U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security 

United States 

Coast Guard 

Director 

National Pollution Funds Center

 U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7100 

4200 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1000 

Arlington, VA 20598-7100 

Staff Symbol: (CN) 

 16480 

April 3, 2013 

CERTIFIED MAIL Number: 7011 1570 0001 2445 2934

Thomas O. Melius 

Regional Director, USFWS Midwest Region 

5600 American Boulevard West, Suite 990 

Bloomington, Minnesota 55437-1458 

Re: Claim Number: E10527-OI02 - Enbridge Oil Spill Assessment 

Dear Mr. Melius: 

The National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) has completed its review of the Department 

of the Interior’s1

 (DOI) claim for costs to assess lost recreational use of natural resources 

resulting from the Enbridge oil spill (Claim Number E10527-OI02). We have 

determined that the claimed amount of $636,479 is compensable under the Oil Pollution 

Act (OPA, 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and the OPA regulations (33 C.F.R. §136 and 15 

C.F.R. 990 et seq.). The basis of our decision follows. 

 

Summary of the Incident and Claim 

On or about July 26, 2010, a 30-inch diameter pipeline owned by Enbridge Energy, 

Limited Partnership (Enbridge) ruptured near Marshall, Michigan, discharging over 

840,0002

 gallons of crude oil into a wetland adjacent to Talmadge Creek, which drains 

into the Kalamazoo River. On July 27, 2010, 2-miles of Talmadge Creek and 38-miles of 

the Kalamazoo River were closed by the Calhoun and Kalamazoo County Public Health 

Departments to allow cleanup activities to occur and to protect the public from potential 

exposure to the oil3

. A small section of the impacted river was reopened in April 2012, 

with most of the remaining impacted sections reopened in mid-June 20124. During the 

closure periods, all water-based recreation activities were prohibited, including fishing, 

boating, swimming, and boat-based hunting and trapping. On July 27, 2010, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency identified Enbridge as the owner and/or operator of the 

 

1

 The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is the agency within DOI that is leading the natural 

resource damage assessment of impacts from the Enbridge oil spill. References to DOI in this 

determination will largely include activities and communication undertaken by FWS. 2

 http://www fws.gov/midwest/es/ec/nrda/MichiganEnbridge/ 3

 The Michigan Department of Community Health also issued health advisories informing the public to 

refrain from swimming in, touching, or eating fish from the impacted area. 

Claim Number: E10527-OI02 

1 of 12 

4

 The entire river was reopened in late-summer 2012. 
facility, i.e., the pipeline, from which the discharge or substantial threat of a discharge 

took place5

. 

Following the spill, DOI, along with the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), State of Michigan, and tribal representatives6

 initiated an assessment of natural 

resource damages resulting from the discharges and response to discharges of oil. Based 

on the prohibition of water-based activities, and initial assessment findings that indicated 

shoreline-based activities were negatively impacted by the spill7, DOI developed a plan 

to determine the nature and extent of lost recreational use of natural resources8

 resulting 

from the Enbridge oil spill incident. 

 

On July 31, 2012, DOI presented a claim to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF or 

the Fund)9

 for $731,950 to implement its lost recreational use assessment plan. On 

September 4, 2012, DOI reduced their claim sum certain to $337,654, reflecting their 

decision to modify the scope of assessment activities10. DOI again amended their claim 

on December 6, 2012, revising the scope of work and sum certain to $636,47911. 

The remainder of this determination presents the NPFC’s analysis and findings with 

respect to this claim and the claim requirements under OPA. 

Jurisdictional Information 

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

defined by OPA. 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. To be covered, the incident must involve a 

discharge of oil or a substantial threat of discharge of oil from a vessel or facility12 into 

navigable waters of the United States after August 18, 1990. The Kalamazoo River is a 

navigable water of the United States. Based on the claim information summarized above, 

the NPFC finds that this claim is for natural resource damages resulting from an OPA 

incident. 

Claimant Eligibility 

Federal natural resource trustees are designated by the President, pursuant to OPA (33 

U.S.C. §2706 (b)(2)), with responsibility to assess damages to natural resources under 

their trusteeship. 33 U.S.C. §2706(c)(1)(A). Pursuant to 33 C.F.R. §136.207, natural 

resource trustees may present claims to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) for 

 

5

 http://www.epa.gov/enbridgespill/ar/enbridge-AR-0004.pdf 6

 Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi and Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of the 

Pottawatomi 7

 DOI 2012 Lost Recreational Use Assessment Plan, Section 1 

8

 DOI 2012 Lost Recreational Use Assessment Plan 

9

 The NPFC administers the Fund, including the adjudication of claims presented to the Fund. 10 DOI responses to NPFC August 14, 2012 follow-up questions, received September 4, 2012 11 DOI responses to NPFC September 19, 2012 follow-up questions, received December 6, 2012 

Claim Number: E10527-OI02 

2 of 12 

12 OPA provides that a “facility” means any structure, group of structures, equipment, or devise (other than 

a vessel) which is used for one or more of the following purposes: exploring for, drilling for, producing, 

storing, handling, transferring, processing, or transporting oil. 33 USC § 2701(9). This includes 

pipelines. 
uncompensated natural resource damages, which include the reasonable cost of assessing 

those damages. 33 U.S.C. §2712(a)(4); 33 U.S C. §2706(d)(1)(A)-(C); 33 C.F.R. 

§136.207(b). 

This claim for natural resource damage assessment costs was submitted by DOI. DOI, 

under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior, is an appropriate federal natural 

resource trustee 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. 

Claimant's Burden of Proof and Adherence to NRDA Regulations 

Under OPA, trustees bear the burden of proving all evidence, information, and 

documentation to support their claim for natural resource damages. 33 C.F.R. §136.105. 

Any determination or assessment of damages to natural resources for the purposes of 

OPA by a trustee in accordance with the regulations at 15 C.F.R. Part 990 shall have the 

force and effect of a rebuttable presumption on behalf of the trustee in any administrative 

or judicial proceeding under this Act. 33 U.S.C. §2706 (e)(2), 15 C.F.R. §990.13. 

 

After reviewing the claim and supporting documents, the NPFC finds that DOI followed 

15 C.F.R. 990 et seq. Specifically, they coordinated actions with other trustees to ensure 

no double recovery of damages, issued a notice of intent to conduct restoration planning, 

invited Enbridge to participate in the natural resource damage assessment, prepared a 

plan that was reviewed by the public, and are maintaining an administrative record that is 

available for public review. 

General Claim Presentment Requirements

Claims to the OSLTF 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 within three years from the 

date of completion of the natural resource damage assessment under OPA (33 U.S.C. 

§2702(b)(2)(A), whichever is later. 33 U.S.C. §2712(h)(2), 33 C.F.R. §136.101(a)(1)(ii). 

This claim is for costs associated with the implementation of a plan to assess the nature 

and extent of lost recreational use of natural resources resulting from the incident. The 

assessment was not complete when the claim was received on July 31, 2012; therefore, 

the claim was received within the period of limitations for claims. 

Natural resource damage claims presented to the Fund must be based on a plan that the 

public has had an opportunity to review. 33 U.S.C. §2706(c)(5). On June 25, 2012, DOI 

published its Lost Recreational Use Assessment Plan on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s Enbridge Oil Spill Natural Resource Damage and Restoration webpage13,14, 

thereby meeting this requirement. 

 

Claim Number: E10527-OI02 

3 of 12 

13 Email from Kim Mitchell (DOI) to Stephanie Millsap (DOI) on June 25, 2012 confirming plan was 

posted on website; this correspondence was provided to the NPFC via email from DOI to NPFC on 

January 16, 2013 
Claim Presentment to the Responsible Party 

With certain exceptions, claims to the NPFC for damages must be presented first to the 

responsible party (RP). 33 U.S.C. §2713(a). If a claim is presented in accordance with 

§2713(a) and the claim is not settled by any person by payment 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). 

DOI states that they provided Enbridge with their initial lost use recreational assessment 

work plan on July 18, 201115, discussed this plan with Enbridge by conference call on 

August 30, 201116, and provided Enbridge with a revised work plan on September 9, 

201117,18. By letter dated November 11, 2011, Enbridge acknowledged the need to 

collect additional data on lost recreational uses and provided the trustees with an 

alternative assessment plan19. DOI and Enbridge continued to pursue a cooperative 

assessment plan, including correspondence and a phone call on December 5, 201120 and 

December 12, 201121, respectively. 

On April 4, 2012, DOI presented their claim to Enbridge, which included their final lost 

recreational use assessment plan and claim for implementation costs22. The plan 

identified potential types of recreational losses resulting from the incident, the overall 

approach to assessing and scaling injury, including an on-site count study, site-specific 

recreation survey, and the use of a site-specific travel cost model to estimate lost 

recreational value. The sum certain for the claim presented to Enbridge was $636,479. 

On June 20, 2012, Enbridge wrote to the trustees that they do “not believe that 

implementation of the recreation study as presented is necessary. Rather, it is Enbridge’s 

belief that sufficient data have been collected to establish a recovery timeline, quantify 

lost use, and evaluate a compensation plan”23. 

On July 31, 2012, more than 90 days after presenting Enbridge with its assessment plan 

and claim for implementation costs, and after Enbridge declined payment, DOI presented 

a claim to the Fund for funds to implement its Lost Recreational Use Assessment Plan. 

 

14 http://www fws.gov/midwest/es/ec/nrda/MichiganEnbridge/pdf/EnbridgeRecUseAssessPlanBudget.pdf 15 Kalamazoo River Oil Spill Recreation Use Assessment Approach and Cost Estimate dated July 15 2011; 

in an email from DOI to NPFC on October 17, 2012, DOI stated that this plan was conveyed to 

Enbridge on July 18, 2011 16 Phone conversation between DOI and Enbridge; DOI referenced this conversation in an email from DOI 

to the NPFC on October 17, 2012 17 Email from DOI to NPFC dated October 17, 2012, explaining the cooperative process with Enbridge 

18 Memorandum from Trustee Council to Enbridge Energy dated September 9, 2011 transmitting the 

revised work plan 

19 Letter from Enbridge to DOI dated November 11, 2011conveying revised 2012 NRDA Human Use 

Assessment Study Plan 20 Memorandum from Trustee Council to Enbridge dated November 30, 2011 

21 Phone call between trustees and Enbridge on December 12, 2011, referenced in email from DOI to 

NPFC on October 17, 2012 22 DOI 2012 Lost Recreational Use Assessment Plan 

Claim Number: E10527-OI02 

4 of 12 

23 Letter from Enbridge to DOI dated June 20, 2012 
Based on the above facts, the NPFC finds that the claim presented to the Fund was 

presented to Enbridge in accordance with OPA and the claims regulations. 

NPFC Review of Claim and Associated Costs 

DOI claims $636,479 to implement its plan to assess the lost recreational use of natural 

resources resulting from the closures of Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River in the 

2010-2012 period and potential for continuing losses in 2013 due to oil and past and 

ongoing response efforts. The plan reflects preliminary assessment data24 that identifies 

potential recreational losses associated with both water-based (i.e., fishing, boating, 

swimming, and boat-based hunting and trapping) and shore-line based activities (i.e., 

walking, running, cycling, nature and wildlife observation, picnicking, and sightseeing). 

DOI plans to use a travel cost model25 to determine the value of lost and diminished 

value recreational trips resulting from the spill. The model will use site-specific data that 

DOI will collect from telephone and on-site surveys to calculate the: (1) number and type 

of lost recreational trips to Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River (pre-spill minus 

post spill), and (2) changes in value of a trip to these areas. DOI will then determine the 

total damages for loss of recreational uses as the number of lost and diminished trips 

times the change in value of those trips. The total dollars of lost and diminished trips 

(i.e., the natural resource damage) will then be scaled to the cost of appropriate 

restoration actions using the value-to-cost scaling approach26. 

Under DOI’s plan, assessment activities were proposed to be implemented over a 12 

month period from April 2012 to April 2013. DOI subsequently extended the 

implementation schedule to December 2013 because of continued river closures27. DOI 

emphasized that the changes to the time schedule of the plan would not change the plan’s 

purpose, scope, design, or implementation cost28. As well, the updated schedule for the 

plan will provide a better representation of the recreational impacts from the spill 

 

24 This preliminary data was collected using funds obligated from an Interagency Agreement between the 

NPFC and DOI for the collection of preassessment data. 

25 The travel cost method is used to estimate economic use values associated with ecosystems or sites that 

are used for recreation. The method can be used to estimate the economic benefits or costs resulting 

from: changes in access costs for a recreational site; elimination of an existing recreational site; addition 

of a new recreational site; and changes in environmental quality at a recreational site The basic premise 

of the travel cost method is that the time and travel cost expenses that people incur to visit a site 

represent the “price” of access to the site. Thus, peoples’ willingness to pay to visit the site can be 

estimated based on the number of trips that they make at different travel costs. 

http://www.ecosystemvaluation.org/travel_costs htm#oview 26 In value-to-cost scaling, restoration actions are scaled by equating the cost of the restoration to the value 

(in dollar terms) of losses due to the injury (15 C.F.R. §990.53(d)(3)(ii)). 27 Based on discussions with response agencies, the trustees’ plan assumed that most or the entire river 

would be reopened by mid-Spring 2012; but the river was not reopened until late summer of 2012. 

Claim Number: E10527-OI02 

5 of 12 

28 DOI’s plan states that the collection of data in 2012, from mid-April through mid-October, is based on 

the assumption that recreation levels would return to baseline in 2012 and, if this did not occur, changes 

to the plans would be considered. 
because, with a fully opened river, the trustees can more accurately observe the recovery 

of recreation use and the return of recreation use to baseline29. 

The NPFC reviewed the claim submission to determine how the costs claimed were 

determined with respect to the work proposed to be performed. The cost to implement 

DOI’s Lost Recreational Use Assessment Plan is $636,479. Claimed costs are for 

contractor labor, travel, and supplies. Contract labor costs and effort total $528,179, 

which include 7,848 hours to draft, develop, and pretest the methods for the onsite inperson counts and surveys, develop and pretest the phone surveys, conduct the counts and 

surveys, analyze the data, and estimate recreational losses using the travel cost model. 

The remaining $108,300 is for contract travel and supplies. These costs are reasonable 

with respect to the size of the spill30 and geographic area affected31, the length of time 

the river was closed32, and the variety of recreational activities potentially affected. 

After review of DOI’s plan, the NPFC requested that DOI provide the basis for their 

determination that the use of a travel cost model to calculate injury is an appropriate 

assessment method33. 15 C.F.R. §990.27(c). DOI responded that the travel cost model 

has been successfully used in numerous natural resource damage assessments for lost 

recreational use caused by other oil spill incidents and, thus, could be expected to provide 

information that that will be useful and adequate for restoration planning; additionally, 

other methods would require more time and/or expense, which would reduce their 

efficiency34. 

The NPFC also reviewed DOI’s proposed value-to-cost valuation approach to scaling 

restoration. Under OPA, such methods may be employed in circumstances where the 

trustees determine that resource-to-resource35 and service-to-service36 are not appropriate 

scaling approaches. 15 C.F.R. §990.53). In response to a request for further information 

on this requirement from the NPFC, DOI stated that they selected the valuation approach 

based on determination that: (1) a resource-to-resource scaling approach is not possible 

because recreational uses are a service provided by natural resources rather than a 

resource in themselves37, and (2) a service-to-service scaling approach, while possible, 

would not be efficient38 because of the amount of time and assessment costs required to 

 

29 DOI responses to NPFC August 14, 2012 follow-up questions, received September 4, 2012 30 The Enbridge spill is the largest oil spill in the Midwest and may represent the largest tar sands crude oil 

spill in the United States. 31 Thirty eight miles of the Kalamazoo River, two miles of Talmadge Creek and substantial shorelines and 

wetlands were impacted by the spill. 32 The river was closed for almost two years. 

33 Email from NPFC to DOI on January 9, 2013 

34 DOI responses to NPFC January 9, 2013 follow-up questions, received February 7, 2013 35 Resource-to-resource scaling is an approach in which the natural resources injured due to the incident 

are replaced by an equivalent quantity of discounted natural resources. 36 Service-to-service scaling is an approach in which the natural the services lost due to the incident are 

replaced by an equivalent quantity of discounted services. 37 While the trustees continue to undertake assessments of potential injury to ecological resources and 

services, those assessments do not account for losses to recreational use of thos resources. 

Claim Number: E10527-OI02 

6 of 12 

38 The trustees would have to undertake additional surveys that would measure the potential increase in 

services provided by proposed restoration alternatives. 
determine the amount of replacement services39 generated by potential restoration 

projects. 

According to the administrative record, Enbridge denied the claim because it believed 

that there was sufficient preexisting data available to determine a recovery timeline, to 

quantify the loss and to evaluate a plan for compensation; therefore, the trustees’ plan for 

additional surveys and site specific data collection is unnecessary. The NPFC requested 

that the trustees explain why the planned additional data collection is necessary to 

determine recreational losses. DOI responded that available data is not specific to 

recreational use of the Kalamazoo River in the area impacted by the spill40 and that the 

RP’s suggested approach of extrapolating available data would not yield an appropriate 

or reliable estimate of actual lost use, or timeline for the recovery of lost use in the 

impacted area41. In reviewing DOI’s response, the NPFC finds that the trustee’s 

approach of collecting site specific recreational use information from the affected areas, 

as opposed to extrapolating available data, is likely to produce a more precise and 

accurate injury estimate, and that the additional cost of this effort is not unreasonable 

given the geographic scope of the spill, duration of the closures, and range of recreational 

activities that were potentially affected. 

After reviewing the claimed activity, costs, and additional information provided, the 

NPFC finds that DOI’s: (1) assessment approach to determine injuries for lost human use 

will provide valid and useful information, thus meeting the standards for assessment 

procedures under 15 C.F.R. §990.27, (2) value-to-cost restoration scaling approach was 

reasonably determined in consideration of resource-to-resource and service-to-service 

approaches, as required by 15 C.F.R. §990.53, and (2) claimed costs of $636,479 are 

reasonable and appropriate, given the scale of the incident and need for assessment. 33 

U.S.C. §2706 (d)(1)(C), 33 C.F.R. §136.211. The claimed amount, $636,479, is payable 

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 NRDA regulations (15 C.F.R. §990.65), 

sums recovered by trustees for natural resource damages must be retained by the trustees 

in a revolving trust account. Thus, the compensation for this claim will be placed in 

DOI’s trustee restoration account: the Natural Resource Damage Assessment and 

Restoration Fund (NRDAR Fund). All sums must be used to implement the approved 

Assessment Plan, as approved by this determination. All unused funds shall be returned 

to the OSLTF in a timely basis and no later than six months from the completion of the 

assessment as described in this determination in accordance with 15 C.F.R. §990.65 and 

33 U.S.C. § 2706(f). 

 

39 DOI responses to NPFC January 9, 2013 follow-up questions, received February 7, 2013 40 Memorandum from trustees to NPFC dated July 18, 2012, whereby DOI states that available data is 

does not address the diverse set of recreational uses in the impacted area and is limited in its ability to 

be extrapolated to the various geographic locations within the impacted area. 

Claim Number: E10527-OI02 

7 of 12 

41 In an email from DOI to NPFC on March 25, 2013, DOI further addressed the need to collect additional 

data to accurately assess lost recreational use. 
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 Lost Recreational Use Assessment 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, 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 Lost Recreational Use Assessment 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. 

In addition to annual reports DOI shall submit a final progress report within 120 days of 

the date that plan implementation is complete. This 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 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. 

Claim Number: E10527-OI02 

8 of 12 
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 a standardized template with detailed instructions to facilitate 

annual progress and final cost reporting. These templates are provided on the compact 

disc included with this determination. 

Conclusion 

The NPFC has reviewed the claim submitted by DOI for costs to assess lost human use of 

natural resource resulting from the Enbridge oil spill in accordance with OPA (33 U.S.C. 

2701 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (15 C.F.R. 990 et seq. and 33 C.F.R. Part 

136). We have determined that $636,479 is compensable to fund activities in the Lost 

Recreational Use Assessment Plan. This offer constitutes full and final payment for costs 

associated with this damage assessment plan. 

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

return to: 

 Director (cn) 

 National Pollution Funds Center 

U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7100 

 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1000 

 Arlington, VA 20598-7100 

If we do not receive the signed original Acceptance/Release Form within 60 days of the 

date of this letter, the offer is void. If the settlement is accepted, your 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 trustee account when you 

submit the Release Form. 

If you have any questions regarding this determination, please feel free to contact me at 

. 

 

 

 Claims Manager 

Natural Resource Damage Claims Division 

 

Claim Number: E10527-OI02 

9 of 12 
Claim Number: E10527-OI02 

10 of 12 

Encl: (1) Acceptance/Release Form 

(2) Compact Disc with standardize template and instructions to facilitate annual 

progress and final cost reporting 

 
U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security

United States 

Coast Guard

Director 

United States Coast Guard 

National Pollution Funds Center 

U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7100 

National Pollution Funds Center 

4200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1000 

Arlington, VA 20598-7100 

Claim Number: E10527-OI02 Claimant Name: Department of the Interior 

 

 

 

On July 31, 2012, DOI presented a claim to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF or the 

Fund) in the total amount of $636,479 for upfront costs to lost human use of natural resources 

resulting from the discharge of oil on or about July 26, 2010, from a pipeline owned by Enbridge 

Energy (the Enbridge oil spill). 

DOI accepts the settlement offer of $636,479 as full compensation for the cost to assess lost 

human use damages as described in the April 3, 2013 determination (E10527-OI02). 

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 April 3, 2013 determination and any amounts 

in excess of those required for these reimbursements to accomplish the assessment studies 

approved in the determination shall be deposited to the OSLTF. 

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

rights of action, that it may have against any party, person, firm or corporation that may be liable 

for the loss. 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 

April 3, 2013 determination. 

DOI acknowledges that the United States anticipates the pursuit of legal actions associated with 

the Enbridge incident but warrants that no settlement will be made by any person on behalf of 

DOI with any other party for costs that are the subject of the claim against the OSLTF and 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. 

Claim Number: E10527-OI02 

11 of 12 
Claim Number: E10527-OI02 

12 of 12 

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

_________________________________________ _______________________ 

 Thomas Melius Date 

 Regional Director, USFWS Midwest Region