Feinberg's paradox of compensation rules

Aren't these two ideas in conflict?

Last week, Feinberg released highly anticipated new methods for calculating settlements for oyster leaseholders and interim payments for those experiencing new losses in 2011, and both changes could have a significant impact on the flow of money through the program.

The first change requires claimants seeking interim quarterly payments for continuing losses to demonstrate at least a 5-percent revenue growth rate from 2010. A firm hired by Feinberg, ARPC of Washington, D.C., found that a slower growth rate would suggest that ongoing losses are most likely not from the effects of the spill.

Feinberg also agreed to do a case-by-case review to compensate claimants whose spill-related losses have only arisen in 2011, after suffering no loss in 2010.

Also isn't there also a massive damage assessment process currently under way which assumes that the effects of the spill could last for decades?

And while all parties involved expressed hope for reaching a speedy initial settlement, none are expecting the studying to end for many years. Alaska's Exxon Valdez spill showed that oil impacts not only linger for decades, but in some cases they might not even surface for years after a settlement, so the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 allowed trustees to reopen settlements.

Here's the crucial question I don't immediately have the answer to. Does the GCCF process close whatever opportunity individual claimants might have under OPA to reopen settlements at a later date?