CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION

Claim Number: J13014-0008 

Claimant: Fishing Group 

Type of Claimant: Private (US)

Type of Claim: Loss of Profits and Earnings 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $528,537.91 

FACTS1: 

INCIDENT

On June 30, 2013, at 0700L (local time),

2

 the F/V LONE STAR sank and discharged oil into the Igushik 

River, Alaska, posing a substantial threat of a discharge of oil into Bristol Bay, a navigable water of the 

United States. There were approximately 14,500 gallons of diesel, hydraulic and lube oil, and gasoline on 

board the vessel. At the time of the incident, owned the vessel and Burrece 

Fisheries, Inc. operated the vessel; all are responsible parties under Oil Pollution Act. 

OVERVIEW OF 2013 SET-NET FISHING SEASON ON THE IGUSHIK RIVER 

The NPFC relied heavily on the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, (ADF&G) Division of 

Commercial Fisheries, 2013 Bristol Bay Area Management Report as an objective source of information 

to aid in the measurement of this claim, initially and on reconsideration. As of the 2013 Commercial 

Fishing Season, the ADF&G had been managing and tracking the salmon in the Bristol Bay for 52-

years.3

 

The Bristol Bay management area includes all coastal and inland waters east of a line from Cape 

Newenham to Cape Menshikof.4 The area includes nine major river systems; Naknek, Kvichak, Alagnak, 

Egegik, Ugashik, Wood, Nushagak, Igushik, and Togiak. Collectively, these rivers are home to the 

largest commercial sockeye salmon, Onocorhynchus nerka fishery in the world. Sockeye salmon are by 

far the most abundant salmon species that return to Bristol Bay each year.5

 The Bristol Bay area is 

divided into five management districts (Naknek-Kvichak, Egegik, Ugashik, Nushagak, and Togiak) that 

correspond to major river systems. The management objective for each river is to achieve salmon 

escapements within established ranges while harvesting fish in excess of those ranges through orderly 

fisheries. In addition, regulatory management plans have been adopted for individual species in certain 

districts.6

 

Since 1993, the value of the commercial salmon harvest in Bristol Bay has averaged $111.8 million, with 

sockeye salmon being the most valuable, averaging $109.9 million annually.7

 Management of the 

commercial fishery in Bristol Bay is focused on discrete stocks with harvests directed at terminal areas 

around the mouths of major river systems. Each stock is managed to achieve a spawning escapement goal 

 

1 The initial determination, dated March 01, 2016 is incorporated and referenced throughout the document.

2 POLREP One 

3 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 14-23, May 2014, p. 1 4 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 14-23, May 2014, Table 1. 5

A laska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 14-23, May 2014. 6 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management, Report No. 14-23, May 2014. 7 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Fishery Management, Report No. 14-23, May 2014.
based on sustained yield. Escapement goals are achieved by regulating fishing time and area by 

emergency order (EO) and/or adjusting weekly fishing schedules. Legal gear for the commercial salmon 

fishery includes both drift and set gillnets.8

 Drift gillnet permits are the most numerous at 1,862 in Bristol 

Bay and of those, 1,709 registered to fish in 2013. In 2013, a total of 978 set gillnet permits were issued 

in Bristol Bay and of those 854 fished in 2013.9

Run Strength Indicators

Fishery managers in Bristol Bay have several early indicators of sockeye salmon run size, including the 

preseason forecast, the False Pass commercial fishery, an offshore test fishery operating from Port Moller, 

genetic stock identification, individual district test fishery programs and the early performance of the 

commercial fishery. These pieces of information may not give a correct assessment of run size, but 

collectively, they form patterns such as relative strengths of year classes, discrepancies from the forecast 

(relative to expected year class contributions), or differences in run timing that can be important to 

successful management of the commercial fishery.10

Preseason Forecasts

Total inshore (excluding harvest in other areas) sockeye salmon production for Bristol Bay in 2013 was 

forecast to be 25.1 million11. The Bristol Bay sockeye salmon inshore harvest was predicted to reach 16.6 

million fish. Runs were expected to meet spawning escapement goals for all river systems in Bristol 

Bay.12

The forecast for the sockeye salmon run to Bristol Bay in 2013 was the sum of individual predictions for 

nine river systems13 and four major classes.14 Adult escapement and return data from brood years 1972 to 

2009 were used in the analyses.15 16

Predictions for each age class returning to a river system were calculated from models based on the 

relationship between adult returns and spawners or siblings from previous years. Tested models included 

simple linear regression and recent year averages. All models were evaluated for time series trends. 

Models chosen were those with statistically significant parameters having the greatest past reliability

17

based on mean absolute deviation, mean absolute percent error, and mean percent error between forecasts 

and actual returns for the years 2010 through 2012.18

 8 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Fishery Management, Report No. 14-23, May 2014. 9 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Fishery Management, Report No. 14-23, May 2014. 10 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 14-23, May 2014, p. 3 11 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 14-23, May 2014, Table 1-Comparison of 

inshore sockeye salmon forecast versus actual run, escapement goals versus actual escapements, and projected 

versus actual commercial catch, by river system and district, in thousands of fish, Bristol Bay, 2013. P. 26.

12 id 13 Kvichak, Alagnak, Naknek, Egegik, Ugashik, Wood, Igushik, Nushagak-Mulchatna, and Togiak. 14 Age 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, and 2.3, plus age 0.3 and 1.4 for Nushagak. 15 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 14-23, May 2014, p. 3. 16 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 14-23, May 2014, Table 2 – Inshore 

forecast of sockeye salmon returns by age class, river system, and district, in thousands of fish, Bristol Bay, 2013, p. 

27.

17 Accuracy and precision. 18 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 14-23, May 2014, p. 3.
Nushagak District

The 2013 Nushagak District commercial sockeye salmon harvest, including the Igushik River which is 

subject of this claim, reached 3.2 million fish, 4% below the preseason projected harvest of 3.3 million 

fish and 44% below the 1993-2012 average harvest of 5.7 million sockeye salmon.19 Escapement in the 

district’s three major river systems was 1,183,348 for Wood River, 387,744 for Igushik River, and 

894,172 sockeye salmon for Nushagak River.20 Nushagak and Igushik sockeye salmon escapements 

exceeded the upper ends of their escapement goal ranges, and Wood River sockeye salmon escapement 

fell within the escapement goal range.21

Commercial fishing for set gillnets was announced to begin in the Nushagak District late on June 21, 

2013 and the drift gillnet fleet would start at 11:00 a.m. on June 22.22 The beginning of the commercial 

fishing season was met by a severe storm with winds exceeding 50 knots.23 The storm affected 

commercial fishing into the early hours of June 24. Through June 24, 2013, the cumulative Wood River 

escapement was 599,460 sockeye salmon.24 Managers continued to announce liberal fishing openings. 

The set gillnet fishery, opened on June 21, and was extended for the rest of the season.25

Commercial fishing in the Nushagak District continued until 9:00 a.m. July 23, 2013, at which time 

managers switched from sockeye salmon management to coho salmon management. The total sockeye 

salmon harvest of 3.2 million fish was 4% below the preseason forecast of 3.3 million fish.26

Commercial fishing with set gillnet gear began in the Igushik Section of the Nushagak District on June 15 

when a market became available.27 The Igushik River tower project began enumerating sockeye salmon 

on June 24.28 The Igushik River sockeye salmon forecast was relatively low, so managers restricted 

fishing time to eight hours per day until June 21, when openings were increased to 12 hours.29 On June 

 19 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 14-23, May 2014, Table 1, p.26 and 

Appendix A15 – Inshore commercial catch and escapement of sockeye salmon in the Nushagak District by river 

system, in numbers of fish, Bristol Bay, 1993 – 2013, p. 81. 20 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 14-23, May 2014, Table 16 – Daily 

sockeye salmon escapement tower counts by river system, Westside Bristol Bay, 2013, p. 45. Table 17 – Final daily 

and cumulative escapement estimates by species , Nushagak River sonar project, Bristol Bay, 2013, p. 46. 21 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 14-23, May 2014, Appendix A1 –

Escapement goal ranges and actual counts of sockeye salmon by river system, in thousands of fish, Bristol Bay, 

1993-2013, p. 66. 22 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 14-23, May 2014, Table 18 –

Commercial fishing emergency orders, by district and statistical area, Bristol Bay Westside, 2013, p. 48 – 49. 23 Alaska department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 14-23, May 2014, p. 13. 24 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 14-23, May 2014, Table 16 – Daily 

sockeye salmon escapement tower counts by river system, Westside Bristol Bay, 2013, p. 45.

25 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 14-23, May 2014, p. 13. 26 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 14-23, May 2014, Table 1, 19, and 20, p. 

26, 50, and 51).

27 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 14-23, May 2014, Table 18 –

Commercial fishing emergency orders, by district and statistical area, Bristol Bay Westside, 2013, p. 48 – 49. 28Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 14-23, May 2014, Table 16 – Daily 

sockeye salmon escapement tower counts by river system, Westside Bristol Bay, 2013, p. 45. 

29 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 14-23, May 2014, Table 18 –

Commercial fishing emergency orders, by district and statistical area, Bristol Bay Westside, 2013, p. 48 – 49.
23, commercial fishing was extended for 24 hours.30 Escapement was strong beginning with the first day 

of counts, and fishing was extended until further notice.31 

Igushik Section

The Igushik River fishing season ended early when the F/V Lone Star sank in the mouth of the Igushik 

River on the morning of June 30, 2013. ADF&G closed fishing immediately until the incident could be 

evaluated. The fishery reopened in the afternoon of July 1 but was closed again on July 5 after reports of 

contaminated fish were received. The Igushik River set gillnet fishery remained closed for the remainder 

of the season and a six statute mile radius from the mouth of the Igushik River was closed to drift gillnet 

fishing as well.32

The Igushik River escapement increased as a result of the River closure. The final escapement of 387,744 

exceeded the upper end of the escapement goal range of 150,000 to 300,000 fish.33 34 The Igushik River 

sockeye salmon escapement exceeded the upper end of the escapement goal range by 29%.35 The late 

opening for the season, the limited fishing hours early on and the early salmon run all contributed to the 

season’s escapement figures..

Ex-Vessel Value

The Bristol Bay 2013 harvest of all salmon species was 16.4 million fish with a preliminary ex-vessel 

value36 of $141 million which is 26% above the 20-year average and ranks 7th over that same period. The 

weights, harvests, and prices listed in Table 137 were used to estimate ex-vessel value. This estimate does 

not include future price adjustments, loyalty bonuses, and differential prices for refrigerated versus nonrefrigerated fish. Although the harvest was below the historical average, the increased price per pound 

caused the value to be above average.38

 30 id 31 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 14-23, May 2014, Table 16 – Daily 

sockeye salmon escapement tower counts by river system, Westside Bristol Bay, 2013, p. 45. Table 18 –

Commercial fishing emergency orders, by district and statistical area, Bristol Bay Westside, 2013, p. 48 – 49. 32 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 14-23, May 2014, Table 18 –

Commercial fishing emergency orders, by district and statistical area, Bristol Bay Westside, 2013, p. 48 – 49. 33 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 14-23, May 2014, Appendix A1 –

Escapement goal ranges and actual counts of sockeye salmon by river system, in thousands of fish, Bristol Bay 1993 

– 2013, p. 66 -67. 34 The river closure reduced harvest in that area of the district and allowed increased escapement into the Igushik 

River. 

35 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Commercial Fisheries, News Release, 2013 Bristol Bay Salmon 

Season Summary, p.1. Table 5, Bristol Bay sockeye salmon goals and escapement, 2013, p. 3.

36Ex-Vessel value: The post-season adjusted price per pound for the first purchase of commercial harvest. The exvessel value is usually established by determining the average price for an individual species, harvested by a specific 

gear, in a specific area. The delivery condition of the product is usually taken into consideration when the average

price is established.

37 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Commercial Fisheries, News Release, 2013 Bristol Bay Salmon 

Season Summary, Table 1 – Average price, weight, and value of salmon harvest in Bristol Bay, 2013, p. 2. 38 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Commercial Fisheries, News Release, 2013 Bristol Bay Salmon 

Season Summary, pgs. 1 – 2.
Sockeye Salmon

The 2013 Bristol Bay sockeye salmon run was slightly under forecast and early to very early depending 

on the river system. Spring temperatures in the Bering Sea were closer to long term averages during the 

salmon season than the last several years. Total sockeye harvest and total inshore run were 6% and 12% 

below forecast.39 

Overall 15,376,432 salmon were harvested in the Bristol Bay 2013 season at an average weight of six 

pounds per fish. These fish were sold at an average of $1.50/lb to 34 different companies. The Igushik 

fishing area accounted for 321K of the fish harvested. The State reported that this harvest for the Igushik 

was 29 percent higher than forecasted while the overall Bristol Bay Sockeye harvest was reported to be 

about 30% below the 20-year average.40

CLAIMANTS 

 Fishing Group ( Fishing Group, Group, or Claimants) is an aggregate Bristol Bay 

set-net commercial fishing operation that was comprised of nine Bristol Bay set-net permit holders41 42

during the 2013 fishing season. Group proclaims to be the number one producer of Bristol Bay 

salmon for Peter Pan Seafoods Inc. (PPSF) over the past several fishing seasons. The Group has 

20 to 30 personnel each fishing season. The Group fishes the Bristol Bay from the first day to the 

last day that their fish processors purchase salmon in Bristol Bay.43 After Peter Pan Seafoods stops 

purchasing salmon for the season, Fishing Group engages in direct marketing shipments of 

salmon through Favco, in Dillingham, Alaska. The Group asserts to fish 24 hours a day, 7 days a 

week the entire fishing season, each season. 

“ Fishing Group,” is a name created by the claimant, for the purpose of submitting this claim to the 

OSLTF.44 The claimant is an informal association of nine set-net permit holders, that do not operate under 

a formal corporate or other business structure. own all the vessels, fishing gear, 

property, equipment, cabins, repair facilities, their own individual permits and sites and these are used by 

the Fishing Group. The other permit holders in the Fishing Group own their individual 

permits and sites. A large portion of the Fishing Group’s proceeds, after cannery withholdings, 

are paid to and then distributed to permit holders.45 Some permit holders are paid in 

combination directly from the cannery and directly from after the final settlement 

occurs with the cannery.46

 is the administrator and Attorney-in-fact representing Fishing Group’s nine 

Bristol Bay, Alaska set-net permit holders. All Fishing Group permit holders have signed Power 

of Attorney forms appointing as their attorney-in-fact to act on their behalf for a period 

of two years, regarding any and all matters pertaining to commercial fishing losses associated with the 

F/V LONE STAR incident and resulting oil spill, including but not limited to, administration of claims,

 

39 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Commercial Fisheries, 2013 Bristol Bay Salmon Season 

Summary, p. 4.

40 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Commercial Fisheries. 41

Proof of the Igushik fishery leases for each set net site and permit holder was included in the reconsideration 

submission, see Binder 2, dated October 29, 2015. 

43 Group Explanation of Damages, p. 1.

 Group Request for Reconsideration, additional support letter to the NPFC dated 2015 10 20, p. 4

 Group Request for Reconsideration, additional support letter to the NPFC dated 2015 10 20, p. 4 46 Group Request for Reconsideration, additional support letter to the NPFC dated 2015 10 20, p.4
litigation, as well as, collection and recovery of damages. The powers of attorney have now all expired. 

New powers of attorney will, therefore, have to be submitted to the Director, National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC) to settle the claim.

47 

CLAIM 

The claim was presented for payment by the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF or the Fund) on 

January 07, 2015. At the time of the Group’s initial claim submission to the Fund, it initially 

sought, from the Fund, an alleged Lost Profits and Earnings Capacity in the amount of $536,857.91.48 

However, The Group’s claim also contained a Real or Personal Property element in the amount of 

$8,320, for gill set-net repairs. On January 22, 2016, the NPFC removed the $8,320 for the net repairs 

and placed them under a Real or Personal Property claim (J13014-0013). was notified of this 

change on January 22, 2016 via email49. The new sum certain for this Lost Profits and Earnings claim 

(J13014 – 0008) is, $528,537.91. acknowledged this change via email on January 22, 2016.50 

The claim was presented as three separate parts:

1. Vessel Charter Claim: $6,000 

The vessel charter claim is for the vessels that were chartered to the responsible party, on July 01, 

2013, to place containment boom around the F/V LONE STAR. is claiming $6,000 for the 

unpaid vessel charter for F/V LOGOS and F/V BLINKO at a charter hourly rate (1 vessel/1captain/1 

deckhand) of $1500 an hour for two of vessels that were chartered for two hours each. The 

claimant has, however, now been paid this amount. This portion of the claim is, therefore, denied.51 

2. Claim A: $422,149.35 

(a) Claim A Damages: $408,585.40. Claim A Interest: $13,563.95

(b) Sites legally registered in Igushik District 6/16/13 through 8/04/13 

Permit Holder Permit No. Gross Damages52 Net Damages

$ 85,661.22 $ 83,581.22

$ 139,384.82 $ 137,304.82

$ 89,475.65 $ 87,395.65

$ 102,383.71 $ 100,303.71

Total $ 416,905.40 $ 408,585.40

 

47 See Powers of Attorney tab in the Claimants’ binder at pages 381 through 428. 48 The total economic loss asserted in the claim letter was $530,857.91. The amounts detailed later in each part of 

the claim, however, totaled $536,857.91.

49 See email to dated 2016 01 22 50 acknowledged this change via email dated 2016 02 12. 51 See email of 2013 03 27 from to . 52 These damages are not inclusive of the vessel charter however, they are inclusive of the homepack and fuel costs.
3. Claim B: $100,388.5553

(a) Claim B Damages: $97,225.34, Claim B Interest: $3,163.21 

(b) Sites legally registered in Igushik District, no later than, 7/10/13 through 8/04/1354

Permit Holder Permit No. Damages55

$ 19,359.94 

$ 19,736.57 

$ 20,220.32 

$ 18,808.82 

$ 19,099.69 

Total $ 97,225.34 

Claimants’ Basis for the Entire Claim

The Group’s Lost Profits and Earnings claim (Claims A and B) is based on the Group’s 

estimate of the gross value of sockeye salmon that the Group would have caught and delivered, in 

2013, but for the incident-related closures.56.In addition to the loss of round pounds that the claimant 

asserts it would have delivered to Favco, Inc., in the amount of pounds of sockeye salmon, which 

gives an asserted total lost harvest of pounds of sockeye salmon. The Group also seeks 

the replacement costs of salmon that would have been processed and distributed to the Group and 

permit holders as Homepack,57 in the amount of $15,300, additional fuel costs incurred in the amount of 

$9,900.57, and interest that has accrued since June 30, 2013, in the amount of $16,727.16. 

Group’s total asserted damages plus interest for this claim is $528,537.91. (See chart below). 

Initial Offer Made to Claimant

 

53 The claimants’ calculation of damages has a $0.01 error involved. For the Claim B portion of this claim, Mr. 

 asserts that the Group incurred $97,225.35 in damages; however the damages total, $97,225.34.

Mr. alleges that the night before the F/V Lone Star incident, the Group fishermen that were fishing 

in the Combine and Coffee Point subdistricts planned to move down to the Igushik subdistrict but could not move 

down to the Igushik subdistrict because of the oil spill incident. See Claimants’ Explanation of Damages, p. 11.

55 These damages are not inclusive of the vessel charter however, they are inclusive of the homepack and fuel costs. 56 Claimants’ Confidential Business Information, p.5. 57 Fish that is taken home to the crew.

Total 

Peter 

Pan 

Sales 

Lost 

Harvest 

(LBS)

Total 

Favco 

Sales 

Lost 

Harvest

(LBS)

Total 

Lost 

Harvest 

(LBS)

Total Peter 

Pan Sales 

Lost 

Harvest 

Damages 

(6/30/2013 

- 

7/24/2013)

Total 

Favco 

Sales Lost 

Harvest 

Damages 

(7/25/2013 

- 

8/04/2013

Total 

Homepack 

Damages 

Total 

Fuel 

Costs

Total Oil 

Spill 

Damages

Interest 

Total

Vessel 

Charter 

paid by 

RP

Total 

Damages + 

Interest

$445,176.41 $35,433.77 $15,300.00 $9,900.57 $505,810.75 $16,727.16 

 

$6,000.00 $528,537.91 
On March 01, 2016, the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC), in accordance with the Oil Pollution 

Act (OPA) (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), the NPFC offered $91,903.30 as full compensation for OPA claim 

number J13014-0008. 

To determine injury/compensation, the NPFC reviewed the Group’s fishing records for 2013 and 

relied heavily on the 2013 State of Alaska research and records. More specifically, in measuring and 

quantifying the damage, the NPFC relied on the Alaska State Escapement Data for 2013 as well as the 

State’s information on the average price of Salmon in 2013.58 

The State of Alaska made it clear that the salmon that pass through the Igushik fishing grounds are 

counted five (5) days later while passing the Igushik Tower. 59 This would mean that a fish passing 

through the Igushik fishing grounds on June 30th would be counted on the 5th of July. Similarly, fish 

passing through the fishing grounds on the 5th would be counted by the State on the 10th. Applying this 

information to the State’s escapement data supports that on June 30 almost 66% of the 2013 Igushik River 

salmon run had passed or was passing through the fishing grounds. The state escapement data further 

supports that a full 85% of the 2013 Igushik Sockeye run had passed the fishing grounds by the 5th of 

July, thus leaving only 15% of the Salmon run for the harvest or escapement during the balance of the 

2013 run. 

By applying these percentages to the amount of fish caught by the Group prior to the spill, one 

can project the lost opportunity and loss due to the closure of the fishing season. The NPFC spreadsheet 

used during the initial adjudication, titled “Exhibit 1 –NPFC Spreadsheet,” provides that analysis. The 

fishermen that had fish tickets into July, were treated as though they only landed 85% of what they would 

have with a full season and those that had no fish tickets for July were treated as though they had only 

landed 66% of what they would have landed. Overall, the River closure analysis supported a loss of 

45,941.80 pounds of salmon as a result of the incident. Additionally, the claim support demonstrated that 

there was a loss of fish during the initial sinking and disruption as nets were being hauled. While tapes 

provided by the claimant showed the fish being landed as nets were hauled in, there was some loss that 

occurred by having the nets out of the water during this interruption in fishing. 

The NPFC used the methodology above because it ties directly to the reported 2013 Sockeye Salmon 

inshore run, as determined by the State of Alaska. It correlates directly to the actual rate of catch by each 

of the fishermen within the Group for the impacted year and uses the actual harvest and 

escapement data from the State for the impacted season while incorporating the actual timing of the 

impacted year’s run. Once the total fish caught was obtained, the NPFC was able to figure out the loss of 

opportunity for the rest of the season. By utilizing the State’s published average price per pound of fish at 

$1.50 for Sockeye (and not all fish used in determining a fisherman’s catch were sockeye) and the 

claimants’ catch by pound, the NPFC was able to provide an offer of $91,903.30 for lost catch to the 

 Group. 

Request for Reconsideration

On April 07, 2016, the Group requested reconsideration of the NPFC’s initial claim determination 

based on the claimant’s asserted new facts and supporting documentation.

60 The Groups’ 

arguments on Reconsideration will be discussed in the NPFC Analysis section of this Determination. 

 

58 Fishery Management Report No. 14 – 23, 2013 Bristol Bay Area annual Management Report.

59 The 5-Day delay is based on , Area Biologist, email to the NPFC, dated 2016 01 14.

60 Request for Reconsideration Letter, dated April 05, 2016, p. 1, attached to an email dated April 07, 

2016.
Further, the Group requests that the NPFC recalculate the NPFC’s methodological approach that 

was taken when initially adjudicating the claim.61 Also,the Group has requested that the NPFC 

provide them with a revised claim determination offer based on the information that was provided by Mr. 

 with the Groups’ Reconsideration Request. 

 Groups’ Support Documentation on Reconsideration 

The Group submitted the following supporting documentation to the NPFC with its 

Reconsideration Request. 

• Letter from ,ADF&G Nushagak/Togiak Area Management Biologist, which contain 

2013 Commercial Salmon Fishing Season Questions asked by and answers that 

were provided by Mr. , dated April 01, 2016.

• Emails between and that contain the April 01, 2016 letter.

• 2013 – 2015 Igushik Weight Comparison – Printed from Excel file produced by ADF&G.62

• Emails between Mr. and that discuss the Igushik weight comparison.63

• ADF&G documentation on Genetic Stock Composition of the Commercial Harvest of Sockeye 

Salmon in Bristol Bay, Alaska, 2006 – 2008. 

• Appendix D10 – Proportion and Harvest estimates (including 90% credibility intervals) by 

reporting group from mixtures of sockeye salmon harvested in Nushagak District, Bristol Bay, 

Alaska, 2006. 

• Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc. letter, to dated, May 15, 2014, Re: 2013 Commercial 

Fishing Season Sockeye Salmon Price Paid to Fishing Group. This letter states that for 

the 2013 commercial fishing season the Fishing Group permit holders delivered 199,419 

pounds of iced sockeye salmon and 22,319 pounds of non–iced sockeye salmon, respectively. 

Accordingly, Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc. paid the Fishing Group permit holders an average 

of per pound of sockeye salmon for the 2013 commercial fishing season. PPSF states in 

the letter, that the Group was paid a pre-settlement base price of per pound of 

sockeye salmon, ice incentive of $ per pound of sockeye salmon, and a spring adjustment of 

$ per pound of sockeye salmon. 

• Favco letter, dated October 21, 2015 to the United States Coast Guard, Claims Manager for 

National Pollution Funds Center. The letter provides that the Group has a long history of 

selling fish to Favco and that the Group historically shipped fresh Sockeye caught in the Igushik 

Subdistrict of the Nushagak District in Bristol Bay, Alaska via airfreight from Dillingham to 

Favco’s processing facility in Anchorage, Alaska.64

• Alaska Fish Radio article, dated May 23, 2014, Inseason Salmon Prices are Tough To Track. 

This was submitted to support Mr. argument that prices reflect bonuses for iced fish, 

dock deliveries, and other agreements between a buyer and seller.

• The Fishing Group Permit Ownership/Catch History. 

• AIFMA LEADER, Alaska Independent Fishermen’s Marketing Association, News Letter, dated 

November 2013, Pages, 1 – 6.65

 

61 Claimant’s Request for Reconsideration, p. 1. 62 See 2013-2015 Igushik Weight Comparison graph with Hand Written title and Mr. email address 

written on the paper.

63 See email string between Mr. , Mr. , and Mr. dated April 05, 2016 64 The Favco letter also states that in 2015, the Fishing Group shipped + pounds of sockeye salmon 

to Favco.

65 The AIFMA LEADER is in regards to the 2013 Bristol Bay Ex-Vessel Salmon prices and the value of the various 

species of salmon.
• ADF&G Fishery Management Report No. 14-23, 2013 Bristol Bay Area Annual Management 

Report, Table 12. – Inshore run of sockeye salmon by age class, river system, and district, in 

thousands of fish, Bristol Bay, 2013. 

• Handwritten statement written and signed by Mr. dated April 06, 2016, asserting that Mr. 

, former ADF&G Nushagak area Management Biologist, and current Peter Pan 

Seafoods Manager advised Mr. that applying a 3-day lag from when fish pass through the 

Igushik District counting towers was a reasonable assumption.66

• BMW Build Your Own 2016 x5 Advertisement – to support Mr. assertion that the 

 Fish Group sells salmon “akin” to BMW. 

• U.S. Energy Information Administration, Today in Energy, dated July 22, 2014, Fuel economy 

and Average vehicle cost vary significantly across vehicle types – to demonstrate the listed 

average vehicle price.67

NPFC ANALYSIS ON RECONSIDERATION

Upon receipt of the Group’s request for reconsideration, the NPFC performed a de novo review of 

the entire claim submission.

The 2013 Igushik Salmon Fishing Season was impacted by the sinking of the F/V LONE STAR in the 

Igushik River fishing grounds, resulting in the River closure and then ultimately closing the fishing 

season. The set-net fishermen that were fishing for Sockeye in the Igushik River lost the opportunity to 

catch fish and the claimants demonstrated that they had a loss of profits and earnings capacity as a result 

of the closure of the River. Given the season by season and fishery specific differences, the NPFC relied 

heavily on the actual data provided by the State of Alaska, from the very specific 2013 Igushik River 

Sockeye Salmon fishery. The NPFC measured the Group’s damages, in pounds, by using the 

claimant’s actual fish tickets for landed fish in 2013, to determine the rate at which the Group was

catching fish. 

The Group’s Arguments on Reconsideration

The Group’s reconsideration request argues many points, including its capacity to catch 

lbs of fish in a single day,68 and implies a loss of 47,761 fish alone, on June 30th.

69 Mr. argues 

that his expertise as a “highline” fisherman sets him apart from other fishermen and argues that the NPFC 

should not apply State averages in our determination of loss to them.70 Mr. also states that a catch 

rate is not static71 and, after the other commercial fishermen leave the River, the amount of fish available 

to the Group increases;72 all factors the Group asserts that the NPFC did not take into 

account during our initial adjudication of the Group’s claim.

Many of the Group’s arguments on reconsideration are not supported by fact or evidence. 

Although the claimant states that the Group has the capacity to catch lbs of fish in a 

 

66 signature is not on the Affidavit. 67 Group is comparing the quality of its fish to the higher end vehicles and that the NPFC’s initial offer 

devalued the Group’s quality of fish that are caught and sold on the market.

68 See Claimant’s Reconsideration letter dated April 5, 2016, p. 3. 69 See Claimant’s Reconsideration letter dated April 5, 2016, p. 4. Claimant asserts that he would have caught 

 lbs of fish on June 30th. Claimant asserts that he caught lbs of fish, leaving a loss of 47,761lbs of fish.

See Claimant’s Reconsideration letter dated April 5, 2016, p. 8. 71 See Claimant’s Reconsideration letter dated April 5, 2016, p. 12-13. 72 See Claimant’s Reconsideration letter dated April 5, 2016, p. 9.
single day,

73 this assertion has not been proven through any of the contemporaneous documents, 

including fish tickets, provided by the claimant that this has ever happened. Additionally, the historic fish 

tickets that the Group provided to the NPFC have not demonstrated the claimant’s asserted 

potential “to put away” pounds on June 30th. There is no evidence that such amounts have been 

realized by the Group, in the Igushik River on a single day. This lack of evidence brings doubt to 

Mr. assertion of loss pounds for June 30th. 74 Additionally, video of the nets being hauled does 

not show 100K lbs of fish escaping. However, the video does clearly show that most of the fish being 

hauled in remained in the boat.

The NPFC fully understands the Group’s arguments regarding the ability to catch more fish after

the other commercial fishermen leave the River and it will be discussed below under“Post Run Catch.” 

Further, the NPFC agrees that catch rates are not static. However, the NPFC relied on State of Alaska

documentation/resources which shows that the 2013 Salmon run in the Igushik River was “early to very 

early” in 2013. The State resources also support the NPFC’s determination that, with the unexpected 

early salmon run, most of the fish were caught before the spill incident occurred. The NPFC relied on the 

State records to obtain the total fish run for 2013, while also using the Group’s landing tickets 

before the spill incident occured, and applied that to determine the Group’s catch rate for the portions of 

the season/run that were lost to the claimants. The NPFC’s original offer included 15% more fish at the 

same catch rate as the claimant fished early in the season, although the higher volume of the fish run had 

passed. On reconsideration, the claimants argue and disagree with the NPFC’s Methodology.

75 

However, the claimants did not provide a different type of methodology that would accurately capture its 

loss. Other arguments presented by the claimant are addressed below. 

5 Day Delay

The commercial catch and escapement data that is captured by the State fish towers, combined with the 

State fish tickets for fish landed, determine the State reported run data for the inshore Commercial Catch 

and Escapement totals.76 The Igushik River Tower counts the escapement for the Igushik River section 

and the State reports that the fish are counted five (5) days after passing through the Igushik area fishing 

grounds.77 The NPFC used the State’s escapement numbers as published to determine the Sockeye 

Salmon run for the impacted location and time. While every fish is different, the State expert projects that 

on average, a salmon gets counted at the Igushik River fish tower five days after the fish swims through 

the fishing grounds. This indicates that there is a a delay of five days between the fishing grounds to the 

counting tower. In the NPFC’s initial determination, the Fund relied on the State delay data in computing 

when the fish passed the impacted fishery. 

On reconsideration of its claim, Mr. argues that the Fund has taken the five-day delay period that 

was provided by the State and turned it into fact and asserts that it is not a credible scientific fact and 

should not be used in the NPFC’s determination.78 The Fishing Group would prefer that the 

Fund use their expertise in the area of fishing, which assumes a three-day lag period instead.79 As 

evidence, the claimants submitted a signed letter to the Fund from Mr. the same area 

 

73 See Claimant’s Reconsideration letter dated April 5, 2016, p. 3, paragraph e a. 74 Claimant’s fish tickets can be found in Binders dated October 29, 2015, submitted by Also, the 

NPFC documented each fish via the NPFC Spreadsheet/Methodology.

75 The NPFC’s methodology uses the actual 2013 run numbers. The claimant’s actual harvest rate for unimpacted 

period, actual fish tickets, and objectionable State reported data.

76 Fishery Management Report No. 14-23, 2013 Bristol Bay Area annual Management Report. 77 email to the NPFC dated, 2016 01 14. 78 See Claimant’s Reconsideration letter dated April 5, 2016. 79 See Claimant’s Reconsideration letter dated April 5, 2016, page 2.
Biologist that the NPFC used to obtain State information regarding the five-day delay. The 

 letter contained questions and answers.80 Mr. provided that the five-day lag is an 

approximation that the department uses for management purposes. Some fish go faster and some 

slower.81 Mr. further states that the five-day number is an approximation that is used based on 

experience and knowledge passed on by predecessors.82 When Mr. asked Mr. if a lot of 

Igushik salmon reach the counting tower in three days,83 Mr. provided that the State does not have 

“good” data for Mr. question and that the five day delay is an approximation that the State of 

Alaska uses, based on experience and knowledge..84 Additionally, under reconsideration, Mr. 

provided a hand-written statement titled, Affidavit, signed by himself, which states that a 

former ADF&G Nushagak District Manager and current Peter Pan Seafoods Fleet Manager, states that a 

three day lag time is a reasonable assumption. 

While the Group disagrees with the NPFC’s use of the five-day delay assumption, no persuasive 

evidence has been provided on reconsideration, to establish that the 5-day delay figure is unreasonable,

despite Mr. direct communication with Mr. a State Biologist. The State did not 

change their assessment and use of a five day delay from the fishing grounds to the counting towers. 

Additionally, Mr. hand-written statement titled, Affidavit, which was written and signed by Mr. 

 himself, is self serving and not documented evidence from Mr. regarding the fiveday lag period. Therefore, upon reconsideration, the NPFC, again, finds that on average, it takes five 

days for a sockeye salmon to swim through the fishing grounds to the counting tower. On reconsideration 

of this claim, the 5 day delay will be used in measuring the claimant’s opportunity lost. This is applied in 

the NPFC’s spreadsheet analyses, below. The NPFC understands that fish reach the counting tower at 

various times, depending on various factors as the fish pass through the fishing grounds. However, the 

NPFC finds that the State’s assessment of the five-day average delay supercedes any other piece of 

evidence that has been submitted to the Fund in regards to this claim because it has been used for many 

years by the State in its surveys of the fish that swim through the Igushik River. 

Average Weight of Sockeye Salmon

According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Divison of Commercial Fisheries,there were

15,376,432 salmon harvested in the Bristol Bay 2013 season at an average weight of six pounds per 

fish.85 On page 5 of Mr. Reconsideration letter, he argues that the average weight of a sockeye 

salmon that was harvested in the Igushik River during the 2013 season was 2.86 kilograms or 6.30 

pounds, and not 6 pounds as stated in the initial determination.86 

Claimant’s argument, however, is an estimate based on general data. The NPFC believes it is more 

accurate to calculate the claimant’s loss using the claimant’s actual fish tickets that were provided by the 

claimant to determine the amount of pounds caught during the 2013 season. The NPFC used the actual 

poundage that was landed and documented from the Fish Landing Tickets. Those documented fish 

pounds were applied in the Fund’s measurement of loss determination. 

 

80 letter to Mr. dated April 01, 2016. 81 letter to Mr. dated April 01, 2016, p. 5, number 7-a. 82 letter to Mr. dated April 01, 2016, p. 5, number 7-c. 83 letter to Mr. dated April 01, 2016, p. 5, number 7-b. 84 letter to Mr. dated April 01, 2016, p. 5, number 7-b. 85 2013 Bristol Bay Area Annual Management Report, p. 88 Appendix A22, The average round weight, in pounds, 

of the commercial catch by species, Bristol Bay , 1993-2013. 86 See 2016 04 01 letter from mr. supporting th the average weight of an Igushik Salmon being 6 pounds.
2013 Price Per Pound

On reconsideration, claimant argues it sold sockeye salmon to Peter Pan Seafoods for per pound 

and states that the NPFC made a factual error relying on ADF&G data indicating an average sale price of

$1.50 per pound for sockeye salmon because it is a pre-settlement base price and does not reflect the final 

price paid. Mr. further states that a portion of his landed salmon would have been sold for 

to Favco and that data was not included in the ADF&G data.87 

Mr. provided a Peter Pan, 2013 Bristol Bay Settlement Summary which demonstrates that the 

 Group was paid the base price of per pound for Reds, as a presettlement base price. The 

Peter Pan base price does not include incentives, that were later paid to the Group. 

The NPFC used the $ base price that the Group received from Peter Pan,

88 in its initial claim 

determination to calculate the lost value/lost income of the Group’s catch. On reconsideration, 

the NPFC uses the same base price that Peter Pan paid the claimant for each pound of Reds (sockeye 

salmon) that were sold to Peter Pan Seafoods. 

Regarding the claimed Ice Incentive of $ 89 per pound, the NPFC does not find this cost 

compensable. The ice incentive was paid to the claimant by Peter Pan Seafoods, for fish that were caught 

and sold to Peter Pan Seafoods, on ice. There is no evidence provided in the record that the 

Group bought and stored ice and then was unable to use the ice, due to the oil spill incident. Further, by 

not having to purchase ice for the fish that was not caught in 2013, the claimant, quite likely, has realized 

a saved expense. Therefore, the $ Ice Incentive is not a compensable cost from the Fund. If the 

 Group bought ice in advance and had to waste it due to not being able to use it, attributed to the 

spill, they have not proven that fact in this claim. 

Regarding the claimed Spring Adjustment of $ per pound,90 the claimant provided a letter from Peter 

Pan Seafoods, during the initial claims process, that they were paid this amount per pound of sockeye 

salmon.

91 During the reconsideration process, the NPFC reached out to Peter Pan Seafoods and requested 

additional evidence to prove that Peter Pan paid the Group the Spring Adjustment for the 2013 

Salmon Fishing Season. Peter Pan Seafoods provided the NPFC a copy of the check that was paid to Mr. 

 in the amount of on May 14, 2014.92 Each fisherman was paid a different 

amount, which was based on the pounds of fish that was delivered to Peter Pan during the 2013 fishing 

season.

93 Therefore, the NPFC finds the $ per pound Spring Incentive is compensable for the lost 

fish that would have been delivered to Peter Pan. The NPFC’s methodology for its offer is explained in

further detail below.

 

87 See Claimant’s Reconsideration Letter, p. 14, paragraph j. 88 See Peter Pan Seafoods 2013 Settlement Summary for the Group.

89 See Claimant’s Reconsideration Letter, p. 14, paragraph m,1,b.

90 See Claimant’s Reconsideration Letter, p. 14, paragraph m, 1, c. 

91 May 15, 2014, Peter Pan Seafood letter to that acknowledges the members of the set-net operation 

and provided the presettelement base price of , Ice Incentive of $. per pound of sockeye salmon and a Spring 

Adjustment of $ per pound of sockeye salmon. Signed by Mr. , Bristol Bay Manager.

92 See Peter Pan Seafoods check # 3328374 paid to 

93 See Peter Pan Seafoods check stub, file copy for payments made to , 

 in year 2014 for the 2013 fishing season.
Favco/Post Processor/Buyer Boat Season Portion of the “Run” 

On April 07, 2015, the NPFC requested that the Group provide evidence that demonstrates the 

Favco prices and on April 20, 2015 the NPFC requested that the Group provide detailed records 

of the sales of fish to Favco for the years 2010 through 2014.94 

The Group provided evidence that after Peter Pan closes its window to buying fish from the 

 Group for the season, the Group then sells its fish to Favco and would have done so 

through August 1, 2013, but for the F/V LONE STAR incident. The Group submitted a letter to 

the Fund, from Favco, Inc.,95 that demonstrates the claimants’ intent to sell fish to Favco. The letter also 

demonstrates that there is a history between Favco and the Group. The claimants also submitted 

a letter to the Fund from Mr. ADF&G Nushagak/Togiak Area Management Biologist, dated 

April 01, 2016, acknowledging that the Igushik Section would have been kept open through August, but 

for the F/V Lone Star incident. On that basis, the claimants argue that they should receive $3.56 per 

pound for their Favco fish. 

The NPFC does not find the claimed Favco rate of per pound compensable because the 

Group did not provide detailed records, as requested. The Group did provide a few fish tickets 

that indicated sales of fish to Favco, for year 2012, but no other (2010-2011 and 2014) years were 

provided for comparables. The NPFC understands that the fish that are caught, to be sold to Favco, are 

typically fished after the fishing season has ended, therefore, there are no fish tickets. However,the

claimants did not provide any other documented evidence in the record that allows the NPFC to properly 

measure how many pounds of fish are sold to Favco in comparable years.

96

The record is clear that the Group would have received the $ per pound from Favco. 

However, claimants has not proven which portion of this price per pound is profit vs. revenue. There are 

substantial expenses that are incurred before receiving the claimed price per pound. It is clear in the 

record that the claimants have expenseses associated with Favco. There are costs to ice down the fish and 

to fly them to the processing facility in Anchorage. In addition, there are expenses to operate the fishing 

group,( i.e. the cost to repair his fishing vessels, feed his fishermen, and run the camps.

97 Claimants have 

not proven how much of the $ per pound is profit. 

However, the claimants provided data/evidence which supports that after the buyer boats for Peter Pan

Seafoods leave the fishing grounds, the claimants continue to catch fish and that they package, label, and 

sell through Favco.

98 Unfortunately, the data provided by the claimants to determine how many fish 

would have been caught is very weak, and for 2013 is non-existent. Therefore, on Reconsideration, the 

NPFC relied on a spreadsheet entitled Igushik River Historical Daily Escapement Counts Tower, that was 

provided by the State of Alaska.99 This spreadsheet captures Igushik River fish escapement from June 

18th through August 5th for 57 years (1958-2015). In using this objective data, the NPFC used the final 

eight (8) days of the month of July to estimate the fishing season’s post processor catch, as recorded at the 

 

94 See NPFC email to Mr. dated, April 20, 2015 and letter to dated April 07, 2015. 

95 Favco letter to the United States Coast Guard, Claims Manager, dated October 21, 2015 96 See 33 CFR 136.233(c): ”The amount of the claimant's profits or earnings in comparable periods and 

during the period when the claimed loss or impairment was suffered, as established by income tax returns, 

financial statements, and similar documents.” 97 Revenue minus Expenses equals Profits.

98 ’ April 1, 2016 letter supports that the Group would have fished through August. 99 Please refer to the Igushik River Historical Daily Escapement Counts Tower Spreadsheet that was provided to the 

Fund by Mr. , Alaska Biologist. This spreadsheet contains escapement counts that take place on the 

Igushik River and dates back to 1958 and runs through to 2015. 
State counting tower.100 The NPFC found that, historically, the data represents 3.6% of the annual run. 

The NPFC applied the 3.6% to the claimant’s 2013 catch rate to determine that pounds of 

sockeye could have been caught and marketed through the Group. However, the Group 

did not provide expenses related to Favco revenue. Therefore, the NPFC finds it reasonable to apply the 

same average price of a $1.50 per pound, based on the price that is documented by the State of Alaska. 

The NPFC’s methodology for its offer is explained in detail below.

NPFC Spreadsheet /Methodology of Compensation on Reconsideration Summary

In the process of reviewing and adjudicating the reconsideration of this claim, the NPFC used and 

modified the NPFC Spreadsheet that was provided to the claimant in the initial determination (Exhibit 1 – 

NPFC Spreadsheet). On reconsideration the claimant argued that it only requested compensation for 

sockeye salmon and did not want to be compensated for any other species of salmon.101 Therefore, upon 

reconsideration, the NPFC removed all pounds related to non-sockeye salmon, as requested by the 

claimant.102 

Opportunity Lost - Pounds Missed During State Run 

The claimants provided evidence that the they would have continued to fish through August but for the 

spill and Mr. statement supports this because of the early to very early run however, there is a 

lack of State documentation to support this. 

State of Alaska records note that the 2013 fishing season was going to run through or around, July 23, 

2013.103 Because of the spill incident, fishing operations in the Igushik River ended on July 5th after 

reports of contaminated fish were received. The set gillnet fishery remained closed for the remainder of 

the season and an area of six statute miles from the mouth of the Igushik River was closed to drift gillnet 

fishing as well.104

On reconsideration, the NPFC applied the same methodology as in its original determination, since 

claimant did not provide any useful evidence on reconsideration that would change the NPFC’s approach. 

The State’s escapement data supports that on June 30th almost 66% of the 2013 Igushik River salmon run 

had passed or was passing through the fishing grounds. The state escapement data further supports that a 

full 85% of the 2013 Igushik Sockeye run had passed the fishing grounds by the 5th of July, thus leaving 

only 15% of the Salmon run for the harvest or escapement during the balance of the 2013 run.105 On 

reconsideration, the NPFC continued to use the state escapement data as it is an impartial and reliable 

source. The 2013 harvest or escapement numbers were derived from the State’s Igushik River Tower 

Count table that the NPFC acquired while adjudicating this claim on reconsideration. The table was 

obtained from Mr. , ADF&G Biologist. 

 

By applying these percentages to the amount of fish caught by the Group prior to the spill, one 

can project the lost opportunity and loss due to the closure of the fishing season. The NPFC’s Enclosure 

(3) - NPFC Methodology Spreadsheet on Reconsideration provides that analysis. The fishermen that had 

fish tickets into July, are treated as though they only landed 85% of what they would have with a full 

season and those that had no fish tickets for July were treated as though they had only landed 66% of 

 

100 See Igushik River Historical Daily Escapement Counts Tower. 101 See Claimant’s Reconsideration letter dated April 5, 2016, page 13. 102 This includes removal of all Pinks, Chum, Coho, and Kings from the NPFC calculations. 103 See, letter, dated april 1, 2016, page 1. 104 2013 Bristol Bay Area Annual Management Report. 105 Please refer to the State’s Igushik River Tower Count table. 
what they would have landed. Overall, the River closure analysis supports a loss of pounds of 

sockeye salmon during the period when processors had buyer boats available.106 See NPFC 

reconsideration spreadsheet for details.

Supplemental 5.6% 

The first disruption to the 2013 fishing season, which can be attributed to the spill, occurred when the F/V 

LONE STAR sank in the mouth of the Igushik River on the morning of June 30, 2013. ADF&G closed 

fishing immediately until the incident could be evaluated. The fishery reopened in the afternoon of July 

1st. To recognize and quantify this loss, the NPFC used the daily escapement counts provided by the State

on July 3, 4, 5 & 6107 and took the average of these escapement numbers. The average escapement was 

then divided by the State’s total escapement number for the year.

108 This resulted in a determination that 

an average of 5.6% of the run passed through the Igushik fishing area each day during this four day period 

of the 2013 run, which, when applied to the Group fishermen in the Igushik pre-incident catch 

rate, translates into no more than a 5.6% reduction/impact to their harvest of those in the river.

The NPFC spreadsheet (initial and reconsideration) has a column titled “Supplemental 5.6%.” This 

column takes the fishermen’s total pounds of fish caught using fish tickets provided by the claimants,

divided by the percent of the run that had passed, multiplied by 5.6% (actual catch increased by the loss 

of opportunity poundage) to arrive at an additional loss during the closing and opening of the Igushik 

River from June 30-July 1st. During this disruption period, four Group fishermen were fishing in 

the Igushik River. The other five Group fishermen were fishing at Coffee Point, well outside and 

to the North of the Igushik River spill. The claimants produced lease transfer documents which evidence 

that the five fishermen fishing at Coffee Point were going to transfer down into the Igushik River, but 

were unable to due to the spill. The Fund accepted the claimants’ assertion that the fishermen fishing at 

Coffee Point through June were going to move down to the Igushik River. The NPFC’s initial 

determination, offered a 5.6% disruption to all nine Group fishermen; resulting in pounds 

of fish. 

Upon reconsideration of the claim, the NPFC re-evaluated the true loss of pounds during this one day 

disruption. There is no evidence in the record that the five fishermen at Coffee Point caught any less fish 

from June 30-July 1st than if they had been in the Igushik River and these five fisherman were able to 

continue fishing during this disruption. In fact, the Coffee Point fishermen planned to move down to the 

Igushik River would have caused a disruption in and of itself; the fishermen would have had to pull their 

nets to make the move which would have resulted in lost catch time, regardless of the oil spill. Therefore, 

upon reconsideration the NPFC only offers the 5.6% disruption to the four fishermen that were actively 

fishing in the Igushik River prior to the spill and then were not able to continue during this one day 

disruption. The NPFC spreadsheet distinguishes the fishermen that were fishing at Coffee Point during 

the disruption period by highlighting their fish totals in green. The NPFC offered a 5.6% allowance, to 

the four Group fisherman fishing in the Igushik River during the one day disruption which 

documents a total loss of pounds of sockeye. See NPFC spreadsheet for details.

 

106 On Reconsideration, the NPFC removed all other species of salmon which provided a lower number than in the 

initial determination.

107 See email with attached spreadsheet labeled Irtower. The State fish tower captures fish escapement, 

on average, five days after the fish move across the fishing grounds. Since the disruption on the fishing grounds was 

from June 30th – July 1st, the NPFC quantifies this loss by taking fish escapement counts from two days before the 

disruption (June 28 and 29) and two days during the disruption (June 30 and July 1st). These counts were 

20898+22764+29070+14142 which equals 86,874 and averages 21,718.5 fish escapement.

108 See 2013 Bristol Bay Area Annual Management Report, Table 20-Inshore commercial catch and escapement of 

sockeye salmon, in numbers of fish, Bristol Bay, 2013. The total escapement for the Igushik River in 2013 was 

387,036.
Post Peter Pan Portion of the 2013 Season - 3.6%

As explained above, the NPFC used the Igushik River, Historical Daily Escapement Counts Tower 

Spreadsheet, that was provided to the Fund by Mr. in order to calculate the loss realized after 

the normal State run fishing season would have been over. This spreadsheet contains daily escapement 

counts on the Igushik River which dates back to 1958 and runs through the end of the fishing season, 

2015. Utilizing Mr. spreadsheet, the NPFC used the daily escapement rate based on the daily 

average between years 1958 and 2013. The total daily escapement from July 24-31st indicates that the 

escapement for that week was 3.6%.109 The NPFC used this figure to makeup for the lack of 

contemporaneous records for the end of the 2013 fishing season. Therefore, using that figure, the NPFC 

applied the opportunity missed and the supplemental 5.6% that was multiplied by the 3.6% to 

demonstrate a Post Run Opportunity Lost, in total pounds, which is represented at the bottom of the 

NPFC’s spreadsheet in the amount of 9854.45 lbs of fish that would have been caught at the end of July 

in 2013. 

Spring Incentive

The NPFC will allow compensation for the loss of $ per pound from Peter Pan as discussed above. 

To measure the Spring Incentive, the NPFC multiplied the sum of the lost opportunity and the 

supplemental 5.6% disruption by Finally, the NPFC summed the information and totals to achieve 

the offered amount on reconsideration. 

When initially adjudicating this claim, the NPFC used the average price of $1.50 per pound while 

measuring the claim and did not include incentives. However, on Reconsideration, based on the evidence 

that was provided by Peter Pan, the NPFC used the NPFC spreadsheet to determine how much spring 

incentive will be offered to the Group, based on the Opportunity Lost total amount. The NPFC 

added the total Opportunity Lost amount with the total supplemental amount, then multiplied those two 

separate amounts by $ , which provided the incentive amounts, per fisherman. Then, a combined 

spring incentive total was achieved by tallying the individual fisherman’s spring incentives together, in 

the amount of $ .110 Please note that when the NPFC initially adjudicated this claim, the NPFC 

analyzed the Group’s fish that were caught in 2013, as if they were all Sockey Salmon, to determine the 

“catch rate,” and offered the Group per pound for all species of fish. On reconsideration, of 

this claim, the NPFC only adjudicated the Reds/Sockeye Salmon; all other species of Salmon were 

removed from the calculations, per the claimant’s request.

Spreadsheet Summary

On reconsideration, all pounds for other species of salmon, other than Reds (sockeye salmon) have been 

backed out of the NPFC analyses, per the claimants’ argument, in its reconsideration letter on page 13, 

paragraph b. The NPFC added the total pounds of Reds (sockeye salmon) that the Group 

harvested, and was officially documented through fish tickets, during the 2013 fishing season.

111 The 

NPFC spreadsheet shows a variance in the total pounds between the fish tickets that the claimant 

submitted to the Fund and the Peter Pan Settlement Summary, (2663) which indicates the difference, by 

pounds, of what the Group landed and the pounds of sockeye salmon that were purchased by 

 

109 This includes any lost pounds that would have been sold to Favco. 110 Column W. 111 This equals lbs of Sockeye Salmon. Not all fish tickets were legible and not all tickets were turned in by 

claimant because some were damaged during the fishing season or lost.
Peter Pan. 112 The Peter Pan Settlement Summary supports that in 2013, Peter Pan purchased 

pounds of salmon from the Group. The NPFC divided the varience (2663) in pounds of Reds 

(sockeye salmon) by the percent of the run that had passed (.85%). The remaining 15% represents the 

opportunity lost,which equals, 

The NPFC added the Total Opportunity Lost114 for each member of the Group, which equates to 

44809.91 pounds of salmon that would have been caught, if not for the oil spill. The NPFC then 

calculated the sum of the supplemental, the post run, and the spring incentive.115 Those figures were 

based on each fisherman’s total harvest, which includes incentives. All totaled, it provides a collective 

loss of pounds not harvested as a result of the closure, in the amount of 

The NPFC used each fisherman’s pre-incident catch/harvest as a percentage of the run to determine the 

actual harvest lost for the 2013 fishing season. The early closure reduced the Group’s harvest by 

44809.91 pounds of salmon. The June 30th disruption resulted in the Group losing an additional, 

10319.66 pounds of sockeye. These fish, at $ per pound, would have earned the Group, $ 

and $ respectively. Additionally, on Reconsideration, the claimant demonstrated that they 

would have received an additional $ per pound, in the form of a spring incentive check from Peter Pan. 

Finally, on Reconsideration, the claimant demonstrated that they would have have caught and marketed 

an additional pounds of sockeye. Unfortunately, the claimant did not demonstrate a higher 

value or price for the fish that were caught after the buyer boats departed. Therefore, the NPFC valued 

the fish at the State in season price/per pound rate. 

Pounds In Season 

Value $ /lb

Spring Incentive 

Value $ /lb

fish captured through 

Fish Tickets

fish purchased by 

Peter Pan

Opportunity Lost to Fisherman

Shortened 

Season

Disruption

Post Season

Totals

Offer $105,194.1757

 

112 See, Column R, Line 210-211on the NPFC spreadsheet. 113 Claimant’s 2013 fish tickets totaled lbs of Sockeye Salmon. PPSF documents a total of lbs of 

Sockeye Salmon delivered to them from the Group. The difference is 2663 lbs. 15% of that difference is 

added into the Opportunity Lost lbs Missed portion of the spreadsheet. See Column R, S and T line 210 on the 

NPFC spreadsheet.

114 Column T on NPFC Spreadsheet. 115 Columns U, V, and W, on the NPFC Spreadsheet. 116 Column X on the NPFC Spreadsheet.
Denied Costs on Reconsideration

On Reconsideration, the claimants do not argue the vessel charter, additional fuel costs, and interest that 

the NPFC denied in the initial determination. However, those costs remain as components of the 

claimant’s sum certain and therefore will be discussed below. 

Vessel Charter Claim: $6,000 

As noted in the NPFC’s initial determination, the vessel charter claim is for the vessels that were 

chartered to the RP, on July 01, 2013, to place containment boom around the F/V LONE STAR. 

However, the vessel charter costs were satisfied by the RP in the amount of $6,252117 on March 17, 2015 

and therefore, the vessel charter claim in the amount of $6,000 is denied.118

Additional Fuel: $9,900.57 

In its initial claim submission,the claimants assert that the Group incurred an increase in fuel 

costs that are alleged to be associated with the Group’s end of season pack-up of camp. Peter 

Pan’s fishing tender, the CARLA RAE C, left the Igushik fishing district prior to the Fishing 

Group leaving the area for the season. Fishing Group typically utilizes a PPSF fish tender to tow 

the Group’s vessels and to haul the Group’s gear, provisions, and personnel, between 

fishing camp and Dillingham.119 However, due to the River closure, the CARLA RAE C, went back to 

Dillingham earlier than the Group. Therefore, the Group hauled its own gear and vessels 

to Dillingham as opposed to loading the gear on a tender and towing the vessels back to Dillingham. 

The NPFC denied these costs in the initial claim determination because claimant did not provide evidence 

(receipts for the cost of the additional fuel or the amount that the Group spends in fuel for the 

entire fishing season). On reconsideration, the claimant did not to provide any new evidence. Therefore, 

the increased fuel costs in the amount of $9,900.57 are denied. 

Interest: $16,727.16 

The Group claims interest in the amount of $16,727.16. Interest is not an OPA compensable cost 

and is therefore denied in the amount of $16,727.16. 

Homepack: $15,300.00 

On April 07, 2015, the NPFC requested that the Group provide evidence that demonstrates the 

Homepack price120. The claimants provided a letter from Peter Pan Sea Foods121 in regards to the Peter 

Pan Sea Foods fillet cost for the Fishing Group. The letter states that in 2013, Peter Pan 

Seafoods, Inc., Dillingham Facility, sold #1 grade, pin bone out, vacuum packaged sockeye fillets (1 lb. – 

2 lb. size category) for per pound and that those fillets were available at that cost to fishermen, 

crew, and the public. The letter further explains that Peter Pan Sea Foods provides a service in producing 

a small portion of the sockeye fillets from the Fishing Group’s catch towards the end of the 

fishing season. Peter Pan Sea Foods states in its letter that they were unable to offer this service to the 

 

117 Mr. paid interest costs in the amount of $252. 118 See Matthews and Zahare check number 1423, dated March 17, 2015 paid to 

119 The distance between the camp and Dillingham is 34 miles. 120 See NPFC letter dated April 7, 2015, to Fishing Group. 121 PPSF letter dated 2015 10 09 
 Group in 2013 because of the oil spill incident. Therefore, there was no Homepack of sockeye 

fillets in 2013.

Although the claimants provided a letter from Peter Pan that asserts Homepack is something that occurs 

in the later part of the fishing season, it is not enough evidence to demonstrate a financial loss. The 

claimants have failed to provide the amount of pounds of salmon that are used to make each Homepack 

package, for each fisherman. Also, the claimants did not provide contemporaneous evidence that 

supports the assertion of a Homepack being given out in prior fishing seasons/years, that would support 

the monetary value of the Homepack. Therefore, the NPFC has not been able to determine a loss in this 

category of the claim and must deny the claim of Homepack in the amount of $15,300.00 

Conclusion

The NPFC reviewed and considered all of the claimants’ arguments and evidence that was provided on 

Reconsideration as well as the administrative record that was created during the initial adjudication of this 

claim. The NPFC’s offer and Methodology correlates directly from the reported 2013 Bristol Bay 

Sockeye Salmon run that was based on State documented records as well as the evidence that the claimant 

provided. The NPFC also used the Peter Pan Seafood’s base payment price of per pound for 

Sockeye Salmon, the Spring Incentive of , and the NPFC, articulated, supplemental loss of 5.6%, as 

well as the lost catch after the State run of 3.6%. Finally, the NPFC is able to provide an offer of 

$105,194.18 to the claimant. 

Determined Amount on Reconsideration: $105,194.18 

Claim Supervisor:

Date of Supervisor’s review: September 9, 2016 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor Comments: