15 CFR 990.62 Presenting of demand 

13 15 CFR 990.51 Injury assessment – injury determination 

14 Washington State Department of Health, After Action report: F/V Deep Sea Oil Spill – Penn Cove Shellfish Growing 

Area Closure, June 2012 

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

(4) (b) 

(b) 

(4)

(6), (b) (4) (b) (6), (b) (4) (b) (6), (b) (4)
an Oil Spill” guidance has been applied in setting reopening criteria by other northwestern states 

(Alaska and Oregon) and was used in establishing the unified Deepwater Horizon Seafood Protocol.15

The NPFC has determined that closure of the recreational shellfisheries resulted in lost use of a state of 

Washington trust resource. 

Injury Quantification16: Based on the results of the DOH enforced beach closures and the status of 

beaches for shellfish harvest just prior to and following reopening, it was determined that San de Fuca, 

West Penn Cove, and Long Point were each closed for 22 days due to potential oil contamination 

while Madrona beach was closed for 38 days. The southern part of West Penn Cove beach also 

remained closed until June 22, 2012 (38 days), but it was presumed that any shellfish harvesters 

intending to harvest at this location were likely to have simply moved to the open portion of the beach 

north of Mueller Park (and therefore treated as only closed for 22 days). 

In the absence of direct data on the number of shellfish harvesters that were not able to access the 

closed shellfish beaches during the incident, WDFW modeled harvester data for the closed beaches 

using beach user data from 2010 and 2011. According to WDFW, there was no known reason to 

expect harvester use patterns had changed prior to the incident, an average of the data from the 

preceding years was used to estimate the expected use of the individual beaches for 2012 during the 

closure period. The model relies on aerial “head counts” conducted on 50 randomly selected days 

between March and September each year during daylight clamming tides. The numbers were then 

extrapolated to “all-day effort”17 and the days divided into strata to allow for correlation with specific 

harvest conditions. The strata are based on tidal range and day of the week (weekday vice weekend) to 

provide for a more accurate correlation with anticipated harvest pressure (e.g., extra low tide on 

weekend garnering heaviest harvester use). The WDFW then identified the number of closed days per 

beach for each stratum due to the incident to estimate the total number of harvesters that would have 

been expected on each of the beaches – total of 1,995.55 user days. On November 6, 2017 the NPFC 

asked for additional explanation of the extrapolation to all-day effort, how harvesters were 

distinguished from other beach users, and how harvest trips to alternate beaches were considered. On 

December 20, 2017, WDFW provided a link to the report serving as the basis for the model to estimate 

harvest days.18 The methods used are standard protocols established by the State of Washington to 

estimate annual catch of clams and oysters on public beaches as required by regional State-Tribal 

Bivalve Management Plans and to inform recreational harvest seasons and other regulations. With 

regard to use of alternative beaches, WDFW indicated that they relied on anecdotal evidence 

suggesting shellfish harvesters in Penn Cove are from the local communities of Oak Harbor and 

Coupeville and therefore unlikely to travel for a similar opportunity as the closest open beaches were 

outside the cove. The cost of conducting a user survey to refine the calculation was considered not 

cost-effective given the scale of injury. NPFC has determined that the method of estimating shellfish 

harvester use was reasonable and appropriate. 

Injury Valuation: WDFW selected a valuation scaling approach - scaling restoration cost equivalent 

to the value of the lost services19 - to calculate damages. During a January 24, 2018 phone 

conversation, WDFW clarified that although they considered a service-to-service scaling approach 

(i.e., the level of restoration necessary to generate the equivalent use), they found the variables 

necessary for the calculation difficult to reliably quantify in a cost-effective manner. It was the 

judgment of WDFW that valuation of the lost services was practicable, but valuation of the 

replacement services could not be performed within a reasonable time frame or at a reasonable cost.20

The NPFC has determined that use of the valuation scaling approach is reasonable and appropriate for 

determining total damages. 

 

15 Ylitalo, G. et al., 2012, Federal Seafood Safety Response to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences 

16 15 CFR 99.52 Injury Assessment - quantification 

17 All day effort – the total number of harvesters using the beach during the course of the day 

18 Strom and Bradbury, Estimating Recreational Clam and Oyster Harvest in Puget Sound (Bivalve regions 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8), 

May 2007 

19 15 CFR 990.53(d)(3) Restoration selection – Scaling restoration actions – valuation scaling approach 

20 Email/Phone Record from NPFC to WDFW, January 25, 2018 
WDFW applied existing published data with regard to the monetary value of a shellfish harvest trip21

to arrive at a total-lost-user-days value of $97,722.22 WDFW relied on a 2008 report23 that estimated 

the monetary value of a shellfish harvest trip/day at $43 in 2006. WDFW then applied a CPI calculus 

of 1.1388 to arrive at a value of $48.97 per harvest trip/day in 2012. WDFW’s further clarified on 

December 20, 2018 that, at the time of the assessment, the source document was the most relevant 

available economic assessment with regard to net economic value of a recreational shellfishing 

trip/day, and they did not consider it cost-effective to collect survey data for a newer or more 

geographically specific analysis. 

Since completion of the DARP, NOAA published a study with new economic estimates based on 2016 

survey data for Puget Sound.24 NOAA provided NPFC analysis for Penn Cove based on the 2017 

model and estimated total lost value associated with the closure of $108,409.25 The analysis by NOAA 

provides validation of WDFW’s valuation as a conservative estimate of damages. 

Based on the information provided by WDFW and confirming independent analysis by NOAA, NPFC 

has determined that the injury valuation of $97,722 is reasonable and appropriate. 

Application of Agency Indirect to Injury Valuation - WDFW applied their FY16 standard indirect 

rate of 29.21% or $28,545 to the calculated injury valuation for a total claim of $126,267. On 

December 20, 2017, WDFW further clarified by providing a restoration budget consisting of direct 

expenses of $97,722 26 toward the purchase of oyster seed, and $28,545 in Indirect.27 Additionally, 

WDFW confirmed that the claim does not include costs associated with conducting the assessment, 

labor/transportation costs associated with planting of the oyster seed, nor restoration monitoring 

activities – these associated expenses to be covered through existing program funds. Per the valuation 

scaling approach employed by WDFW, the scale of restoration should be cost equivalent to the lost 

value28 plus the cost of assessing the damages. Therefore, in the absence of assessment costs, 

compensation above the injury valuation constitutes over-compensation. Though indirect expenses are 

compensable, any indirect expenses should be included within a restoration budget cost equivalent to 

the injury valuation. The NPFC notes that the application of indirect costs may be reasonable in certain 

circumstances; however, in this instance the addition of $28,545 to the injury valuation of $97,722 is 

not appropriate because it results in restoration costs in excess of the injury valuation. If indirect 

expenses are a necessary component of the restoration plan, WDFW must amend the Plan, adjusting 

the scale as necessary to incorporate indirect expenses. 

Restoration Selection29: Preferred Restoration Alternative: WDFW’s selected restoration alternative 

is to plant additional shellfish seed (oysters) on the public access beaches in the Penn Cove area 

(~2000 bags over 2 years based on prevailing oyster seed bag pricing30). Additional shellfish plantings 

will increase the total harvestable stock allowing for increased shellfishing harvest in the augmented 

area. The proposed restoration has a high probability of success (as evidenced by the existing shellfish 

enhancement program operated by WDFW31), and can be implemented without additional expenses 

 

21 $43*1.1388=$48.97. the $43 value of shellfish harvest trip in 2006 includes cost of items and services associated with 

those included in the CPI and are therefore subject to inflation. 1.1388 inflation calculus from 

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm 

22 1,995.55 user days * $48.97/user-day = $97,722.08 

23 TCW Economics, 2008, Economic Analysis of the Non-Treaty Commercial and Recreational Fisheries in Washington 

State, Final Report

24 Anderson, L. E. and M. L. Plummer, 2017, Recreational Demand for Shellfish Harvesting Under Environmental Closure. 

University of Chicago Press 

25 Email from NOAA to NPDC, March 7, 2018 

26 1,995.55 lost user days X $48.97 harvest day value = $97,722.08 

27 Letter from the Department of the Interior to the State of Washington executing the Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate 

Agreement, July 14, 2015 

28 15 CFR 990.53(d)(3)(ii) - Restoration selection – Scaling restoration actions – valuation scaling approach- cost 

equivalency description 

29 15 CFR 990.53 et seq. Restoration selection 

30 Jamestown Point Whitney Shellfish Company, Price Adjustment Notice, September 2016 

31 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Puget Sound Clam and Oyster FAQ 
for permits or project design, and is easily scalable to meet the “valuation scaling/cost equivalency 

approach” used in determining total damages. On November 6, 2017, the NPFC asked for additional 

information on the restoration alternatives considered and the associated evaluation of the restoration 

alternatives. WDFW provided details of three rejected alternatives in their December 20, 2017 

response. WDFW rejected the options of purchasing more land for recreational shellfish harvest given 

the lack of available parcels within the cost range of injury valuation. WDFW also rejected enhancing 

site access given lack of evidence that site access is a limiting factor for shellfish harvesters. Finally, 

WDFW rejected enhancements to the sewage system of the City of Coupeville as the cost of necessary 

enhancements exceed the calculated injury valuation and the lack of certainty that enhancements 

would reduce shellfishery closures due to sewage-related contamination. The NPFC determines the 

selected restoration alternative is reasonable and appropriate and that WDFW sufficiently considered 

other restoration alternative in light of the restoration scaling approach elected. 

Request for Reconsideration 

All costs not offered for reimbursement are considered denied. The claimant may make a written 

request for reconsideration of this claim. The reconsideration must be received by the NPFC within 

60 days of the date of the determination and must include the factual or legal basis of the request for 

reconsideration, providing any additional support for the claim. Reconsideration will be based upon 

the additional information provided and a claim may be reconsidered only once. Disposition of the 

reconsideration will constitute final agency action. Failure of the NPFC to issue a written decision 

within 90 days after receipt of a timely request for reconsideration shall, at the option of the 

claimant, be deemed final agency action. 

Summary 

The NPFC has reviewed the claim submitted by WDFW for costs to recover the lost use of 

recreational shellfisheries resulting from the F/V Deep Sea spill in accordance with OPA [33 U.S.C. 

§2701 et seq.] and associated regulations, 33 CFR Part 136 and 15 CFR Part 990. After reviewing 

WDFW's Plan and additional claim information, the NPFC finds that: (1) the injury identification, 

quantification and valuation, and the selected restoration activities are reasonable and appropriate, 

and (2) with the exception of the addition of WDFW indirect costs to the injury valuation, the costs 

claimed for these activities are reasonable for the proposed level of effort. 

Through this determination, the NPFC offers $97,722 to implement the activities detailed in WDFW 

Plan. The NPFC denies $28,545 in claimed damages as that portion constituting over-compensation. 

Revolving Trust Fund and Return of Unused Funds to the OSLTF

As established by OPA [33 U.S.C. §2706(f)], sums recovered by trustees for natural resource 

damages must be retained in a non-appropriated revolving trust account for use only to implement the 

activities addressed in this determination in accordance with WDFW’s Plan. For this claim, the 

NPFC will deposit $97,722 into a State of Washington fund type 110 - Special Wildlife Account (for 

compensation, gifts and grants to be used for the protection, propagation and conservation of wild 

animals, wild birds and game fish), which WDFW has demonstrated to be a non-appropriated, 

revolving trust fund. WFDW 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 CFR 

136.211(b).

Cost Documentation, Progress Reporting, and Final Report

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

appropriately and spent according to the Plan for the activities approved in this determination. Any 

funds not spent for the activities in the Plan or appropriately documented shall be returned to the 

 

https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/shellfish/ps_clam_oyster_faqs.html
Fund. 33 U.S.C. §2706(t).

One year from the date of this determination, and annually thereafter, WDFW shall provide the 

NPFC with a report on the status of implementation and expenditures. These annual progress 

reports should include:

1. Certification by WDFW that all activities approved in this determination have been conducted 

in accordance with the Plan;

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 of the work 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.

WDFW shall submit a final progress report within 120 days from the date an approved activity is 

complete. This report should include:

1. Certification by WDFW 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 and/or studies;

4. Documentation of OSLTF funds remaining in the Revolving Trust Fund for this claim, 

including account balance and interest earned; 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;

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

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

Submission Procedures for Acceptance/Release Form or Request for Reconsideration 

If you accept this offer, please complete the enclosed Acceptance/Release Form.

Submit signed Acceptance/Release forms or Request for Reconsideration to:

Director (Cn)

National Pollution Funds Center

U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7605

2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE 

Washington, DC 20593-7605
If the NPFC does not receive the signed Acceptance/Release Form or Request for Reconsideration 

within 60 days of the date of this letter, the offer is void. If the settlement is accepted, payment will 

be mailed within 30 days of receipt of the Release Form. Please provide account information and 

instruction for the transfer of funds to your Damage Assessment and Restoration Revolving Fund 

account with the signed form.

Claims Manager 

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

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