2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION1 

Claim Number: UCGP924003-URC001 

Claimant: CA Department of Fish and Wildlife: Oil Spill Prevention and Response

Type of Claimant: State

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $741.97

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $741.97

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On February 19, 2022, high winds caused the recreational fishing vessel, S/V DESTINY to break 

anchorage and drift onto the Ventura Harbor breakwall where it sank; causing an actual discharge of 

diesel fuel into the Ventura Harbor; a navigable waterway of the United States.2 On this same date, the 

United States Coast Guard’s (“USCG”) National Response Center (“NRC”) received notification that the 

S/V DESTINY owned by Mr. , broke its anchor and hit the rocks.3

 United States Coast 

Guard (USCG) Marine Safety Detachment (MSD) Santa Barbara (“MSD Santa Barbara” or “FOSC”) was 

the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) for the incident.

4

 

Mr. (“Mr. ” or “RP”), as the owner, and operator of the vessel at the time of 

the incident, was identified as the responsible party (RP), as defined by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.5

Mr. confirmed S/V DESTINY held approximately 200 gallons of diesel fuel onboard at the time of 

sinkage into the Ventura Harbor.

6

On February 20, 2020, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Oil Spill Prevention and 

Response (“CA DFW” or “Claimant”) arrived on scene to assess the spill situation.

7 CA DFW determined 

that both salvage of the vessel and recovery of the fuel were unsafe.8 Approximately 1 week after the 

incident, CA-DFW’s Case Officer spoke with representatives from the USCG, Ventura Harbor Patrol 

(VHP) and CA DFW’s Field Response Team. The group determined that the 200 gallons of diesel fuel 

had been lost to the environment and would not be recoverable.9

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 with 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 CA DFW claim submission received November 2, 2023, pg. 1 of 4. 3 National Response Center Report #1329286 dated February 19, 2022, pg. 2 of 5. 4 Email from USCG MSD Santa Barbara to NPFC dated December 4, 2023.

5 33 U.S.C. § 2701 (32). 6 CA DFW claim submission received November 2, 2023. See, SV DESTINY OES 22-0979 Fed Claim Supporting 

Docs, Arrest/Investigation Report, pg. 5 of 31. 7 Id. pg. 6 of 31. 8 Id. 9 Email from USCG MSD Santa Barbara to NPFC dated December 4, 2023.

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
3

On October 1, 2022, a dive team was secured through Tow Boat US,10 but no dive was ever 

conducted due to severe weather and continued unsafe conditions.11

On November 2, 2023, CA DFW presented its removal costs claim to the National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC) for $741.97.

12 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with the 

claim, analyzed the applicable law and regulations, and after careful consideration has determined that all 

costs requested for $741.97 are compensable and offers this amount as full and final compensation of this 

claim.

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

 On February 19, 2022, at 1615 hours, the NRC received notification of a substantial threat of diesel 

fuel discharge associated with a sunken vessel that broke anchor and hit the rocks at the entrance to

Ventura Harbor, in Ventura, California.

13 The vessel was identified as the recreational sailing vessel S/V 

DESTINY; owned and operated by Mr. .

1415 

MSD Santa Barbara, in its capacity as the FOSC, conducted phone investigations with both VHP and 

Mr. .

16 It was reported that Mr. had anchored illegally outside the Ventura Harbor for 

approximately 1 year prior to the incident.

17 Mr. had been warned by VHP numerous times of the 

unsafe anchorage where S/V DESTINY was located.

18 On February 19, 2022, high winds caused the S/V 

DESTINY to break anchorage and drift into Ventura Harbor breakwall, where the vessel broke apart and 

sunk.

19

RP confirmed S/V DESTINY held approximately 200 gallons of diesel fuel onboard at the time of 

sinkage into the Ventura Harbor; a navigable waterway of the United States that flows into the Pacific 

Ocean.

20

Responsible Party

10 CA DFW claim submission received November 2, 2023. See, SV DESTINY OES 22-0979 Fed Claim Supporting 

Docs, Arrest/Investigation Report, pg. 11 of 31. 11 Email from CA DFW to NPFC dated November 8, 2023. 12 CA DFW claim submission received November 2, 2023. 13 National Response Center Report #1329286 dated February 19, 2022, pg. 2 of 5. 14 CA DFW claim submission received November 2, 2023. See, SV DESTINY OES 22-0979 Fed Claim Supporting 

Docs, Arrest/Investigation Report found on pages 1-12 of 31. 15 USCG Vessel Critical Profile, pg. 1 of 1. 16. CA DFW claim submission received November 2, 2023. See, SV DESTINY OES 22-0979 Fed Claim Supporting 

Docs, Arrest/Investigation Report found on pages 1-12 of 31; See, Email from USCG MSD Santa Barbara to NPFC 

dated December 4, 2023. 

17 CA DFW claim submission received November 2, 2023. See, SV DESTINY OES 22-0979 Fed Claim Supporting 

Docs, Arrest/Investigation Report, pg. 3 of 31. 18 Id. 19 CA DFW claim submission received November 2, 2023, pg. 1 of 4. 20 CA DFW claim submission received November 2, 2023. See, SV DESTINY OES 22-0979 Fed Claim Supporting 

Docs, Arrest/Investigation Report, pg. 5 of 31.

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

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the owner of the source which caused the oil spill is 

the Responsible Party (RP) for the incident.21 Mr. is the confirmed owner of the S/V 

DESTINY at the time when the spill incident occurred.22 As such, Mr. is identified as the 

responsible party (RP), as defined by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.23

Recovery Operations

On February 19, 2022, CA DFW was notified of the incident. Due to hazardous swell conditions, CA 

DFW decided to hold off on assessment until the following day.

24 On February 20, 2020, CA DFW 

arrived on scene and upon evaluation of the spill location, they determined that salvage of the vessel was 

not feasible and recovery of the fuel was unsafe.

25 Approximately 1 week after the incident, CA-DFW’s 

Case Officer spoke with members from USCG, VHP and CA DFW’s Field Response Team. The group 

determined that the 200 gallons of diesel fuel had been lost to the environment and would not be 

recoverable.26

On October 1, 2022, a dive team was secured through Tow Boat US,

27 but no dive was ever 

conducted due to severe weather and unsafe conditions.28 CA DFW recommended legal charges be 

brought against the RP by the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office (“Ventura DA”), however 

without the dive data, the Ventura DA was unable to file charges against the RP and the case was 

closed.29

II. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

On November 2, 2023, CA DFW presented its removal costs claim to the National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC) for $741.97.

30 When the claim was received, it included CA DFW’s signed OSLTF form, 

a claim request letter, the CA DFW’s arrest/investigation report, Invoice 45470 depicting the costs 

claimed, CA DFW time sheet records, an official document noting CA-DFW’s hourly rates for 2022, and 

the letters with invoices sent by CA-DFW to the RP on June 15, 2022, and November 9, 2022. 31 

On November 7, 2023, the NPFC requested additional information from CA DFW.

32 On November 8, 

2023, CA DFW explained why particular costs sent to the RP were not included in their claim, and why 

costs for June 24, 2022, were excluded from their original invoice.33 On November 27, 2023, CA DFW 

submitted activity logs in additional support of the costs claimed.34

The NPFC issued a RP Notification letter to Mr dated November 3, 2023.35 A RP 

Notification letter notifies the RP that a claim was presented to the NPFC that is seeking reimbursement 

21 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32). 22 Vessel Critical Profile, pg. 1 of 1. 23 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32). 24 CA DFW claim submission received November 2, 2023. See, SV DESTINY OES 22-0979 Fed Claim Supporting 

Docs, Arrest/Investigation Report, pg. 6 of 31.

25 Id. 26 Id. pg. 7 of 31. 27 Id. pg. 11 of 31. 28 Email from CA DFW to NPFC dated November 8, 2023. 29 Id. 30 CA DFW claim submission received November 2, 2023. 31 CA DFW claim submission received November 2, 2023, with Attachments. 32 Email from NPFC to CA DFW dated November 7, 2023. 33 Email from CA DFW to NPFC dated November 8, 2023. 34 Email from CA DFW to NPFC dated November 27, 2023. See, Van Epps 214 2-19-22 and Van Epps 214 6-24-22. 35 NPFC letter to mailed on November 8, 2023.

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

of uncompensated removal costs or damages incurred as result of the incident in which the recipient is the 

identified or suspected RP.36 As of the date of this determination, Mr. has not responded to the RP 

Notification Letter.

III. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

 The NPFC utilizes an informal process when adjudicating claims against the Oil Spill Liability Trust 

Fund (OSLTF).37 As a result, 5 U.S.C. § 555(e) requires the NPFC to provide a brief statement explaining 

its decision. This determination is issued to satisfy that requirement.

 When adjudicating claims against the OSLTF, the NPFC acts as the finder of fact. In this role, the 

NPFC considers all relevant evidence, including evidence provided by claimants and evidence obtained 

independently by the NPFC, and weighs its probative value when determining the facts of the claim.38

The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, or conclusions reached by other 

entities.39 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 makes its determination based on the 

preponderance of the credible evidence.

IV. DISCUSSION: 

 An RP is liable for all removal costs and damages resulting from either an oil discharge or a 

substantial threat of oil discharge into a navigable water of the United States.40 An RP’s liability is strict, 

joint, and several.41 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.”42 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.”43 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.”44

36 See, RP Notification Letter dated November 3, 2023. 37 33 CFR Part 136. 38 See, e.g., Boquet Oyster House, Inc. v. United States, 74 ERC 2004, 2011 WL 5187292, (E.D. La. 2011), “[T]he 

Fifth Circuit specifically recognized that an agency has discretion to credit one expert's report over another when 

experts express conflicting views.” (Citing, Medina County v. Surface Transp. Bd., 602 F.3d 687, 699 (5th Cir. 

2010)). 39 See, e.g., Use of Reports of Marine Casualty in Claims Process by National Pollution Funds Center, 71 Fed. Reg. 

60553 (October 13, 2006) and Use of Reports of Marine Casualty in Claims Process by National Pollution Funds 

Center 72 Fed. Reg. 17574 (concluding that NPFC may consider marine casualty reports but is not bound by them). 40 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 41 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 42 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). 43 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 44 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30).

(b) (6)
6

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

National Contingency Plan (NCP).45 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of regulations 

governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such claims.46 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.47

 Before reimbursement can be authorized for uncompensated removal costs, the claimant must 

demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence:

(a) That the actions taken were necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate the effects of the incident;

(b) That the removal costs were incurred as a result of these actions;

(c) That the actions taken were directed by the FOSC or determined by the FOSC to be consistent 

with the National Contingency Plan.48

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.49

The NPFC analyzed each of these factors and determined that the costs incurred and submitted by CA 

DFW herein are compensable removal costs based on the supporting documentation provided. All costs 

approved for payment were verified as being invoiced at the appropriate state payroll rates and all costs 

were supported by adequate documentation which included invoices and/or proof of payment where 

applicable.

Based on the location of this incident, the FOSC is the United States Coast Guard Marine Safety 

Detachment Santa Barbara (“MSD Santa Barbara” or “FOSC”).

50 All approved costs were supported by 

adequate documentation and were determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the National 

Contingency Plan (NCP).51

Upon adjudication of the costs, the NPFC has determined that all costs submitted by CA DFW in the 

amount of $741.97 are compensable, and as such, all removal costs claimed are approved. 

V. CONCLUSION:

 Based on a comprehensive review of the record, the applicable law and regulations, and for the reasons 

outlined above, CA DFW’s request for uncompensated removal costs is approved in the amount of 

$741.97.

45 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a)(4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 46 33 CFR Part 136. 47 33 CFR 136.105. 48 After analyzing the incident and the actions taken by CA DFW, the FOSC opined that the response actions 

undertaken by CA DFW were consistent with the National Contingency Plan. See, Email from USCG MSD Santa 

Barbara to the NPFC dated December 4, 2023. 49 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 50 40 CFR 300.120(a)(2). 51 Email from USCG MSD Santa Barbara to the NPFC dated December 4, 2023.