Section 9 Responses to Public Comments
[9-1](#section-9-9-responses-to-public-comments)

9.1 General Comments [9-1](#general-comments)

9.1.1 Identity of the Montrose Settlements Restoration Program
[9-1](#identity-of-the-montrose-settlements-restoration-program)

9.1.2 Noise Impacts [9-2](#noise-impacts)

9.1.3 Use of Restoration Funds for Site Cleanup
[9-2](#use-of-restoration-funds-for-site-cleanup)

9.1.4 Restoration Timing/Coordination with EPA
[9-3](#restoration-timingcoordination-with-epa)

9.1.5 Overall Allocation of Restoration Funds
[9-3](#overall-allocation-of-restoration-funds)

9.1.6 Swing Money [9-4](#swing-money)

9.1.7 Past Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Litigation Costs
[9-4](#past-natural-resource-damage-assessment-and-litigation-costs)

9.1.8 Outreach and Education [9-6](#outreach-and-education)

9.1.9 Research and Monitoring [9-7](#research-and-monitoring)

9.1.10 Methodology for Analyzing Alternatives
[9-7](#methodology-for-analyzing-alternatives)

9.1.11 Tier 1 and Tier 2 Action Criteria: Nexus (Physical Proximity)
[9-9](#tier-1-and-tier-2-action-criteria-nexus-physical-proximity)

9.1.12 Tier 1 and Tier 2 Action Criteria: Benefits (to the Public)
[9-12](#tier-1-and-tier-2-action-criteria-benefits-to-the-public)

9.1.13 Tier 1 and Tier 2 Action Criteria: Environmental Acceptability
(Cumulative Impacts)
[9-12](#tier-1-and-tier-2-action-criteria-environmental-acceptability-cumulative-impacts)

9.1.14 Impact Analyses, Including Impacts to Threatened and Endangered
Species
[9-13](#impact-analyses-including-impacts-to-threatened-and-endangered-species)

9.1.15 Potential Impacts to the Ventura River Watershed
[9-13](#potential-impacts-to-the-ventura-river-watershed)

9.1.16 Implementation of Actions Not Passed to the Tier 2 Evaluation
[9-13](#implementation-of-actions-not-passed-to-the-tier-2-evaluation)

9.1.17 General Comments on Restoration Alternatives
[9-13](#general-comments-on-restoration-alternatives)

9.1.18 Comments on Applicable Laws and Regulations
[9-14](#comments-on-applicable-laws-and-regulations)

9.2 Fishing and Fish Habitat Comments
[9-14](#fishing-and-fish-habitat-comments)

9.2.1 Flexibility of Funding Within the Fishing and Fish Habitat
Category
[9-14](#flexibility-of-funding-within-the-fishing-and-fish-habitat-category)

9.2.2 Reconsideration of Tier 1 Idea
[9-15](#reconsideration-of-tier-1-idea)

9.2.3 New Fishing and Fish Habitat Restoration Ideas
[9-15](#new-fishing-and-fish-habitat-restoration-ideas)

9.2.4 Comments on "Construct Artificial Reefs and Fishing Access
Improvements"
[9-20](#comments-on-construct-artificial-reefs-and-fishing-access-improvements)

9.2.5 Comments on "Provide Public Information to Restore Lost Fishing
Services"
[9-23](#comments-on-provide-public-information-to-restore-lost-fishing-services)

9.2.6 Comments on "Restore Full Tidal Exchange Wetlands"
[9-24](#comments-on-restore-full-tidal-exchange-wetlands)

9.2.7 Comments on "Augment Funds for Implementing Marine Protected Areas
in California"
[9-25](#comments-on-augment-funds-for-implementing-marine-protected-areas-in-california)

9.3 Bald Eagle Restoration Comments
[9-25](#bald-eagle-restoration-comments)

9.3.1 General Bald Eagle Comments [9-25](#general-bald-eagle-comments)

9.3.2 Funding Allocation for Bald Eagle Restoration
[9-26](#funding-allocation-for-bald-eagle-restoration)

9.3.3 Suggested Funding Scenarios for Bald Eagle Restoration
[9-27](#suggested-funding-scenarios-for-bald-eagle-restoration)

9.3.4 Reproductive Status of Bald Eagles on Santa Catalina Island
[9-29](#reproductive-status-of-bald-eagles-on-santa-catalina-island)

9.3.5 Public Access to Bald Eagles [9-30](#public-access-to-bald-eagles)

9.3.6 Potential Benefits of Funding the Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle
Program
[9-31](#potential-benefits-of-funding-the-santa-catalina-island-bald-eagle-program)

9.3.7 Potential Impacts of Not Funding the Santa Catalina Island Bald
Eagle Program
[9-32](#potential-impacts-of-not-funding-the-santa-catalina-island-bald-eagle-program)

9.3.8 Humane Treatment of Bald Eagles
[9-34](#humane-treatment-of-bald-eagles)

9.3.9 Bald Eagles and the Santa Catalina Island Economy
[9-34](#bald-eagles-and-the-santa-catalina-island-economy)

9.3.10 New Bald Eagle Restoration Ideas
[9-34](#new-bald-eagle-restoration-ideas)

9.3.11 NEPA Documentation [9-36](#nepa-documentation)

9.3.12 Ecosystem-Level Restoration [9-36](#ecosystem-level-restoration)

9.4 Peregrine Falcon Restoration Comments
[9-37](#peregrine-falcon-restoration-comments)

9.4.1 Use of the Term "Natural Recovery" for Peregrine Falcons
[9-37](#use-of-the-term-natural-recovery-for-peregrine-falcons)

9.4.2 Allocation of Funds to Peregrine Falcon Restoration
[9-37](#allocation-of-funds-to-peregrine-falcon-restoration)

9.4.3 Active Restoration of Peregrine Falcons on Santa Catalina Island
[9-38](#active-restoration-of-peregrine-falcons-on-santa-catalina-island)

9.4.4 Budget and Time Frame for Peregrine Falcon Restoration
[9-38](#budget-and-time-frame-for-peregrine-falcon-restoration)

9.4.5 Threat of Peregrine Falcon Restoration to Seabird Populations
[9-39](#threat-of-peregrine-falcon-restoration-to-seabird-populations)

9.5 Seabird Restoration Comments [9-39](#seabird-restoration-comments)

9.5.1 Seabird Nexus [9-39](#seabird-nexus)

9.5.2 Seabird Restoration on Baja California, Mexico
[9-40](#seabird-restoration-on-baja-california-mexico)

9.5.3 Additional Seabird Data Gap Studies
[9-40](#additional-seabird-data-gap-studies)

9.5.4 Additional Long-Term Seabird Monitoring in the Southern California
Bight
[9-41](#additional-long-term-seabird-monitoring-in-the-southern-california-bight)

9.5.5 Restoration of Additional Seabird Species and Locations
[9-41](#restoration-of-additional-seabird-species-and-locations)

9.5.6 Impacts to Humans Who Consume Seabirds
[9-42](#impacts-to-humans-who-consume-seabirds)

9.5.7 Impacts to Seabirds from Other Restoration Actions
[9-42](#impacts-to-seabirds-from-other-restoration-actions)

9.5.8 Comments on "Restore Alcids to Santa Barbara Island"
[9-42](#comments-on-restore-alcids-to-santa-barbara-island)

9.5.9 Comments on "Restore Seabirds to Scorpion Rock"
[9-44](#comments-on-restore-seabirds-to-scorpion-rock)

9.5.10 Comments on "Restore Seabirds to Baja California Pacific Islands"
[9-46](#comments-on-restore-seabirds-to-baja-california-pacific-islands)

9.5.11 Comments on "Restore Ashy Strom-Petrels to Anacapa Island"
[9-46](#comments-on-restore-ashy-strom-petrels-to-anacapa-island)

**Tables**

9-1 Summary of Damage Assessment Costs for the Montrose Case

9-2 Relationship between MSRP Evaluation Criteria and Evaluation Factors
Listed in the Federal Natural Resource Damage Assessment Regulations (43
CFR Part 11)

**Figures**

9-1 Results from 1981 state mussel watch survey and 1988 federal mussel
watch survey that examine relative contamination levels in shellfish in
various locations throughout the Channel Islands.

9-2 Concentrations of DDTs (top panel) and PCBs (bottom panel) in
benthic soft-bottom fishes collected in Santa Monica Bay, Palos Verdes
Shelf, San Pedro Bay, and Catalina Island.

# Section 9 9 Responses to Public Comments

This section of the Montrose Settlements Restoration Program (MSRP)
Final Restoration Plan and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides a record of the public
comments received on the draft Restoration Plan and programmatic EIS/EIR
and the responses to these comments prepared by the Natural Resource
Trustees for the Montrose case (Trustees). The draft document underwent
a 45-day public comment period extending from Friday, April 8, to
Monday, May 23, 2005. During this time, the Trustees received many
written comments, and accepted additional input at various public
meetings held throughout the affected area.

The Trustees received many comments that spanned all aspects of the
draft Restoration Plan and programmatic EIS/EIR. These public comments
served to enhance the final version of the plan. A full copy of the
written comments as well as the transcripts of the public meetings and
the transcripts of telephone comments have been included in the MSRP
Administrative Record and are available online at
www.montroserestoration.gov.

The Trustees' responses to public comments have been organized according
to common themes, beginning with responses to general comments about
restoration planning and the document itself and followed by the
responses to the comments regarding the specific natural resource
categories. The responses are presented below.

## GENERAL COMMENTS

### Identity of the Montrose Settlements Restoration Program

Comment: Many reviewers mistook the Montrose Settlements Restoration
Program for the Montrose Chemical Corporation.

Source(s): Multiple public reviewers

The Montrose Settlements Restoration Program is managed by a Natural
Resource Trustee Council that consists of three federal and three state
agencies (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the California
Department of Fish and Game, the California State Lands Commission, and
the California State Department of Parks and Recreation). These
government agencies are responsible for using the funds recovered from
Montrose Chemical Corporation (Montrose) and other liable parties in
judicial settlements to restore the natural resources injured by the
DDTs and PCBs released to the Southern California Bight by Montrose and
the other defendants. The Trustee Council (referred to as the Trustees
throughout this document) created the MSRP as a temporary inter-agency
unit to develop a plan for the restoration of the injured resources and
to administer the settlement funds for that purpose.

The MSRP acts under the direction of the Trustees. The six government
agencies that constitute the Trustees are not in any way affiliated with
the Montrose Chemical Corporation or any of the other defendants in the
litigation. Neither the Trustees nor the MSRP are responsible for the
releases of the contaminants into the ocean or for the impacts to
natural resources that resulted from those releases.

### Noise Impacts

Comment: Abalone Cove Beach Park, the Portuguese Bend Co-op Preschool,
and the Long Point Resort Hotel (under construction) should be listed as
sensitive receptors in Coastal Reach 3.

Source(s): City of Rancho Palos Verdes

The Trustees have added these locations to the list of sensitive noise
receptors included in Table 3.9-1.

### Use of Restoration Funds for Site Cleanup

Comment: Restoration funds should be used to address the DDTs and PCBs
that remain in the sediments off the coast of California. Several ideas
on specific methods for cleaning up sediments were proposed.

Source(s): Multiple public reviewers

In general, the law (i.e., the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act \[CERCLA\]) assigns the responsibility
for cleaning up hazardous substances to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and state cleanup agencies. The settlements for
the Montrose case specifically provide funds to the EPA and under
certain circumstances to the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) for this purpose. Thus, the EPA will conduct the cleanup
actions (if any) to address the continued DDT and PCB contamination of
sediments and will do so using funds that the settlements provide for
this purpose.

The \$140.2 million recovered in settlements from the defendants in the
Montrose case was divided in the following manner:

-   \$66.25 million was awarded to EPA for response (cleanup) actions,
    which may include reducing human health risks via public education
    and outreach ("institutional controls") and addressing the
    contaminated sediments offshore ("in-situ response") (see Section
    4.2.2 for a more detailed description of these programs). An
    additional \$10 million ("swing money") was set aside in a special
    account that EPA may use to conduct any in situ response actions.
    These monies may become available to the Trustees in certain limited
    circumstances (described in Section 9.1.6).

-   \$63.95 million was awarded to the Trustees to reimburse past costs
    and to restore injured natural resources and lost services.

Comment: Restoration funds should be used to address onshore
contaminated areas, such as the Consolidated Slip

Source(s): J. Marquez

Although large amounts of DDTs and PCBs made their way into the marine
environment through the wastewater outfalls at White Point, off the
Palos Verdes Shelf, contaminants also entered the environment through
runoff from the Montrose plant itself. That runoff flowed through storm
drains into the Dominguez Channel and down to the area known as the
Consolidated Slip. However, the legal settlements reached in 2001
covered only the offshore areas of contamination and prohibit the use of
settlement funds for response actions in the onshore areas such as the
Consolidated Slip.

### Restoration Timing/Coordination with EPA

Comment: The Trustees should wait to implement many of the restoration
actions until the completion of EPA's site remediation work.

Source(s): Coastal Resources Associates, Inc.; T. Coops; J. Morton

Although any successful site remediation by the EPA is likely to enhance
the benefits provided by the Trustees' restoration actions, none of the
restoration ideas that passed the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations are
dependent on the results of the EPA's site remediation work. Given the
time it is likely to take to complete the complex and difficult
remediation work, the Trustees believe it is important not to delay
implementation of those restoration actions that, if taken sooner, can
restore injured resources and/or provide the benefits of those resources
to the public.

### Overall Allocation of Restoration Funds

Comment: Several reviewers questioned the proposed distribution of
funding across the different restoration categories and actions. Some
expressed the opinion that insufficient funds were allocated for
specific injured resources such as bald eagles or fish habitat. Others
stated that too much funding was provided for categories such as
seabirds and fishing. Still others stated the opinion that the
distribution of funding should take into account the geographic
distribution of the contamination.

Source(s): Multiple public reviewers

The consent decrees for the Montrose case provided funding for
restoration, but did not specify how the restoration funds should be
allocated among the different resource categories. After considering the
ongoing uncertainties identified in Section 4, the Trustees proposed a
phased approach to implementation that provides for adaptive management
(i.e., adjusting management actions as new information is gained through
the planning and implementing of the actions).

Several other considerations also went into the Trustees' decision to
allocate the first phase of restoration funding approximately equally
between fishing and fish habitat restoration actions and seabird
restoration actions. These considerations included (1) the estimated
costs for the actions that are relatively specific in scope at this
stage; (2) the scalability of other actions that are still conceptual
(e.g., actions such as reef construction and wetlands restoration for
which the size, number, and locations may be tailored to available
budgets); and (3) the practical limitations on managing implementation
of multiple restoration actions simultaneously in the same region. In
light of these considerations, the Trustees concluded that the proposed
mix of actions reflected in the alternatives represents a reasonable
distribution of restoration funds for a first phase of implementation
and that the phasing provides for future adjustment and adaptation as
more information is gained.

The injuries from DDTs and PCBs were not limited to the localized
sediment deposits. Contaminants were distributed throughout the Southern
California Bight by fish and marine mammals carrying them in their
bodies. Therefore, when considering geographic distribution, the
Trustees did not factor in proximity of restoration actions to the
contaminated sediments, but rather gave consideration to the locations
where natural resource injuries and lost services occurred, and the
proximity of the different restoration actions to those sites of
injuries and lost services (among other factors). See also Section
9.1.11.

### Swing Money

Comment: Certain statements in the draft Restoration Plan have
incorrectly characterized the way that the final consent decree provides
for \$10 million in contingent funding, or "swing money," to be
disbursed depending on the EPA's decision on in situ remediation of
sediments.

Source(s): EPA

Paragraph 11.C of the final Montrose Consent Decree provides as follows:

> In the event EPA makes a response action selection determination to
> not select any "in-situ" response action\... then all funds retained
> in the Court Registry Account... shall be paid from the Court Registry
> Account to the Trustees.

The Trustees have reworded those sections of the text to reflect the
above-quoted text of the final consent decree.

### Past Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Litigation Costs

Comment: The Trustees should provide a description of how the \$35
million in past damage assessment costs were spent, and to what purpose.
The Trustees should not use settlement funds for reimbursement of past
damage assessment costs.

Source(s): Heal the Bay; Santa Monica Baykeeper; Pacific Seabird Group

The final consent decree states that settlement funds are to be used to
"(1) reimburse past and future damage assessment costs, and (2) restore,
replace, or acquire the equivalent of the injured natural resources
and/or the services provided by such resources."

The Trustees' natural resource damage assessment included numerous
studies to:

-   Determine injuries across a wide range of resources

-   Quantify those injuries

-   Establish a pathway from the Montrose facility to those resources
    and injuries

-   Determine the value of natural resource injuries and services lost

-   Characterize the affected area

-   Evaluate potential response actions to address the remaining
    contamination (before the EPA joined the case in the mid 1990s)

Table 9-1 provides a summary of the approximate costs that the Trustees
have incurred throughout the Montrose damage assessment and litigation,
including the costs of specific studies and general management.

Table 9-1\
Summary of Damage Assessment Costs for the Montrose Case

  ------------------ ------------------------------------- ------------------
  **Study or         **Description**                       **Approximate
  Action**                                                 Cost**

  Sediment           To determine if the sea floor         \$750,000
                     sediments were contaminated at a      
                     level that causes injury to           
                     biological resources.                 

  Fish Reproduction  To determine if a significant         \$2,100,000
                     difference in reproductive success    
                     can be measured between control fish  
                     and fish from the Southern California 
                     Bight.                                

  Birds              To determine whether injuries to bird \$2,000,000
                     species in the Southern California    
                     Bight had been caused by and were     
                     continuing because of exposure to     
                     DDTs and/or PCBs.                     

  Marine Mammals     To determine if exposure to DDTs and  \$1,750,000
                     PCBS was causing injury to marine     
                     mammals in the Southern California    
                     Bight.                                

  Pathways           To determine the pathway between the  \$750,000
                     contaminant releases and the injured  
                     resources to evaluate whether the     
                     releases actually caused the natural  
                     resource injuries found.              

  Direct Use Value   To collect general information about  \$500,000
  Studies            the way people use the natural        
                     resources of the Southern California  
                     Bight and specific data on the uses   
                     of the resources that were available. 

  Contingent         To determine the interim lost value   \$7,600,000
  Valuation Study    associated with the injured           
                     resources.                            

  Palos Verdes Shelf To collect comprehensive information  \$3,500,000
  Characterization   about the distribution of the         
                     effluent-affected sediment layer.     

  Palos Verdes Shelf To estimate the time needed for       \$3,500,000
  Natural Recovery   natural recovery of the Palos Verdes  
  Estimation         Shelf if no restoration or associated 
                     activities were undertaken.           

  Physical           To evaluate the technical feasibility \$900,000
  Remediation        for a range of sediment restoration   
                     approaches to accelerate the          
                     biological recovery of the system by  
                     removing or isolating the DDT- and/or 
                     PCB-laden sediments.                  

  Biological         To develop key components of a        \$300,000
  Restoration        Restoration and Compensation          
                     Determination Plan for use in natural 
                     resource restoration planning         

  General Case       General management and coordination   \$2,100,000
  Management         functions associated with the damage  
                     assessment                            

  Peer Review        To conduct independent peer review    \$600,000
                     for each part of the damage           
                     assessment                            

  Quality Assurance  To ensure that Principal              \$1,200,000
                     Investigators specified and achieved  
                     the quality of data needed to conduct 
                     damage assessment studies.            

  Other agency costs Costs necessary for planning,         \$8,000,000
                     management, and implementation of     
                     damage assessment and litigation.     

  **Approximate                                            **\$35,000,000**
  Total**                                                  
  ------------------ ------------------------------------- ------------------

Generally, the costs for conducting many damage assessments do not come
from Congressional appropriations. Given the magnitude, geographic
extent, and persistence of the contaminants of this case and the
duration and contentiousness of the legal case itself, the \$35 million
expended for the damage assessment and litigation in the Montrose case
was deemed reasonably necessary. This amount falls within the range of
the costs incurred for other large and complex damage assessments,
including the Cantara Loop train derailment (\$15--17 million) and the
*EXXON Valdez* oil spill (\$108.3 million). The Trustees decided to cap
reimbursement of their past costs at \$35 million, even though
documented costs came to approximately \$36.3 million.

### Outreach and Education

Comment: Outreach and education should be evaluated as a separate
resource category for funding consideration and as a component of
specific restoration actions.

Source(s): Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy; multiple public
reviewers

Planning and implementing natural resource restoration in accordance
with applicable federal and state laws requires public participation;
therefore, it is appropriate that a portion of funding be applied to
public outreach and education activities aimed at fulfilling this
requirement. However, the Trustees did not believe that restoration
ideas eliciting funds for general outreach and education should be
included with specific proposals to fund "on-the-ground" restoration
work, such as seabird social attraction or the construction of
artificial reefs. The one exception was a targeted campaign aimed at
providing greater information to anglers about fish contamination
("provide public information to restore lost fishing services"; see
Appendix A2). The outreach and education project described in Appendix
A2 is a means of restoring lost fishing opportunities (a per se injury
under CERCLA) to anglers and thus is, in effect, on-the-ground
restoration.

Other outreach and education ideas submitted outlined general programs
to promote environmental stewardship across various audiences. The
Trustees recognize the importance of outreach and education as a means
of engaging the public in restoration in general and in the Montrose
case in particular. After reviewing the outreach and education proposals
from Tier 1, the Trustees have chosen to incorporate some aspects of
those ideas into the "provide public information to restore lost fishing
services" action (see Appendix A2 for details).

Most of the restoration actions that MSRP will undertake will include an
outreach and education element within the scope of implementation. An
MSRP outreach and education coordinator will oversee these aspects of
the actions as well as general outreach and education on the Montrose
case as a whole.

Comment: Money should be spent to educate the public about the human
health consequences of DDTs and PCBs.

Source(s): T. Laura; M. Padian

Alternative 2 (preferred) in the Restoration Plan includes a component
for providing public information regarding DDT and PCB contamination in
fish caught in the affected area. The Trustees will continue to work
closely with the EPA's institutional controls program, including the
Fish Contamination and Education Collaborative (FCEC), whose goal is to
provide information to help educate the public about the health risks of
consuming fish contaminated with DDTs and PCBs. Together with FCEC, MSRP
designs and produces outreach materials, which FCEC then disseminates to
a host of community-based organizations and health educators in the
Southern California region. In addition, several county, state, and
federal public health and environmental agencies have broader
responsibilities to protect and inform the public on environmental
health issues, including the general risks of exposures to DDTs and
PCBs.

### Research and Monitoring

Comment: Some reviewers submitted proposals for additional research
and/or indicated that further monitoring was needed before implementing
certain restoration actions, and requested that their suggested
research/monitoring components be included in the Restoration Plan.

Source(s): Multiple public reviewers

The Trustees' goal is to maximize the amount of actual natural resource
restoration that can be achieved through the Montrose settlements. In
pursuing this goal, the Trustees recognize that a certain amount of
additional study and project monitoring is required to ensure that the
actions being taken are appropriate and effective. As is the case for
general outreach and education proposals, the ideas for additional study
and monitoring that were submitted to the Trustees were not evaluated
alongside actual restoration actions, but have been retained for further
consideration as restoration proceeds and potential needs for further
information arise. Most of the specific research proposals that have
been suggested are addressed in the responses to seabird restoration
comments (see Section 9.5).

Regarding project monitoring, each restoration action that the Trustees
implement will include a monitoring component, which will serve to
enhance adaptive management of those actions (i.e., will identify
successes/failures and adapt techniques accordingly) and measure the
effectiveness of the restoration efforts.

### Methodology for Analyzing Alternatives 

Comment: The U.S. Department of the Interior's Title 43 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 11.82(d) "factors to consider when selecting the
\[restoration\] alternative to pursue" should be more fully integrated
into the project analysis methodology or more information should be
provided on how the criteria used in the Restoration Plan were selected.

Source(s): EPA

The ten selection factors that the EPA identifies and how they are
integrated into the six evaluation criteria of the Restoration Plan are
described in Section 5.1.1. To address the EPA's comment, the Trustees
have added language in the Restoration Plan to further clarify how the
Title 43 CFR Part 11.82(d) "factors to consider" were integrated and
adapted into the MSRP evaluation criteria (see Section 5.1.1). These
evaluation criteria were developed with public input at workshops held
in 2002 and 2003. All relevant considerations were incorporated into the
evaluation criteria that the Trustees used for the Montrose case. In
some cases the Part 11.82(d) factors were combined or reorganized into
the six criteria to facilitate and improve the clarity of analysis. For
instance, the Trustees incorporated two factors listed separately in
Part 11.82(d), "relationship of the expected costs to the expected
benefits" and "cost-effectiveness," into three evaluation criteria:
"Resource Benefits," "Ecosystem Benefits," and "Cost."

Comment: The key assumptions of the Restoration Plan, such as the
preference to use restoration funds for actions that are sustainable in
nature, should be identified.

Source(s): EPA

The preference to use restoration funds for actions that are sustainable
in nature is an outgrowth of two of the MSRP evaluation criteria. The
"Resource Benefits" criterion includes consideration of the duration of
the benefits and gives preference to actions having greater duration.
The "Feasibility" criterion includes consideration of the degree of
ongoing operation and maintenance needed to ensure that the action
continues to produce the intended results and gives preference to
actions requiring less or no long-term operation and maintenance.

Comment: The Restoration Plan should include an explanation as to why
the potential for additional injury was not deemed significant for
inclusion in the evaluation criteria.

Source(s): EPA

The potential for additional injury is a relevant consideration for the
Restoration Plan. This factor is more fully described in Section
11.82(d) as, "Potential for additional injury resulting from the
proposed action, including long-term and indirect impacts to the injured
resources or other resources." This factor was incorporated into the
Trustees' fifth criterion, "Environmental Acceptability," in which
consideration was given to the potential beneficial and adverse
environmental effects of the restoration actions.

Table 9-2 illustrates how this and other Section 11.82(d) factors were
incorporated into the MSRP evaluation criteria.

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Table 9-2\                        |                                   |
| Relationship between MSRP         |                                   |
| Evaluation Criteria and the       |                                   |
| Evaluation Factors Listed in the  |                                   |
| Federal Natural Resource Damage   |                                   |
| Assessment Regulations (43 CFR    |                                   |
| Part 11.82\[d\])                  |                                   |
+===================================+===================================+
| MSRP Evaluation Criteria          | Factors Listed under 43 CFR Part  |
|                                   | 11.82(d) Incorporated into        |
|                                   | Corresponding MSRP Criteria       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Nexus                             | Not listed                        |
|                                   |                                   |
| -   Nature of action              |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| -   Location                      |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Feasibility                       | -   Technical feasibility         |
|                                   |                                   |
| -   Technical feasibility         | ```{=html}                        |
|                                   | <!-- -->                          |
| -   Potential institutional or    | ```                               |
|     administrative barriers to an | -   Consistency with relevant     |
|     action's implementation       |     state, federal or tribal      |
|                                   |     policies and laws             |
| -   Degree of ongoing operation   |                                   |
|     and maintenance needed to     |                                   |
|     ensure intended results       |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Resource Benefits                 | -   Relationship of the expected  |
|                                   |     costs of the proposed actions |
| -   Degree to which injured       |     to the expected benefits from |
|     natural resource values and   |     the restoration               |
|     services are improved by the  |                                   |
|     action                        | -   Results of any planned or     |
|                                   |     actual response actions       |
| -   Degree to which benefits are  |                                   |
|     measurable                    | -   Natural recovery period       |
|                                   |                                   |
| -   Duration of benefits          | -   Ability of the resources to   |
|                                   |     recover with or without       |
| -   Conservation status of        |     alternative actions           |
|     resource(s)                   |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Ecosystem Benefits                | -   Relationship of the expected  |
|                                   |     costs of the proposed actions |
| -   Degree to which action leads  |     to the expected benefits from |
|     to sustainable improvements   |     the restoration               |
|     in broader ecological         |                                   |
|     functions                     | -   Results of any planned or     |
|                                   |     actual response actions       |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | -   Natural recovery period       |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | -   Ability of the resources to   |
|                                   |     recover with or without       |
|                                   |     alternative actions           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Environmental Acceptability       | -   Potential human health and    |
|                                   |     safety effects                |
| -   Potential beneficial and      |                                   |
|     adverse environmental effects | -   Potential for additional      |
|                                   |     injury resulting from the     |
|                                   |     proposed action, including    |
|                                   |     long-term and indirect        |
|                                   |     impacts                       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Cost                              | -   Relationship of the expected  |
|                                   |     costs of the proposed actions |
| -   Includes possible             |     to the expected benefits from |
|     partnerships                  |     the restoration               |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | -   Cost-effectiveness            |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

### Tier 1 and Tier 2 Action Criteria: Nexus (Physical Proximity)

Comment: It is unclear how proximity to the site of impact was employed
as a criterion for evaluating actions. A higher priority for funding
should go to actions nearest the contaminated sediment.

Source(s): Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy; Catalina Island
Conservancy; multiple public reviewers

In reviewing action ideas in the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations, the
Trustees considered the location of potential actions in relation to the
location of injuries and lost services. Actions providing benefits in
locations where resource injuries and service losses have occurred or
are occurring were given the highest consideration. Although the
contaminants at issue in this case entered the marine environment at the
outfalls near White Point, impacts to injured natural resources and
losses to the services those resources provide were documented across
the Southern California Bight (see relevant responses for specific
resource injuries in Sections 9.2 through 9.5, particularly Section
9.2.3).

Under the MSRP criteria, the preferred locations for restoration actions
do not always equate to the geographic locations where the greatest
sediment contamination still exists or locations where injuries to
natural resources are ongoing, because the continuing contaminant
exposures may prevent attainment of the intended restoration objectives.
However, after considering the limitations resulting from ongoing
contamination, the Trustees placed greater value on actions that are as
close as feasible to the sites of the original injury and lost services.

Comment: Certain reviewers were concerned that a sediment "plume" of DDT
extends southward near Catalina Island and questioned why no sediment
samples were taken past the continental drop-off as well as why fish
were not sampled around Catalina Island.

Source(s): Catalina Island Conservancy; J. Barelli

Sediments containing high loads of DDTs and PCBs do not extend to Santa
Catalina Island. Sediments and fish have been sampled off of Santa
Catalina Island (see the short summary of fish sampling in Section
9.2.3). Although it may be tempting to conclude that Santa Catalina
Island is directly in the impact zone of effluent from the Los Angeles
County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) outfall pipes, several factors
prevented the majority of the contaminants from reaching the island. The
DDT- and PCB-contaminated effluent that passed through the wastewater
outfalls located on the Palos Verdes Shelf was released into the water
column and was attached to particles that were transported by the
prevailing currents until they were either consumed by fish or other
pelagic biota or settled to the bottom and became part of the sediments.

The concentrations of DDTs and PCBs in the wastewater effluent and,
correspondingly, in the ocean water column had dropped to near zero by
the 1980s (see Figure 2-2). The distribution of contamination occurring
in sediments today is to a large extent a function of the direction and
distance that the contaminants were transported while they were in the
water column in the 1940s to the 1970s. The U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) summary of sediment data, which was based on the data collected
by LACSD, shows that the concentrations of DDTs and PCBs decline rapidly
in the offshore southeast direction (i.e., toward Santa Catalina
Island), whereas they decline much more slowly toward the northwest,
into Santa Monica Bay. The USGS data summary suggests that the major
trajectory of contaminant transport was to the northwest, away from the
island (Lee et al. 2002). The USGS data summary also shows that surface
contamination levels were nearly at background levels only 3 to 4 miles
offshore of White Point. It is therefore unlikely that significant
levels of contaminants occur in the sediments adjacent to Santa Catalina
Island, 17 miles away from the most contaminated sediments.

Comment: Restoration funds are most appropriately used on and around
Catalina Island, the area "hardest hit" by the contaminants of the
Montrose case.

Source(s): Catalina Island Conservancy; multiple public reviewers

Although the Trustees found that the bald eagles and peregrine falcons
on Santa Catalina Island have been injured by the contaminants of the
Montrose case, the Trustees also found injuries and losses of services
caused by the Montrose contamination throughout the Southern California
Bight. Bald eagles and peregrines falcons historically nested not only
on Santa Catalina Island but throughout the Channel Islands and had been
extirpated throughout the Channel Islands by the 1960s. Because injuries
from the contaminants of the Montrose case were seen throughout the
Southern California Bight, the Trustees have concluded that Santa
Catalina Island is not the hardest hit location.

Although Santa Catalina Island is closer than the other Channel Islands
to the primary source of the DDTs and PCBs from Montrose, studies of the
fate and transport of the contamination issuing from the LACSD ocean
outfalls, including studies of bottom currents and sediment transport,
demonstrate a prevalent direction of physical transport of the
contaminants to the north and west rather than to the south, in the
direction of Santa Catalina Island (see also Section 2.2). The
biological injuries from the Montrose contaminants are largely a result
of uptake, bio-magnification, and transport of the chemicals throughout
the food web of the Southern California Bight. Thus, many of the
injuries stemming from the DDTs and PCBs of this case occurred and
continue to occur over a wide geographic range.

The consent decrees for the Montrose case did not specify that
settlement monies were to be targeted at any specific location. Rather,
the final consent decree stated that,

> The Trustees will use the damages for restoration of injured natural
> resources, including bald eagles, peregrine falcons and other marine
> birds, fish and the habitats upon which they depend, as well as
> providing for implementation of restoration projects intended to
> compensate the public for lost use of natural resources.

To the extent that the Trustees have selected specific sites for
restoration, the Trustees have selected the sites that they consider
will have the greatest benefit to the injured natural resources and lost
services. For example, in the case of lost fishing services, the
Trustees will give priority to those mainland coastal locations that
continue to be affected by fishing advisories caused by the contaminants
of the Montrose case. The Trustees seek to restore bald eagles to their
historical territories throughout the Channel Islands and believe that
the best prospect for attaining this goal at present rests in
establishing breeding bald eagles on the Northern Channel Islands (with
the awareness of uncertainties that may require reconsideration of all
bald eagle restoration options when the current Northern Channel Island
bald eagle studies are concluded).

Comment: The Trustees gave preference to actions in the Northern Channel
Islands (most of which are under National Park Service jurisdiction)
because of ownership and/or jurisdictional considerations rather than on
the basis of explicit evaluation criteria.

Source(s): Catalina Island Conservancy; multiple public reviewers

The overall evaluation of potential restoration actions considered
feasibility, including any potential regulatory requirements or other
institutional barriers to implementation. However, these factors did not
ultimately determine which actions would or would not be implemented;
the Trustees also considered biological reasons for pursuing restoration
actions on the Northern Channel Islands. The National Park Service (NPS)
is only one of the six Trustee agencies for the Montrose case; decisions
regarding which actions will or will not be implemented are made
unanimously by all of the Trustee agencies.

The bald eagle restoration work as outlined in this plan will focus on
the Northern Channel Islands, at least until the results of the Northern
Channel Island (NCI) Bald Eagle Feasibility Study are known. The
Trustees believe, based on the data evaluated to date, that bald eagle
reintroduction in the Northern Channel Islands has a higher likelihood
of success for both technical and biological reasons. The ownership of
the Northern Channel Islands is incidental to this conclusion. However,
even though most of the Northern Channel Islands are under the
jurisdiction of the NPS, the majority (76 percent) of Santa Cruz Island
(where the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study is actually being conducted)
is managed by The Nature Conservancy. Further discussion of the bald
eagle restoration evaluation is found in Section 9.3.

Also, many of the other fish and fish habitat, peregrine falcon, and
seabird restoration actions will be implemented in areas other than the
Northern Channel Islands. Reef construction, the provision of public
information to restore lost fishing services, the restoration of full
tidal exchange wetlands, and two seabird actions that may be implemented
in Phase 2 (depending on funding availability) will be implemented on
Southern California mainland areas not managed by the NPS. In addition,
peregrine falcon monitoring will address all of the Channel Islands.

### Tier 1 and Tier 2 Action Criteria: Benefits (to the Public)

Comment: Certain reviewers felt that the Trustees should give greater
weight to human use benefits as a component of the evaluation, and cited
the greater degree of human use benefits from bald eagles on Catalina
Island, which is more heavily visited than other Channel Islands. Other
reviewers expressed concerns that the benefits of some of the actions
included in the Trustees' preferred alternative would not be realized in
areas that could be appreciated by Californians.

Source(s): Catalina Island Conservancy; multiple public reviewers

The human use services provided by natural resources, such as the
viewing of bald eagles and the recreational and other public uses
provided by fish, are important aspects to consider in evaluating the
resource benefits of a restoration action. Non-use services are likewise
a consideration in evaluating the benefits of actions. One example of
non-use services is the value the public places on the awareness that
natural resources such as bald eagles are thriving and being protected
in places where they had been injured in the past, even if people do not
view or otherwise use the resources. Although the "Resource Benefits"
criterion in the Restoration Plan does not distinguish between public
use and non-use benefits, the Trustees considered these benefits (in
addition to biological and other benefits) in their evaluation of
actions during the restoration planning process.

The public comments received on the draft Restoration Plan indicated
that there is substantial public interest in and exceptional human use
and non-use value ascribed to bald eagle restoration. The Trustees have
modified the bald eagle restoration provisions in Alternative 2 (the
preferred alternative) in response to these comments, reserving funds
exclusively for bald eagle restoration and providing for future
consideration of additional bald eagle restoration on Santa Catalina
Island after the results of ongoing studies are known, as described in
more detail in Section 9.3.

### Tier 1 and Tier 2 Action Criteria: Environmental Acceptability (Cumulative Impacts)

Comment: The cumulative impacts analysis should be expanded to include
any known projects or other actions within the Southern California Bight
and associated area that may adversely impact injured resources.

Source(s): EPA

The cumulative impacts analysis in Section 7 has been revised and
expanded to address this comment.

### Impact Analyses, Including Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species

Comment: The Restoration Plan should include information regarding the
direct and indirect impacts of the project alternatives on key
endangered species, as well as an expanded impact analysis of the
projects and alternatives to make more explicit the cause-and-effect
relationships among affected species.

Source(s): EPA

The analyses of the actions in Appendices A--D and the actions and
alternatives in Sections 6 and 7 have been revised to more clearly
describe the potential beneficial and adverse effects of the evaluated
restoration actions in general and their effects on threatened and
endangered species in particular. More detail has also been provided to
explain how the MSRP evaluation criteria led to the selection of the
preferred alternative.

### Potential Impacts to the Ventura River Watershed

Comment: The project site lies in the Ventura River watershed. Please
provide information on how it will change the loading of pollutants into
the watershed.

Source(s): California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles
Region

None of the actions planned for the MSRP will occur in the Ventura River
Watershed.

### Implementation of Actions Not Passed to the Tier 2 Evaluation

Comment: The current preparation of a Natural Communities Conservation
Plan and the concurrent acquisition of open space may indirectly
implement two ideas from Tier 1.

Source(s): City of Rancho Palos Verdes; Palos Verdes Peninsula Land
Conservancy

The two actions that may be indirectly implemented are (1) restore
overgrazed seashore in Abalone Cove and (2) acquire and enhance
peregrine falcon habitat on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. The first idea
did not pass to Tier 2 evaluation in this Restoration Plan due to
Trustee concerns about technical and regulatory feasibility of the idea.
The second idea did not pass to Tier 2 mainly due to the successful
recovery of peregrine falcons on the mainland. Although these two ideas
will not be implemented as a part of this Restoration Plan, the Trustees
support the implementation of these actions by other groups.

### General Comments on Restoration Alternatives

Comment: The three alternatives presented in the Restoration Plan do not
seem to be representative of all of the restoration options available.

Source(s): FCEC

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the federal Natural Resource
Damage Assessment (NRDA) regulations, the Trustees must consider a range
of possible courses of action to undertake restoration, but are not
required to consider every possible option. In this Restoration Plan,
the Trustees presented a No Action Alternative (a required natural
recovery alternative with minimum management actions) and two
comprehensive restoration alternatives, one of which represented the
Trustees' preferred course of action.

In the preparation of the draft Restoration Plan, the Trustees noted
that the last two alternatives presented in the plan were structured to
facilitate review of the plan and had been assembled to illustrate the
trade-offs involved in emphasizing different restoration priorities. The
alternatives were in no way meant to be inclusive of all of the
restoration options available. The draft Restoration Plan explained that
comments could be submitted either on the alternatives as assembled in
the plan, on individual actions, on the allocation of funding, or on any
other aspect of the plan. The public comment period provided an
opportunity for the public to react to the alternatives as presented,
give feedback on whether they support the Trustees' preferred
alternative as presented, suggest modifications, support a different
alternative, recommend an entirely new alternative, etc.

In response to the numerous and wide range of comments received from
individuals and organizations, the Trustees have retained the basic
framework presented in Alternatives 2 and 3, but have modified the
preferred alternative (Alternative 2) (see the Executive Summary and
Section 7).

Comment: The restoration alternatives would be better characterized as
"two comprehensive restoration plan alternatives and a no action
alternative," rather than the stated "three comprehensive restoration
alternatives."

Source(s): EPA

The Trustees agree and have incorporated this characterization
throughout the document.

### Comments on Applicable Laws and Regulations

Comment: Section 8 should be amended to include information regarding
the requirements of the Federal Clean Air act and obligations for
general conformity determination, as well as details on Mexican laws and
regulations, including applicable environmental review requirements.

Source(s): EPA

Section 8.2.1 has been modified to include the requested information
regarding the federal Clean Air Act. Details on Mexican laws and
regulations have not been included.

## FISHING AND FISH HABITAT COMMENTS

### Flexibility of Funding Within the Fishing and Fish Habitat Category

Comment: It is difficult to evaluate how funds should be allocated
within the overall fishing and fish habitat category across different
actions; the Trustees should keep funding flexible within this category.

Source(s): R. Ambrose

The Trustees intend to incorporate some flexibility in how funds are
allocated among fishing and fish habitat actions. Further, the Trustees
have specifically adopted a phased approach to the restoration program
to allow for adaptive management and to give the public a chance to
revisit the work as implementation progresses.

### Reconsideration of Tier 1 Idea

Comment: The Trustees should reconsider the White Croaker Commercial
Market Certification Program idea previously submitted but which did not
pass the Tier 1 evaluation.

Source(s): Heal the Bay; Santa Monica Baykeeper

The Trustees previously evaluated the idea of creating a white croaker
certification program to allow certified uncontaminated white croaker to
be marketed, but the idea did not pass the Tier 1 evaluation. The
objective of this proposed idea was to restore commercial fishing
operations impacted by loss of demand for this species due in part to
public presumptions that this species is contaminated. The primary
reasons that this idea was not further evaluated were the significant
start-up and long-term commitments required, such as the extensive
monitoring of white croaker contamination levels, and the question of
which agencies could certify "clean" white croaker and under what
authority. The full Tier 1 evaluation of this idea can be found in the
Record of Initial Restoration Ideas and Tier 1 Evaluation, which is
available as part of the MSRP Administrative Record.

The current MSRP/EPA fish contamination survey extended the geographic
range of sampling for white croaker up to Ventura, where a previously
existing white croaker commercial fishery has been shut down due to loss
of demand. Part of the justification for expanding sampling was to
determine if Ventura-caught white croaker were in fact "clean." The
Trustees will further explore the feasibility of certifying seafood as
"clean" as part of the next phase of restoration if the results from the
fish contamination survey indicate that there may be some promise in
this idea.

### New Fishing and Fish Habitat Restoration Ideas

Comment: Catalina Island, the island hardest hit by contaminants and
most visited, should be funded for its fisheries and ecosystems
consistent with similar activities on islands farther away.

Source(s): Catalina Island Conservancy; USC Wrigley Institute for
Environmental Studies; multiple public reviewers

The Trustees have carefully examined evidence of DDT/PCB impacts on
Santa Catalina Island's fish and fishing resources and have concluded
that these impacts are not only substantially lower on that island than
in ocean waters near the Southern California mainland, but also not
appreciably greater than the impacts in the waters surrounding the other
Channel Islands. This conclusion is supported by several lines of
evidence, including data from several surveys of a variety of components
of the food web. The data are summarized below.

Mussels collected off of Santa Catalina Island and other Channel Islands
are orders of magnitude lower in contamination than those collected off
of Palos Verdes Shelf, Santa Monica Bay, and San Pedro Bay. Also, there
is no difference in contamination levels between the north and the south
sides of Santa Catalina Island and between Santa Catalina Island and
locations in the Northern Channel Islands (Figure 9-1). The Channel
Island area with the most highly contaminated shellfish was San Miguel
Island, which is part of the Northern Channel Islands.

Human heath is not at risk for those fishing near Santa Catalina Island
or any of the other Channel Islands. No fish consumption advisories
exist for any species of fish on any of the Channel Islands, including
Santa Catalina Island. Multiple fish contaminant surveys included Santa
Catalina Island and targeted a variety of fishes, and none of these
surveys resulted in evidence supporting the need for fish consumption
advisories. Samples from kelp bass collected off of the coast of Santa
Catalina Island in the late 1980s showed DDT concentrations that ranged
from 2--14 parts per billion (ppb), and PCBs were not detected in these
fish. The concentrations of PCBs and DDTs found in these fish were well
below the state trigger level of 100 ppb and also well below the levels
that the LACSD found in the kelp bass it collected in 1983 from the
Northern Channel Islands. These samples contained DDT concentrations of
17--60 ppb (average of 34.2 ppb) and PCB concentration of 3--63 ppb
(average of 15.9 ppb). To provide perspective, kelp bass collected off
Palos Verdes in 2004 contained DDT concentrations ranging from 20--1,020
ppb (average of 203 ppb) and PCB concentrations ranging from 20--240 ppb
(average of 88 ppb), still much higher than the concentrations found in
fish collected 20 years earlier off the Channel Islands.

Further, a 1998 survey throughout the Southern California Bight
(referred to as the Bight '98 data) (Southern California Coastal Water
Research Project 2004) collected soft-bottom-dwelling flatfishes from
all around Santa Monica Bay, Palos Verdes, San Pedro Bay, and Santa
Catalina Island (Figure 9-2). This survey found that the contaminant
concentrations in the fish collected from the shore-based areas were
orders of magnitude higher than in the fish collected off the island. If
direct transport of DDTs and PCBs had occurred from the LACSD outfalls
at White Point toward Santa Catalina Island, the north side of the
island would be characterized by more contaminated fish than the south
side. However, the Bight '98 data do not support this conclusion; on the
contrary, low levels of contamination exist in fish taken from both
sides of Santa Catalina Island. When considered together, these data
suggest that (1) Santa Catalina Island was much less impacted than
mainland areas similarly distant from the outfall pipes (e.g., central
Santa Monica Bay) and (2) Santa Catalina Island was impacted by DDTs and
PCBs to the same degree as the Northern Channel Islands.

In addition to the LACSD outfalls, which were the principal source of
DDT and PCB contamination in the Southern California marine region,
barrels of acid sludge containing DDTs were dumped into the San Pedro
Basin, which is closer to Santa Catalina Island than the LACSD outfalls,
up until 1961 (see page 2-3 and Figure 2-3). The dumping occurred in
much deeper water (a depth of approximately 2,500 feet) than the depth
of the LACSD outfalls (about 200 feet). Despite this other potential
source of DDT contamination, concentrations of DDTs in fish and mussels
from samples taken in the 1980s and 1990s (see Figures 9-1 and 9-2)
indicate that these receptors are still significantly less contaminated
than those sampled along the Southern California mainland coast.

> ![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.5in" height="4.25in"}Figure 9-1.
> Results from the 1981 state mussel watch survey and the 1988 federal
> mussel watch survey, both of which examined relative contamination
> levels in shellfish in various locations along the Southern California
> coast and throughout the Channel Islands.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image2.jpeg){width="5.375in" height="3.964583333333333in"}

  ![](media/image3.jpeg){width="5.375in" height="3.964583333333333in"}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Source: SCCWRP 1998.**

Figure 9-2. Concentrations of DDTs (top panel) and PCBs (bottom panel)
in benthic soft-bottom fishes collected in Santa Monica Bay, Palos
Verdes Shelf, San Pedro Bay, and Catalina Island.

Despite the fact that fish surrounding Santa Catalina Island are not
highly contaminated, bald eagles on the island continue to experience
reproductive impairment. In addition to eating fish, bald eagles also
consume other birds and scavenge from the marine mammal carcasses that
wash ashore. Observations and modeling of the dietary composition of the
Santa Catalina Island bald eagles have shown that the vast majority of
their exposure to DDTs and PCBs comes from the marine mammal carcasses
and seabird component of their diet; the marine mammals and seabirds
forage over a much broader marine region and accumulate high amounts of
DDTs and PCBs in their tissues not from consumption of fish near the
island, but from other more highly contaminated areas.

Comment: The Trustees should implement projects to reduce entrainment of
fish in power plant cooling systems, either by relocating intakes from
sensitive areas or by alternative cooling technologies that don't
require once-through cooling.

Source(s): Heal the Bay; Santa Monica Baykeeper

This idea was not among those evaluated in the original evaluation
process. Evaluating this idea would require an investigation of how
local power plants and other major cooling water users intend to respond
to the Clean Water Act Section 316(b) requirements recently released by
the EPA. Any response would occur as permits come up for renewal, many
of which are scheduled in the next 5 to 10 years. This idea will
therefore be investigated during the first phase of restoration and
considered for the second phase.

Power plants will be required to drastically reduce both entrainment and
impingement to comply with the new Section 316(b) permit requirements.
The Trustees would not fund projects that simply bring industrial
facilities into compliance with the new Section 316(b) standards, as
this is the responsibility of each permittee. However, the Trustees may
examine opportunities for funding projects that significantly decrease
impingement or entrainment beyond the level required by permit. This
evaluation would only examine funding the portion of an action that is
in excess of the cost of compliance.

Comment: The Trustees should create a Marine Protected Area on the Palos
Verdes Shelf where fish contamination levels are high, perhaps in
combination with one of the reef projects. Such an MPA would have
greater nexus to the case than the Channel Islands MPAs. It makes little
sense to leave onshore areas near the site of contamination open to
fishing when "1) there are fish consumption advisories due to cancer
risks, 2) the area is closed to commercial fishing for white croaker,
and 3) artificial reefs are being created to restore lost fishing
services."

Source(s): Heal the Bay; Santa Monica Baykeeper

Although creating a marine reserve on the Palos Verdes Shelf within the
zone of highest fish contamination may be a method for protecting human
health, it unfortunately does not serve the objective of restoring lost
fishing services. Although a commercial catch ban is in effect for white
croaker for the Palos Verdes Shelf, there is no indication that the
contamination levels in other fish species warrant expanding the
commercial catch ban or prohibiting fishing altogether. Many migratory,
reef, and pelagic species are currently not limited by advisories even
in the area of highest contamination.

Separate from the objective of restoring lost fishing services, the
restoration of fish and the habitats on which they depend is another of
the uses for settlement funds identified in the final consent decree.
The Trustees have evaluated ways of increasing fish production in the
Southern California Bight, but with a focus on increasing production in
areas that are not contaminated, thereby increasing the proportion of
"clean" fish in the bight. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have been shown
to be an effective mechanism for increasing fish production within their
boundaries and are a potential means for achieving the Trustees' fish
habitat restoration objective. However, a carefully planned network of
MPAs is more likely to be effective at increasing the sustainability of
fishing than an individual, isolated MPAs developed separately and for
varying purposes. As a result, the Trustees have opted to contribute to
the implementation of such a network of MPAs rather than proposing to
establish independent MPAs that are not designed to complement the
broader effort.

The California State Marine Life Protection Act is in the process of
developing a unified and interconnected network of MPAs that will
ultimately extend throughout the California coastline. Information
obtained from each phase of implementation will be used to refine the
design of and the justification for the MPAs established in subsequent
phases. If successful, this network of MPAs will contribute to fish
production in the Southern California Bight. However, the critical
element for determining the location, shape, and size of an MPA, as well
as justifying its implementation to the public, is sound evidence
resulting from the monitoring of existing MPAs. The Trustees consider
contributing critical funding to the evaluation and enforcement of the
Channel Island MPAs to be both fish habitat restoration in the Channel
Islands as well as a contribution to the evaluation of the effectiveness
of MPAs throughout California.

Comment: The Trustees should establish a saltwater fishery to
reintroduce fresh, clean saltwater fish back into the ocean near the
proposed artificial reefs.

Source(s): J. Marquez

Several similar ideas for stock enhancement were put forward during the
scoping process and evaluated during the Tier 1 Evaluation. These
included ideas to supplement nearshore fisheries in contaminated areas
with clean, hatchery-raised fish and ideas for spotted sand bass, giant
sea bass, and white abalone hatchery programs. Such ideas, however,
would offer limited sustainability due to their high and long-term
operational and maintenance costs. Also, the effectiveness of actions
using captivity-reared fish to increase the availability of popular
sport fishes typically lower in contamination is uncertain for marine
species. For these reasons, stock enhancement ideas were not carried
forward to the Tier 2 evaluation.

### Comments on "Construct Artificial Reefs and Fishing Access Improvements"

Comment: There is a lack of specificity pertaining to the number, size,
material, design and location of proposed artificial reefs.

Source(s): Heal the Bay; Santa Monica Baykeeper

The Restoration Plan contains information pertaining to the number,
material, and design of reefs proposed in the reef restoration action.
The document specifically states the intent to construct two to three
reefs during the first phase of restoration and that the materials used
would comply with the standards established by the California Department
of Fish and Game Artificial Reef Program. Numerous details are also
provided regarding the design elements that would be considered when
implementing specific reef projects (see Appendix A1).

Appendix A1 indicates that the sizes and locations of reef projects will
be determined through an iterative process that will begin with the
results of the current MSRP/EPA fish contamination survey. However,
specific reef sites will likely require follow-up environmental sampling
prior to implementation. Each of these reef projects will include
site-specific environmental review and public comment. For purposes of
this Restoration Plan, the Trustees have provided a detailed overview of
the reef approach to restoration. It would not be possible to evaluate
specific locations fully, even if the current sampling data were
available.

Comment: The Trustees should not finalize fishing and fish habitat
restoration actions until the results of the MSRP/EPA fish contamination
survey are known; if fish monitoring data find that reef fish are as
contaminated as soft-bottom fish, the reef restoration measure would not
be effective. The Trustees should incorporate the final fish
contamination data into the Restoration Plan.

Source(s): EPA

The fish contamination data currently being generated are extremely
unlikely to find that reef fish are as contaminated as soft-bottom fish.
The Trustees have thoroughly reviewed the Palos Verdes shelf fish
contamination monitoring data from the past decade. These data include
both soft-bottom and reef species; the data have consistently shown reef
species to be orders of magnitude lower in DDTs and PCBs than
soft-bottom species. The value of the current monitoring data is not to
confirm that the reef restoration action will be effective, but rather
to refine the areas where it will be most effective. Thus, for purposes
of describing the reef restoration concept, it is unnecessary to delay
other restoration activities while the fish contaminant survey data are
finalized, validated, and reviewed by the California Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to generate updated fish
consumption advisories.

Comment: Constructed reefs would be an effective means of attracting
less contaminated fish, although one reviewer felt that the amount of
funding allotted is inadequate.

Source(s): Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment; R. Ambrose

The Trustees recognize that the current allocation of funds to reef
restoration projects is limited. However, the Trustees believe that
sufficient funds have been allocated to achieve the Phase 1 restoration
goal of initiating two to three reef projects. Further allocations to
reef restoration projects will be considered for the next phase of the
restoration. Reef construction will be adaptive (i.e., the monitoring of
the results of early work will help guide subsequent work). The degree
of additional funding will depend on the observed effectiveness of the
projects in Phase 1.

Comment: Placing reefs in contaminated areas would only expand the
dispersal of the DDTs to new animal and plant species, and more
fishermen and fish eaters.

Source(s): M. Padian

The goal of constructing artificial reefs and fishing access
improvements is to restore lost fishing services by changing the species
composition of fish in selected fishing areas. The premise of this
restoration action is that the fish, particularly white croaker, that
are associated with soft-bottom habitats feed on benthic organisms from
the contaminated sediments and are consequently the most highly
contaminated species. In contrast, fish associated with hard-bottom or
pelagic habitats feed on organisms that are either living in the water
column or attached to hard substrate and are consequently less
contaminated.

The construction of a reef is likely to change the types of fish in the
area because soft-bottom species do not typically inhabit reef habitats
(Allen 1999). The primary benefit of this action will be to displace
these highly contaminated, soft-bottom fishes with water-column-feeding
and hard-bottom species, which tend to be lower in contamination.
Building reefs will also provide ecosystem benefits by increasing the
production of fish whose tissues contain lower concentrations of
contaminants (Dixon and Schroeter 1998).

Comment: Any future nearshore artificial reef or fishing access projects
proposed along the base of the Palos Verdes coastal bluffs should be
carefully designed to address the potential to trigger or exacerbate
landslide movement.

Source(s): City of Rancho Palos Verdes

The Trustees intend to evaluate all potential adverse impacts of reef
construction as development progresses. This evaluation will be applied
on a site-specific basis and will be covered by separate environmental
impact documents for each reef project that will be subject to public
review and comment. The Trustees will include local authorities and the
public in all aspects of reef location, design, and construction.

Comment: Any reef projects proposed near the Palos Verdes Shelf should
address the potential of LA County Sanitation Department's current and
proposed drainage pipes, which are still distributing DDTs and PCBs.

Source(s): J. Marquez

Monitoring of the current wastewater discharge from the LACSD White
Point outfalls indicates that the levels of these contaminants are now
almost undetectable. The Trustees will, however, coordinate all
reef-building activities with LACSD to prevent any conflicts that may
exist between proposed reef projects and the impact or function of
existing or planned outfalls. []{.mark}

Comment: Fishing access improvements do not qualify as restoration for
injuries to natural resources. Although pier improvements would enhance
the public's fishing experience, they would not provide any restoration
to the marine environment.

Source(s): Heal the Bay; Santa Monica Baykeeper

Fishing access improvements address the loss of natural resource
services resulting from fish consumption advisories, which impact the
public's use and enjoyment of the resource. In addition, fish
consumption advisories in the target area are most limiting on species
of fish commonly caught from piers, due to the predominance of
soft-bottom habitats adjacent to the piers. Thus, pier anglers are
disproportionately affected by fish consumption advisories as compared
to boat-mode anglers.

Reef construction would restore lost fishing services (and, more
broadly, restore fish and the habitat on which they depend) by
displacing the more highly contaminated soft-bottom species of fish away
from the piers and replacing them with less-contaminated reef species.
Providing for improvements to fishing amenities at fishing sites along
with fish habitat manipulation in proximity to these fishing sites
offers additional compensatory restoration for past losses of fishing
services. We have modified the text in the detailed description of this
action (Appendix A1) to include this clarification.

Comment: Support the concept of providing fishing access improvements.

Source(s): Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)

Comment noted.

### Comments on "Provide Public Information to Restore Lost Fishing Services"

Comment: Although public outreach is important, it is more appropriately
addressed through the existing institutional controls program
administered by EPA and its partners, and implementation of such a
program by MSRP would lead to a redundancy in efforts. Another reviewer
felt that the funds set aside for such outreach should instead be
combined with the \$500,000 to implement MPAs.

Source(s): Heal the Bay; Santa Monica Baykeeper; C. Broussard

The Trustees agree that public outreach is a critical component of the
Montrose settlements; however, these comments reflect a misunderstanding
of the nature of the injury that MSRP outreach would be designed to
restore (i.e., lost fishing opportunities/enjoyment). The institutional
controls program administered by the EPA through the FCEC has brought
together a network of community-based organizations (CBOs) and other
partners. This network creates a forum for distributing a common message
regarding contaminants in fish to those that are likely to be exposed to
high body burdens of DDTs and PCBs as a result of consuming locally
caught fish (e.g., local subsistence anglers).

The outreach objectives of the Trustees are different. The EPA has been
an effective leader in bringing partners together and generating a
common message that clearly identifies how anglers can avoid exposures
to PCBs and DDTs in fish, but the emphasis has been on avoidance rather
than on restoration of lost fishing services. To provide anglers with
alternatives to lost fishing opportunities, MSRP must have knowledge of
contaminant levels in fishes that are not included in fish consumption
advisories, including knowledge of other contaminants (principally
mercury) that are likely to limit consumption. (The EPA has determined
that it cannot fund mercury analyses for this case.) MSRP must also
consider the ecological and life-history differences between species of
fish and how these differences influence contaminant levels in the fish.
These ecological and life-history differences go beyond the general, and
at times inaccurate, presumption that higher trophic levels and larger
fish are more contaminated and include factors such as home range,
migratory behavior, foraging mode, and habitat preferences. Because
these considerations stem from the fact that fish are a living marine
resource, messages related to the restoration of lost fish services are
most appropriately generated by resource management agencies having such
expertise.

The Trustees will work closely with the EPA and other FCEC partners to
develop a cohesive set of outreach and education messages. Indeed, the
Trustees have been active partners with the FCEC and have contributed
expertise and support for the program from its beginning. The Trustees
produced several pilot outreach projects to evaluate the viability of
outreach as a restoration action. These pilot-level projects include an
educational comic book that provides a history of the Montrose case and
information on reducing health risks while enjoying the benefits of
fishing, a fish identification card, and contributions to other FCEC
materials. MSRP receives constant requests for a revised and
larger-scale comic book printing and more fish ID cards from FCEC
partners (including Heal the Bay). In fact, it was the overwhelmingly
positive response to these pilot projects that confirmed the value of
the Trustees' role in developing a complete set of messages regarding
"smart" fishing in the areas impacted by the Montrose contaminants.

The Trustees have edited Appendix A2 to clarify the distinctions between
the EPA and the MSRP contributions to the overall messages presented to
anglers and to clarify the Trustees' intent to implement a fishing
outreach and education effort in collaboration with FCEC partners to
integrate the critical components of the outreach messages that are not
provided by the EPA.

Comment: Support is given to the MSRP for its new and continuing efforts
to provide information to the public concerning fishing options and
resource contamination.

Source(s): Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Comment noted.

### Comments on "Restore Full Tidal Exchange Wetlands"

Comment: Wetlands restoration is the only "true mitigation" proposed in
the Restoration Plan, and more funding should be allocated to such
restoration. The wetland restoration should be focused on a specific
area between Point Dume and Bolsa Chica.

Source(s): Heal the Bay; Santa Monica Baykeeper

The Trustees disagree that wetland restoration is the only "true"
mitigation proposed in the Restoration Plan and believe that other
restoration actions have many ecologically restorative aspects. The
Trustees' preferred alternative, Alternative 2, proposes a broader set
of fishing and fish habitat restoration actions than the non-preferred
Alternative 3.

All other factors being the same, the Trustees would give preference to
actions that are in closer proximity to the sites of the injuries
associated with the Montrose case. However, the Trustees do not consider
it advisable to restrict the boundaries for where wetlands restoration
would be considered to such a narrow geographic range (Point Dume to
Bolsa Chica). The impacts of DDTs and PCBs have been demonstrated to
occur far beyond these boundaries, so conducting wetlands restoration
beyond these boundaries to restore these impacts is justified. However,
the Trustees will evaluate the proximity of potential sites to the Palos
Verdes Shelf region, among other criteria, when evaluating wetlands
restoration projects.

Comment: Wetlands can occasionally be sites of increased mercury
methylation.

Source(s): Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment

The Trustees will investigate the issue of potential mercury methylation
in considering the potential fisheries effects of wetlands restoration.

Comment: The concept of wetlands restoration is supported.

Source(s): Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment; Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board

Comments noted.

Comment: The Trustees should contribute funding to implement the
recommendations of the Southern California Wetlands Recovery Project
(SCWRP) as those are formulated and released.

Source(s): Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board

The Trustees' preferred alternative includes the restoration of full
tidal exchange wetlands as one of the actions to restore fishing and
fish habitat. The Trustees will work closely with SCWRP to identify the
most appropriate wetlands restoration project(s) to meet the MSRP
restoration objectives.

### Comments on "Augment Funds for Implementing Marine Protected Areas in California"

Comment: The MPA concept is supported.

Source(s): Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment; Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board

Comments noted.

## BALD EAGLE RESTORATION COMMENTS

### General Bald Eagle Comments

Comment: Man is responsible for DDT and should compensate the eagles and
help them recover.

Source(s): Multiple public reviewers

Bald eagles are one of the priority resources for the MSRP. The Trustees
are committed to pursuing the restoration of bald eagles on the Channel
Islands and have allocated a total of \$6.2 million in Phase 1 to help
them recover. The Trustees were formed to work on behalf of the public
to restore those resources injured by the DDT contamination at issue in
the Montrose case, and bald eagles are among the injured resources. The
funding of the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study as well as previous
funding of the Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program are both
examples of efforts that the Trustees have funded to help bald eagles
recover on the Channel Islands.

Comment: The bald eagle is a yardstick to measure DDT contamination in
Southern California's coastal waters.

Source(s): R. Roe

The Trustees agree that bald eagles are an excellent indicator of the
levels of DDTs and PCBs in the Southern California Bight, due to their
position as a top predator in the food chain. However, this fact is not
a sufficient reason to maintain eagles on Santa Catalina Island. The
levels of DDTs and PCBs can be measured in a variety of sources (such as
sediments, fish, and marine mammals) that provide a picture of current
contaminant levels in the marine environment and indicate whether levels
are decreasing.

### Funding Allocation for Bald Eagle Restoration

Comment: Funds should be spent on restoring bald eagles to Catalina,
rather than on efforts to eradicate non-native species on islands which
are more distant from the principal source of contamination than
Catalina.

Source(s): Catalina Island Conservancy; multiple public reviewers

As stated previously, the Montrose consent decrees contain provisions
that identify the appropriate uses of settlement funds. Funds paid to
the Trustees are to be used to address injuries and lost services for a
suite of natural resources and natural resource services. These
resources and services include fishing and fish habitat, bald eagles,
peregrine falcons, and seabirds. The Trustees' preferred alternative
attempts to restore the diversity of natural resources injured and the
natural resource services lost as a result of the contaminants of the
Montrose case.

The utilization of restoration funds to restore seabirds on other
Channel Islands and on Baja California Pacific Islands is entirely
within the scope of the Montrose consent decrees. The contaminants of
the Montrose case impacted seabirds in many areas of the Southern
California Bight. Because many seabird species either migrate or range
across a broad expanse of the marine environment, the most effective
restoration may not necessarily correspond to the location where
contamination is heaviest. The specific methodologies for restoring
seabirds include habitat restoration, non-native animal eradication, and
social attraction. These methods have been used in other natural
resource damage cases where direct restoration has not always been
possible.

The Trustees have modified the text to address the concern that greater
funding be devoted to bald eagle restoration. Previously, the Trustees'
preferred alternative provided for the potential use of a portion of the
bald eagle restoration funds for additional seabird restoration. Now,
the Trustees propose to devote the entire \$6.2 million allocated to
bald eagles in Phase 1 of the restoration effort to bald eagle
restoration.

Comment: Priority should be given to the reduction and elimination of
non-native invasive animals and plants from island environments rather
than the Catalina bald eagle egg manipulation and chick fostering
program.

Source(s): Multiple public reviewers

The Trustees have included several actions in their preferred
alternative that involve the elimination of exotic organisms from
several islands as a means of aiding the restoration of seabirds. These
actions include "restore seabirds to San Miguel Island" and "restore
seabirds to San Nicolas Island" (see Appendices D1 and D3).

Comment: Support of the Santa Catalina Island bald eagle program is a
small portion of the overall budget, and funding Catalina's recovery
efforts is an investment in a comprehensive eagle recovery effort.

Source(s): Catalina Island Conservancy; multiple public reviewers

Although the annual budget of approximately \$250,000 for the Santa
Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program may appear insignificant compared to
the overall settlement amount of \$30 million for restoration, the
Trustees must address a range of natural resources and services that
were injured by the DDT contamination. In addition to bald eagles on
Santa Catalina Island, the Restoration Plan addresses injuries to bald
eagles elsewhere in the Channel Islands as well as injuries to fishing
and fish habitat, peregrine falcons, and seabirds. To adequately address
the diversity of injuries associated with the Montrose case, the
Trustees had to decide how to best spend the limited restoration funds.
In the case of bald eagle restoration on the Channel Islands, the
Trustees have decided to suspend funding of the Santa Catalina Island
Bald Eagle Program until the results of the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility
Study are known in order to conserve and wisely use limited restoration
dollars.

Comment: Continuing human intervention at every stage of breeding would
be a squandering of precious restoration dollars. Funding should be
moved to places that more effectively benefit the environment and are
more self-sustaining than the Santa Catalina Island program.

Source(s): Pacific Seabird Group; multiple public reviewers

A diverse set of opinions were expressed in public comments on the bald
eagle restoration options, including some which supported the current
focus on restoring self-sustaining bald eagles on the Northern Channel
Islands. The preferred alternative consists of many actions that address
a wide range of injured natural resources and locations.

### Suggested Funding Scenarios for Bald Eagle Restoration

Comment: Funding of the Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program should
continue regardless of whether or not human intervention is always
required.

Source(s): Multiple public reviewers

With the persistence of DDT in the food web, the successful reproduction
of bald eagles on Santa Catalina Island will require continued human
intervention for a long time. Although some recovery efforts require
long-term human assistance, the Trustees must decide which actions are
most cost-effective and provide the greatest long-term benefit within
the scope of the limited restoration funds available for this case.
Given the range of natural resources that the Trustees are addressing,
they believe that the large proportion of settlement funds that would be
necessary to continue the current Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle
Program as long as required for bald eagles to be able to reproduce on
their own can be better spent to benefit other injured resources and
services, including bald eagles on the Northern Channel Islands.

Comment: Funding should be set aside for future restoration work on
Santa Catalina Island until such time that contamination levels decline.

Source(s): UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; Island
Conservation Northwest; Island Conservation; Multiple public reviewers

The Trustees consider this comment a logical approach to future bald
eagle restoration efforts on Santa Catalina Island. This approach will
be evaluated when deciding on the subsequent bald eagle restoration
actions once the results of the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study are
known. However, if bald eagles can reproduce successfully on the
Northern Channel Islands, it is likely that the Trustees will focus
restoration funds on those islands, with the expectation that eagles
will eventually disperse and successfully breed on all the Channel
Islands (including Santa Catalina Island) once contamination levels
subside.

Comment: Funding of the Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program should
continue at least until the results of the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility
Study are known.

Source(s): Avalon City Council; J. Morton

The Trustees have seriously considered multiple funding scenarios with
respect to the Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program, including
continued funding until the results of the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility
Study are known. However, the Trustees have concluded that it is highly
likely that eagles will still be present on Santa Catalina Island when
the results of the study are known in or around 2008 (see the responses
for Section 9.3.7) even without an egg manipulation and fostering
program in the interim. Consequently, the Trustees have decided to
conserve limited restoration dollars until the results or the study are
known.

Comment: The Environmental Protection Agency should solve the
contamination problem first before the Trustees bring eagles back to
Santa Catalina Island.

Source(s): <mymak@juno.com>

Given the scope of the contamination at issue in the Montrose case and
the limited money to remediate the site, it is unlikely that the EPA
will be able to fully solve the contamination problem through active
remediation. Thus, reductions to background contamination levels will
likely be achieved over time through natural processes. The Trustees
will consider the option of setting aside funds for future bald eagle
restoration work on Santa Catalina Island once the results of the NCI
Bald Eagle Feasibility Study are known.

Comment: Funding for the Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program should
be discontinued and the money used on projects that will benefit many
species and island ecosystems as a whole.

Source(s): Multiple public reviewers

The Trustees will defer making longer-term decisions on bald eagle
restoration until the results of the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study
are known, in or around 2008. However, until then, the Trustees will
discontinue funding for the Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program.
When the results of the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study are known the
Trustees will re-evaluate all potential options for bald eagle
restoration, including measures that may be taken even if bald eagles
are not able to reproduce on their own anywhere in the Channel Islands.
The remaining bald eagle restoration funds could then be used on any of
the Channel Islands. This action conserves limited restoration funds
until sufficient information is known about the ability of the different
Channel Island environments to support bald eagles.

Comment: Some reviewers suggested additional ideas for fundraising to
support bald eagle work on Santa Catalina Island.

Source(s): T. Marsh; D. MacKenzie

The Trustees have forwarded all ideas for fundraising to support bald
eagle work on Santa Catalina Island to the Institute for Wildlife
Studies.

### Reproductive Status of Bald Eagles on Santa Catalina Island

Comment: It is too soon to abandon restoration efforts on Santa Catalina
Island. DDT levels are decreasing in the eggs of at least one pair of
nesting eagles; this indicates that Santa Catalina Island bald eagles
may soon be able to reproduce on their own.

Source(s): Catalina Island Conservancy; multiple public reviewers

The Trustees performed a comprehensive analysis of the levels of DDT in
the Santa Catalina Island bald eagle eggs and did not find any
statistically significant trends indicating a reduction of DDT levels
(see Appendix B). Three of the five bald eagle territories on the island
(Pinnacle Rock, West End, and Two Harbors) produce eggs that continue to
greatly exceed the contaminant thresholds associated with reproductive
success. Although the two remaining territories (Seal Rocks and Twin
Rocks) produce less-contaminated eggs, these eggs continue to exhibit
concentrations above the threshold required for reproductive success.
The Trustees did not find statistically significant trends for any of
the five territories indicating that contaminant levels are declining to
the point where eagles could be self-sustaining in the foreseeable
future.

Several reviewers believe that the Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle
Program simply needs more time. The Trustees understand the challenges
associated with restoring bald eagles in the presence of ongoing
contamination and agree that there is no quick fix to the problem.
However, the Trustees have limited restoration funds and must decide on
how best to allocate that funding among actions whose benefits can be
realized over the long term. In light of the continued high levels of
contamination in bald eagles and the fact that the contamination will
remain available in the food web for some time, continued funding of the
Santa Catalina Island program in the short-term is unlikely to achieve
the overall goal of restoring bald eagles to the Channel Islands. The
Trustees have chosen to focus their current restoration efforts on the
Northern Channel Islands, with the goal of establishing a
self-sustaining population there. The results of the NCI Bald Eagle
Feasibility Study are expected to be known in or around 2008. The
Trustees anticipate that if eagles can successfully reproduce on the
Northern Channel Islands, then eagles will eventually repopulate the
rest of the Channel Islands, including Santa Catalina Island.

### Public Access to Bald Eagles

Comment: It is necessary to maintain high-profile conservation efforts
such as the Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program.

Source: Humboldt State University Department of Wildlife; J. Miller

The Trustees recognize that the Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program
presents a useful educational and public outreach opportunity. Although
education and public outreach are important benefits of the program, the
Trustees' overall goal is to restore bald eagles to all of the Channel
Islands, not just Santa Catalina Island. The Trustees' bald eagle
efforts on the Northern Channel Islands have also received significant
interest from the public and the press. The Trustees consider their
overall effort to restore bald eagles to the Channel Islands a
high-profile restoration effort, and public outreach will continue to be
an important component of the program.

Comment: Santa Catalina Island provides a significant number of people
with the opportunity to enjoy bald eagles in a natural setting, and
consequently should be a priority for restoration efforts.

Source(s): Catalina Island Conservancy; multiple public reviewers

The Trustees recognize that the Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program
provides a great opportunity for the public to experience and learn
about bald eagles. Although public access to restoration actions is a
consideration in evaluating these actions, it is one of multiple factors
that the Trustees must address. At this time, the Trustees have chosen
to focus on the restoration of bald eagles on the Northern Channel
Islands. In addition, bald eagle experts indicate that the eagles will
likely remain on Santa Catalina Island, at least until the NCI Bald
Eagle Feasibility Study is expected to be completed. Although the
Northern Channel Islands do not receive as many visitors as Santa
Catalina Island, the public does have access to the islands, and
visitation is encouraged by the National Park Service. The Trustees have
modified the bald eagle restoration provisions in the Restoration Plan
in response to this and other issues raised in public comments and will
revisit bald eagle restoration options, including options on Santa
Catalina Island, once the results of the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility
Study are known.

It should also be noted that Santa Catalina Island is not the only place
where the public can observe wild bald eagles in Southern California.
Every year, bald eagles migrate to Southern California for the winter.
Among other places, wintering bald eagles can be enjoyed by the public
at Big Bear Lake, Silverwood Lake, Lake Arrowhead, Lake Hemet, and
Cachuma Lake.

Comment: Funding of the Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program should
be continued as an education tool for the benefit of our children and
grandchildren.

Source(s): Multiple public reviewers

The Trustees appreciate the fact that people, both young and old,
cherish the opportunity to view bald eagles in the wild. The Trustees
have placed a high priority on those actions that will have long-term
benefits to both the injured natural resource (i.e., the bald eagle) and
the public. In the present circumstances, given finite funds, the Santa
Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program will not result in long-term benefits
to bald eagles or the public unless bald eagles are able to reproduce
successfully on their own. The Trustees are hopeful that the restoration
of eagles to the Northern Channel Islands will be self-sustaining and
will not require the same human intervention that characterizes the
Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program. Only the establishment of
self-sustaining bald eagle pairs on the Channel Islands will truly
provide long-term benefits for generations to come.

Comment: You have to decide whether the money that you are going to be
saving by not having that bald eagle reintroduction program is going to
be worth the public relations problem you are going to have.

Source(s): S. Pillman

The Trustees recognize that the public places a high value on the
presence of bald eagles on the Channel Islands, whether or not the
eagles are reproducing on their own. The Trustees have modified the bald
eagle restoration provisions in the Restoration Plan in response to this
and other issues raised in public comments and will revisit the bald
eagle restoration options, including options on Santa Catalina Island,
once the results of the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study are known. The
Trustees will then release a subsequent NEPA/CEQA document for public
review and input; that document will outline the next steps for bald
eagle restoration on the Channel Islands.

### Potential Benefits of Funding the Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program

Comment: The Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program may be able to
provide important strategies for long-term chemical impacts and recovery
efforts.

Source(s): M. Gaede

The fact that bald eagles on Santa Catalina Island continue to
experience reproductive problems illustrates the persistence of
chemicals (specifically, DDTs and PCBs) in the marine environment. The
methods used to maintain bald eagles on Santa Catalina Island
(artificial incubation of eggs and hacking of additional birds) are well
established and have been successfully used in several recovery efforts.
However, the Santa Catalina Island program is unique in that the
contaminant levels in the bald eagle eggs are substantially higher than
the levels seen elsewhere. Therefore, the challenges of artificial
incubation of bald eagle eggs on Santa Catalina Island are much greater
than for most incubation efforts. Although the use of novel techniques
in the incubation of bald eagle eggs on Santa Catalina Island might
advance the science of such recovery efforts in other species, it is
unlikely that other bird eggs will demonstrate similar contaminant
levels in their eggs.

Comment: The bald eagles produced on Santa Catalina Island are a
potential source population for the recovery of bald eagles on the
Northern Channel Islands and the adjacent mainland.

Source(s): Catalina Island Conservancy; multiple public reviewers

The Trustees are aware that eagles from Santa Catalina Island have
dispersed to the mainland and that several individuals have recently
been observed on the Northern Channel Islands. However, because the
Santa Catalina Island eagles continue to lay highly contaminated eggs,
the majority of the chicks that have been fostered on Santa Catalina
Island have come from a captive breeding program at the San Francisco
Zoo, not from the Santa Catalina Island birds themselves. Even with
human intervention, the hatching success of Santa Catalina Island eggs
remains low. The Trustees believe that hacking birds directly onto Santa
Cruz Island is a more effective strategy for restoring eagles to the
Channel Islands than continuing the fostering program on Santa Catalina
Island.

The California mainland population of bald eagles has steadily increased
to approximately 200 nesting pairs in recent years (Jurek, pers. comm.,
2005). The mainland eagle population trend is the result of natural
population growth with no captive breeding or augmentation of wild
nests. Although the mainland population is being slightly augmented by
the released birds from Santa Catalina Island, the recovery of the bald
eagle on the mainland is occurring regardless of this contribution.

### Potential Impacts of Not Funding the Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program

Comment: It cannot be assumed that Santa Catalina Island's current
population of eagles would stay on the island if they couldn't reproduce
over the next few years. The reallocation of funds could mean the
disappearance once again of bald eagles from Santa Catalina Island.

Source: Catalina Island Conservancy; multiple public reviewers

Even without continued Trustee funding of the current Santa Catalina
Island Bald Eagle Program, it is highly likely that bald eagles will
remain on Santa Catalina Island for several years despite their
inability to hatch offspring naturally. Bald eagles in the wild
typically live for 25 to 30 years, and Santa Catalina Island currently
supports 15 to 20 birds of a wide range of ages. Currently, five active
bald eagle nesting territories are present on the island, and the
Institute for Wildlife Studies reports that two birds are currently
establishing a new territory near Avalon. Even if the Santa Catalina
Island bald eagles fail to hatch new chicks in the coming years, bald
eagle experts do not expect that they will immediately break their pair
bonds and abandon their Santa Catalina Island territories. Rather, it is
likely that bald eagles will remain on the island, with their numbers
diminishing gradually over a period of as many as 10 years or longer as
some of the birds die and are not replaced by others and as certain bald
eagle pairs break their pair bonds and leave after several years of
failing to produce chicks.

Thus, the Trustees anticipate that bald eagles will still be present on
several of the Channel Islands, including Santa Catalina Island, when
the results of the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study are known in or
around 2008. In response to comments from the public, the Trustees have
modified provisions for bald eagle restoration in the revised
Restoration Plan. As a result, the Trustees will re-evaluate all bald
eagle restoration options when the results of the NCI Bald Eagle
Feasibility Study are known. If the results indicate that bald eagles
throughout the Channel Islands still experience reproductive impairment
due to the persistence of DDTs and PCBs in their diets, the Trustees
would explore various options for further bald eagle restoration in the
Channel Islands, including Santa Catalina Island. Some options may not
be as costly as the current egg manipulation and chick fostering work on
Santa Catalina Island. For instance, the Trustees might devote funds at
a later date to monitor bald eagle numbers and periodically place young
bald eagles on the Channel Islands (a process known as "hacking"). This
option would continue a non-breeding bald eagle presence on the Channel
Islands, providing human use and ecological services, until such time
that contaminant levels diminish to a level that would support naturally
reproducing eagles or so long as funding remains.

Comment: Stopping the Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program could
negatively impact the endangered Catalina Island fox.

Source(s): Catalina Island Conservancy; several public reviewers

The Trustees have carefully considered this issue and determined that,
based on several factors, it is unlikely that golden eagles will
establish residency on Santa Catalina Island even though they are
resident on the Northern Channel Islands. An important factor in this
determination is that Santa Catalina Island likely does not have a
sufficient terrestrial vertebrate prey base adequate to sustain golden
eagles and to support golden eagle breeding on the island. The presence
of feral pigs is one the primary reasons golden eagles were able to
establish themselves on Santa Cruz Island. Efforts initiated in the
1990s eliminated several introduced terrestrial mammals (i.e., goats and
pigs) from Santa Catalina Island that could have served as prey for
golden eagles. Without a similar prey base, it is unlikely that Santa
Catalina Island could support resident golden eagles.

A second factor making it unlikely that golden eagles would establish
themselves on Santa Catalina Island is that, unlike on the Northern
Channel Islands, there is no nearby mainland source for golden eagles.
Golden eagles are considered an occasional visitor to Santa Catalina
Island and have never been documented to breed on the island (Collins,
pers. comm. 2005). This was true even when bald eagles were absent from
the island (and feral pigs were present). Given the extensive
development of Los Angeles County, it is unlikely that golden eagles
will disperse out to Santa Catalina Island from the nearby mainland. A
more likely scenario would be that golden eagles would disperse to Santa
Catalina Island from the Northern Channel Islands. However, an extensive
program has been in place since 1999 on the Northern Channel Islands to
remove golden eagles. Through this effort, a total of 41 golden eagles
have been relocated and approximately 5 to 7 golden eagles are estimated
to remain on the islands (Sharpe, pers. comm., 2005). Efforts are
ongoing to relocate the remaining golden eagles. With the substantial
reduction in golden eagles, it is unlikely that the Northern Channel
Islands would serve as a source of golden eagles to Santa Catalina
Island.

The National Park Service is also currently eradicating feral pigs on
Santa Cruz Island. Although this effort may take several years to
complete, this non-native prey source will no longer be available to
golden eagles. Without an adequate food base, golden eagles will likely
resume their historical status on the Channel Islands as an occasional
visitor.

The Trustees do not anticipate that bald eagles will disappear from
Santa Catalina Island before the completion of the NCI Bald Eagle
Feasibility Study. At that time, the Trustees will consider any new
information regarding the status of golden eagles and bald eagles on the
Channel Islands and will re-examine any potential impacts to the Santa
Catalina Island fox. However, for the purposes of this interim decision
to suspend funding of the Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program until
the results of the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study are known, the
Trustees have determined that this action will not likely adversely
affect the Santa Catalina Island fox. This determination has been
reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and has received its
concurrence (see Appendix B).

### Humane Treatment of Bald Eagles

Comment: Abandoning eagles on Santa Catalina Island is inhumane.

Source: K. McKay

Comment: Keeping eagles on Santa Catalina Island, where they continue to
be injured, is wrong.

Source(s): M. Padian; J. Steinberg

These two contrasting comments address the challenges of restoring bald
eagles in an environment where they continue to be exposed to
contamination. Over the past 25 years, the parties working to restore
bald eagles, including the Trustees, have found that the long-term
restoration of bald eagles on the Channel Islands requires different
measures. Some of these measures may entail risks that the birds
continue to be exposed to contamination and its adverse effects.

Adult bald eagles that accumulate high levels of DDTs and PCBs into
their system can experience a range of neurological problems that can
sometimes lead to death. In fact, a 12-year old female adult bald eagle
died from suspected DDT poisoning on Santa Catalina Island in the 1990s.
Because of the ongoing contamination of birds and their subsequent
reproductive problems on Santa Catalina Island, the Trustees initiated
the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study in the hopes that birds on these
islands would be less exposed to contaminants than those on Santa
Catalina Island.

### Bald Eagles and the Santa Catalina Island Economy

Comment: If bald eagles disappear from Santa Catalina Island, the
island's economy may be affected.

Source: S. Dewey

The Trustees do not anticipate that suspending the funding of the Santa
Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program will result in the disappearance of
the bald eagles in the near future (see Section 9.3.7). The high
likelihood that eagle pairs will remain on the island over the next
several years (even without human intervention) provides the opportunity
for private or other public fundraising to continue the current Santa
Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program. The Trustees are only making an
interim decision at this point; the completion of the NCI Bald Eagle
Feasibility Study and the Trustees' release of an additional NEPA/CEQA
document will provide a further opportunity for public input on bald
eagle restoration.

### New Bald Eagle Restoration Ideas

Comment: Was there any discussion about providing some funding to
monitor what is going on over a period of years, what will happen to
that population on Santa Catalina Island if funding for the egg
replacement ceases after 2005?

Source(s): Catalina Island Conservancy

During the interim period until the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study is
completed, the Trustees have chosen to focus their restoration efforts
on the Northern Channel Islands, which continue to hold the potential
for the long-term restoration of bald eagles, and suspend funding of the
Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program. The Trustees considered but
decided against funding to monitor Santa Catalina Island during this
time to conserve limited restoration funds for future bald eagle
restoration actions. However, the Trustees will revisit all aspects of
bald eagle restoration once the results of the NCI Bald Eagle
Feasibility Study are known, likely in 2008.

Even without continued Trustee funding of the current Santa Catalina
Island Bald Eagle Program, it is highly likely that bald eagles will
remain on Santa Catalina Island for several years despite their
inability to hatch offspring naturally. Bald eagles in the wild
typically live for 25 to 30 years, and Santa Catalina Island currently
supports 15 to 20 birds of a wide range of ages. Currently, five active
bald eagle nesting territories are present on the island, and the
Institute for Wildlife Studies reports that two birds are currently
establishing a new territory near Avalon. Even assuming that the Santa
Catalina Island bald eagles fail to hatch new chicks in the coming
years, bald eagle experts do not expect that they will immediately break
their pair bonds and abandon their Santa Catalina Island territories.
Rather, it is likely that bald eagles will remain on Santa Catalina
Island, with their numbers diminishing gradually over a period of as
many as 10 years or longer as some of the birds die and are not replaced
by others and as certain bald eagle pairs break their pair bonds and
leave after several years of failing to produce chicks.

Thus, the Trustees anticipate that bald eagles will still be on several
of the Channel Islands, including Santa Catalina Island, when the
results of the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study are known (in or around
2008). If the results of the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study indicate
that bald eagles throughout the Channel Islands are still experiencing
reproductive impairment due to the persistence of DDTs and PCBs in their
diets, the Trustees would explore various options for further bald eagle
restoration on one or more of the Channel Islands, including Santa
Catalina Island.

Comment: Certain reviewers suggested that the Trustees relocate Santa
Catalina Island bald eagle eggs to non-contaminated areas far from the
Palos Verdes Shelf. Another suggested that the Santa Catalina Island
birds be moved to the Northern Channel Islands until the DDTs and PCBs
near the outfall are naturally capped.

Source(s): J. Martin; S. Zelman; D. Weisman

Relocating Santa Catalina Island bald eagle eggs away from the Palos
Verdes Shelf raises several technical issues and would not address the
MSRP goal of restoring bald eagles to the Southern California Bight. If
the Santa Catalina Island bald eagles were to be relocated to the
Northern Channel Islands, there would be no guarantee that the birds
would remain there; they might return to their original Santa Catalina
island territories.

Comment: The Trustees should consider commercially farming fish off of
Santa Catalina Island for bald eagles and sport fishermen.

Source(s): T. Marsh

Although fish constitute a large percentage of the diet of bald eagles
on Santa Catalina Island, bald eagles are exposed to DDTs and PCBs
mostly through their consumption of contaminated marine mammal carcasses
and seabirds. Compared to marine mammals and seabirds, fish around Santa
Catalina Island are relatively clean and are not contributing
significantly to bald eagle exposure. Therefore, a program for the
commercial farming of fish off of the island would not be an effective
way to reduce the exposure of bald eagles to contaminants.

Comment: Bald eagle eggs and adults should be tested for methyl mercury
due to the biological damage it causes.

Source(s): J. Lara

Mercury has been linked to reproductive problems in several species of
birds. Currently, bald eagle eggs on Santa Catalina Island are analyzed
for DDTs and PCBs. The Trustees are analyzing mercury as part of the
fish sampling program along the coast of Ventura, Los Angeles, and
Orange Counties to provide important information to fish consumers. The
Trustees may consider analyzing the mercury concentrations in bald eagle
eggs in the future.

### NEPA Documentation

Comment: The Trustees should consider preparing subsequent NEPA
documentation to allow for more meaningful public involvement once the
ramifications of decisions regarding the fate of the bald eagle are
clearer.

Source(s): EPA

Based on public comments, the Trustees now plan to prepare a subsequent
NEPA/CEQA document once the outcome of the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility
Study is known. This document will discuss the Trustees' preferred next
steps for bald eagle restoration on the Channel Islands. The public will
have an opportunity to review and provide formal comment on this
document.

### Ecosystem-Level Restoration

Comment: Restoration is not limited to establishing self-sustaining
populations, rather it means restoring functioning ecosystems.

Source(s): D.H. Van Vuren

All other evaluation criteria being equal, the Trustees gave preference
to actions with greater potential for long-term and/or permanent
benefits and without intensive ongoing human intervention and attendant
costs. Thus, the Trustees preferred actions likely to produce results
that extend beyond the time during which funding is available. Whether
or not this objective is achievable for bald eagles in light of the
ongoing contamination remains to be seen.

The Trustees acknowledge the important role that bald eagles play in the
ecosystem of the Channel Islands. Due to their ecological role and in
response to the public support for the eagles, the Trustees will now
allocate the entire \$6.2 million for bald eagle restoration on the
Channel Islands and will consider actions that are not self-sustaining
if eagles on the Northern Channel Islands cannot reproduce on their own.

## PEREGRINE FALCON RESTORATION COMMENTS

### Use of the Term "Natural Recovery" for Peregrine Falcons

Comment: Referring to the recovery of peregrine falcons on the Channel
Islands as "natural" is incorrect due to past and continuing active
release efforts conducted by the Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research
Group and funded by donations and other non-Montrose support.

Source(s): Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group

In the Restoration Plan, the Trustees discuss that the recovery of the
peregrine falcon was largely due to an active release program. Peregrine
falcon recovery on the Channel Islands has clearly benefited from the
ongoing release program conducted by the Santa Cruz Predatory Bird
Research Group on the proximate mainland. However, it is known that
peregrine falcon pairs on the Northern Channel Islands are reproducing
successfully and that natural recruitment is occurring. Therefore, it is
likely that the continued recovery of the peregrine falcon on the
Channel Islands is due to a combination of natural recovery and the
active release program on the mainland. The Trustees agree that the use
of the term "natural recovery" does not portray the overall situation on
the Channel Islands and have consequently modified the text of the
Restoration Plan.

### Allocation of Funds to Peregrine Falcon Restoration

Comment: No additional funds should be allocated towards the peregrine
falcon due to their current status on the Channel Islands. One commenter
questioned why monitoring would occur if the Trustees were not going to
implement active restoration.

Source(s): J. Adams; R. Ambrose

Peregrine falcons are one of the MSRP priority bird species due to the
DDT-related eggshell thinning injuries that this species has suffered.
Although these birds are once again breeding successfully on the
Northern Channel Islands, the extent of their recovery throughout the
Channel Islands is not clearly known. Also unknown is whether pairs are
still experiencing reduced productivity due to the ongoing effects of
DDT contamination. It is important to monitor the current status of and
the potential ongoing threats to this species before considering future
active restoration efforts (such as releasing additional birds on the
islands). Several peregrine falcon surveys will occur within Phase 1 of
restoration implementation. After considering the results of these
surveys, the Trustees may decide to proceed with active restoration
efforts in Phase 2 of the restoration program.

### Active Restoration of Peregrine Falcons on Santa Catalina Island

Comment: The Trustees should pursue active restoration of peregrine
falcons on Santa Catalina Island. One commenter urged the Trustees to
consider the need for active restoration on the Channel Islands after
the survey results are known.

Source(s): Catalina Island Conservancy; USC Wrigley Institute for
Environmental Studies; multiple public reviewers

The Trustees evaluated active restoration of peregrine falcons on the
Channel Islands (see Appendix C1). As part of this action, the Trustees
evaluated releasing additional peregrine falcons on Santa Catalina
Island to facilitate the recovery of this species to the Southern
Channel Islands. However, the Trustees concluded that active restoration
was not necessary at this time on the Channel Islands (including Santa
Catalina Island) for the following reasons: (1) the current status of
peregrine falcons on the Channel Islands, (2) the results of the 2004
Santa Catalina Island peregrine falcon survey funded by the Trustees,
and (3) the potential impacts to sensitive bird species. These factors
are described and evaluated in greater detail in Appendix C1. Over the
next 5 years, the Trustees will fund several peregrine falcon surveys on
the Channel Islands that will provide updated information on the status
of these birds. Based on the results of these surveys, the Trustees may
decide to proceed with active restoration activities on the Channel
Islands in Phase 2 of the restoration program. A subsequent NEPA/CEQA
document will be released to the public to address future restoration
actions in Phase 2.

### Budget and Time Frame for Peregrine Falcon Restoration

Comment: The draft restoration plan departs from the spirit of the
outcome of the court case when it comes to addressing the actual damages
for which Montrose is accountable. The Judge in that case calculated the
damages done to the resources and came up with a figure of \$7 million
for peregrine falcon restoration.

Source(s): Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group

Contrary to this comment, the court did not determine a distinct dollar
value for the peregrine falcon injuries or for any of the injured
resources in this case. The Trustees provided estimates to the court
during litigation concerning the potential costs of restoration. The
final consent decree does not specify how funding should be allocated
among the different injured resources and lost services. See Section
9.4.3 for a discussion of the Trustees' decisions regarding active
peregrine falcon restoration.

Comment: The proposed monitoring budget is not adequate to address
recruitment, dispersal, and foraging behavior of peregrine falcons on
the Channel Islands. Monitoring should also be expanded to include the
coastal mainland and the Baja California Pacific Islands.

Source(s): Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group

The Restoration Plan outlines a number of parameters (such as
productivity, recruitment, dispersal) that would be considered in the
peregrine falcon monitoring program. The importance and scope of these
parameters will be prioritized during the development of the monitoring
plan. The scope and extent of the monitoring program will determine the
ultimate budget for this action. At this point, the proposed budget is
an estimate based on consultation with several peregrine falcon experts.
The budget may be adjusted once the objectives and scope of the
monitoring program are more clearly defined.

The Trustees considered implementing a monitoring program in the Baja
California Pacific Islands, as discussed in Appendix C3. The Trustees
also previously considered several mainland peregrine falcon actions
during the Tier 1 analysis. However, based on the injury information for
the case and the increasing number of peregrine falcons on the mainland,
the Trustees decided that restoration and/or monitoring activities on
the Channel Islands would receive priority over monitoring at other
locations.

### Threat of Peregrine Falcon Restoration to Seabird Populations

Comment: Restoration activities for peregrine falcons may pose
significant threats towards depleted and rare seabirds.

Source(s): J. Adams

In Appendix C1, the Trustees addressed the potential impacts to depleted
and rare birds (including seabirds) from active peregrine falcon
restoration activities on the Channel Islands. These potential impacts
were one of the reasons for not selecting active restoration of
peregrine falcons at this time. Rather, the Trustees have chosen to
monitor the status of peregrine falcons on the Channel Islands during
Phase 1 of restoration implementation. These monitoring activities will
be undertaken in such manner as to avoid impacts to seabird colonies.
Should surveys indicate that active restoration of peregrine falcons is
warranted on the Channel Islands, the Trustees will fully evaluate the
potential impacts to rare seabirds in the Phase 2 NEPA/CEQA document.

## SEABIRD RESTORATION COMMENTS

The Trustees received many letters in support of Alternative 2 with
respect to seabird restoration actions. Those in support felt that
Alternative 2 provides a more appropriate level of funding to restore
seabird populations impacted by Montrose DDT releases. Supporters of
Alternative 2 stated that the proposed seabird actions will promote
long-term significant benefits to seabird populations. Specific comments
received on the seabird actions are addressed below.

### Seabird Nexus

Comment: Several reviewers objected to the level of funding for seabird
restoration actions, questioning the nexus of seabird injuries to the
Montrose case.

Source(s): UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; Heal the
Bay; Santa Monica Baykeeper; multiple public reviewers

The final consent decree for the Montrose case included seabirds as a
target for restoration funds due to the injuries associated with
DDT-related eggshell thinning. The Trustees closely evaluated the nexus
for seabirds and targeted restoration actions for those seabirds that
demonstrated severe or significant eggshell thinning and/or for which
DDT egg residues were significantly elevated in the colonies of the
Southern California Bight. A complete description of the seabird nexus
can be found in Section 5.1. Although seabirds may not be experiencing
continued injury that is similar to that of the bald eagles on Santa
Catalina Island, their populations were clearly impacted by DDT
contamination in the Southern California Bight.

Seabirds are also consumed by both bald eagles and peregrine falcons,
two high-priority bird species for this restoration program. Actions
that increase seabird populations in the Southern California Bight will
also provide indirect benefits to the recovery of bald eagles and
peregrine falcons on the Channel Islands. For these reasons, it is
appropriate to allocate substantial funding to the seabird category.

Comment: Other reviewers supported the use of funds for seabird
restoration as part of the preferred alternative (Alternative 2).

Source(s): Pacific Seabird Group; multiple public reviewers

Comment noted.

### Seabird Restoration on Baja California, Mexico

Comment: Funds should not be spent on seabird restoration in Baja
California because it is far from the contamination source and not
related to the Montrose case.

Source(s): Heal the Bay; Santa Monica Baykeeper; Catalina Island
Conservancy; USC Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies; multiple
public reviewers

As discussed in Appendix D5, many of the seabird species that breed on
the Baja California Pacific Islands also breed on the Channel Islands.
Several of the Baja California Pacific Islands are oceanographically
part of the Southern California Bight and most of the seabird colonies
in Mexico and California form part of a larger metapopulation of
seabirds that breed, forage, and disperse into the Southern California
Bight. The Trustees are targeting seabird restoration actions on both
the Baja California Pacific Islands and the Channel Islands because
seabird populations in both locations demonstrated injury from eggshell
thinning as a result of DDT contamination. For example, the California
brown pelican sustained almost complete reproductive failure due to
DDT-related eggshell thinning in the late 1960s and early 1970s on both
the Coronado Islands in Mexico and Anacapa Island in the Channel
Islands. Restoration actions in both of these areas will directly
benefit seabird populations that were impacted by the contamination
addressed in the Montrose case.

### Additional Seabird Data Gap Studies

Comment: Additional studies should be conducted to determine the extent
of the seabird injuries due to DDT contamination. Specifically, the
Trustees should monitor the levels of DDT and PCB contamination in sooty
shearwater, black-vented and pink-footed shearwaters in addition to the
other nesting birds of the SCB

Source(s): J. Adams; H. Nevins

During the damage assessment for the Montrose case, the Trustees funded
several data gap studies for seabirds to determine potential injuries
from DDT contamination. At that time, the Trustees focused on injuries
to nesting seabirds in the Southern California Bight. Although
additional data gap studies could have been conducted to determine
potential injuries to migratory species, the Trustees decided to focus
on breeding seabirds of the Southern California Bight for the case. Even
with this more narrow focus, there are still more seabird restoration
actions for these species than available funding. Because of the limited
funding for seabird restoration, the Trustees prefer to spend funds on
actual on-the-ground restoration activities rather than conduct further
data gap studies to determine additional seabird injuries. The Trustees
believe that the proposed seabird restoration actions will provide
long-term benefits to a suite of seabirds that nest within the Southern
California Bight.

### Additional Long-Term Seabird Monitoring in the Southern California Bight 

Comment: The Trustees should fund long-term seabird monitoring to better
understand the biology of seabirds in the Southern California Bight, as
well as long-term monitoring efforts to assess seabird species and their
prey fishes within the Channel Islands Marine Protected Area. One
reviewer specifically mentioned that the Trustees should also monitor
seabirds on Anacapa following the recent black rat removal.

Source(s): J. Adams; multiple public reviewers

The Trustees have allocated a total of \$6.5 million to fund five
seabird restoration actions in their preferred alternative. These
actions include habitat restoration, eradication of exotics, and social
attraction. The decision to fund habitat-based restoration rather than
monitoring efforts for seabirds reflects the Trustees' desire to fund
direct restoration actions for seabirds. These types of restoration
actions have proven to provide significant benefits to seabird
populations throughout the world. Although important, monitoring
programs for seabirds do not achieve the Trustees' goal of restoring
seabirds within the Southern California Bight. The Trustees are also
aware of other efforts to implement monitoring programs for seabirds,
such as the Seabird Conservation Plan recently developed by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. The Trustees' preferred alternative also
calls for augmenting funds to support implementation, including
monitoring, of the Channel Islands MPAs.

### Restoration of Additional Seabird Species and Locations

Comment: The Restoration Plan only targets a few seabird species and
ignores the vast majority of marine birds that forage in the Southern
California Bight but breed elsewhere.

Source(s): H. Nevins; J. Adams

The Trustees recognize that migratory seabird species were likely
exposed to DDT and PCB contamination while foraging in the Southern
California Bight. However, based on the injury information collected for
the case and the limited funds available for seabird restoration, the
Trustees prioritized nine breeding seabird species of the Southern
California Bight for restoration.

In general, the Trustees support trans-boundary restoration efforts, as
demonstrated by their support for seabird actions in Mexico. Actions in
New Zealand and Chile were not included in the preferred alternative
because of their weaker nexus to the case. Also, the Trustee Council for
the Command oil spill case is already pursuing seabird restoration in
New Zealand. Given the limited restoration funds available, the Montrose
Trustees have chosen to prioritize their seabird restoration efforts in
the Southern California Bight and Baja California, Mexico.

### Impacts to Humans Who Consume Seabirds

Comment: The Restoration Plan fails to recognize the human reliance on
migratory species likely affected by DDTs. The Trustees should further
investigate the extent of contaminant exposure affecting cultural
harvest and human consumptions of sooty shearwaters in New Zealand.

Source(s): H. Nevins

Based on the limited restoration funds available for seabird actions,
the Trustees have chosen to focus on on-the-ground restoration actions
rather than further explore the potential injuries of the case. The
potential effect to humans in New Zealand was not addressed at the time
of the damage assessment, and the Trustees consider these potential
impacts to be outside the scope of the restoration program.

### Impacts to Seabirds from Other Restoration Actions

Comment: Restoring bald eagles would likely undermine several of the
seabird restoration actions because eagles will eat or harass seabirds.

Source(s): Pacific Seabird Group

The potential impact of bald eagles on seabirds is addressed in both the
Restoration Plan (Appendix B) and the Environmental Assessment for the
Feasibility Study for the Reestablishment of Bald Eagles on the Channel
Islands (MSRP 2002). Please refer to these two sources for more
information. Although the Trustees acknowledge that bald eagles consume
seabirds, they are a small percentage of an eagle's diet compared to
fish. The Trustees do not believe that the presence of bald eagles will
compromise the success of the proposed seabird restoration actions,
though they anticipate that eagles will occasionally prey on seabirds.
The success of the seabird restoration actions should increase seabird
numbers on the Channel Islands, and as a result, sensitive species would
be better able to withstand any predation pressure from bald eagles.

### Comments on "Restore Alcids to Santa Barbara Island" 

Comment: The Trustees should investigate the ecological linkages between
introduced grasslands, mouse populations and barn owls \[which could
impact alcid populations\] before investing in this action.

Source(s): J. Adams

The Trustees recognize the importance of understanding the ecological
links between introduced grasslands, mouse populations, and barn owls.
The National Park Service is currently conducting studies on the mouse
population and its potential impacts on seabirds. Studies on the barn
owl population are also under consideration. The Trustees will evaluate
the impacts of deer mice on the success of this action during the
monitoring phase of the action. In addition, it is likely that Cassin's
auklets are not as vulnerable to mouse depredation as Xantus's
murrelets, since egg neglect is negligible in Cassin's auklets. Auklets
begin incubating their eggs immediately after laying, unlike murrelets,
which leave their first egg unattended before laying their second, a
practice that makes murrelet eggs more susceptible to predation.

Comment: The capacity for auklets to breed successfully at Santa Barbara
Island will depend on the distribution and availability of suitable prey
resources in the area. The Trustees should also assess the prey
resources off Santa Barbara Island before pursuing this action to ensure
that adequate prey resources are available to support auklets.

Source(s): J. Adams

The Trustees believe that the presence of nesting birds on the other
nearby Channel Islands indicate that adequate prey is available to
support auklets on Santa Barbara Island. Cassin's auklets are currently
nesting successfully on Prince Island, San Miguel Island, Scorpion Rock,
and Santa Cruz Island. In addition, Santa Barbara Island historically
supported a population of over 5,000 pairs of auklets. Conducting a food
availability study prior to implementing this action would be too costly
given limited restoration funds as well as the Trustees' preference to
spend funds on actual on-the-ground restoration activities rather than
additional research. The Trustees believe that the proposed seabird
restoration actions will provide long-term benefits to Cassin's auklets
and Xantus's murrelets in the Southern California Bight.

Comment: Social Attraction of birds to artificial nest sites does not
imply restoration. For auklets, the Trustees are urged to pursue and
evaluate additional criteria for interpreting/demonstrating restoration
success including, comparisons of reproductive parameters and chick
growth with auklets nesting at Scorpion Rock and Prince Island, adult
survival rates, and nest site fidelity. It is also recommended that this
action include an evaluation of the potential for this action to
increase (or in the event of poor reproductive success due to food
limitation or predation, decrease) the overall abundance of auklets. How
do anticipated restoration actions and outcomes to the populations
compare with "baseline conditions" had dumping not occurred?

Source(s): J. Adams

The Trustees do not agree with the contention that this action does not
constitute restoration. Compensatory restoration in the form of
reestablishing a population that was originally extirpated from its
historical habitat is a method commonly used in other CERCLA and oil
spill cases where direct restoration is not always possible. The
specifics of the monitoring plan for this action will be determined
during project development and will include the parameters mentioned
above. Accurate baseline population information does not exist for
auklets on Santa Barbara Island; however, reproductive success and
parameters from the restored colony on Santa Barbara Island will be
compared with the results documented on other colonies within the
Southern California Bight.

Comment: Xantus's Murrelets are not presently limited by the
availability of suitable nest sites. Xantus's Murrelets are currently
recolonizing Anacapa Island following the removal of rats. The number of
active nest sites, however, has shown a long-term decline. Whereas there
is available natural nest habitat, having murrelets occupy artificial
nest sites does not constitute restoration.

Source(s): J. Adams

The Trustees do not agree with the contention that this action does not
constitute restoration. One possible theory concerning the cause of the
recent decline in active nests is that the drought in the late 1980s and
early 1990s affected nest site availability for Xantus's murrelets in
the bush site sub-colonies. This action will restore bush nest sites on
the upper bluffs of the islands and will maintain a portion of these
sites during low-rain years in order to continue to provide healthy
vegetative cover. The hope is that this action will provide suitable
habitat in a new area, and thus draw birds away from lower-quality
habitat (e.g., under plywood boards and across ladders). Higher-quality
nest sites should result in increased productivity. Also, these nest
sites will provide safer access to the nests by researchers, which in
turn will result in more consistent and higher-quality monitoring for a
larger percentage of birds. The Trustees believe that an increase in the
number of murrelets nesting on Santa Barbara Island as well as their
productivity does constitute restoration and will provide long-term
benefits to Xantus's murrelets in the Southern California Bight.

Comment: Plan should outline quantitative measures that can be used to
demonstrate successful vegetation restoration.

Source(s): J. Adams

The monitoring plan for this action will outline measures to document
successful vegetation restoration. The evaluation of the action
(Appendix D2) has been modified to reflect this.

Comment: It is not clear what the benefits to the two species will be
after the estimated five year action. Trustees should outline whether
the artificial nest sites will be maintained or phased out after the
project is determined successful.

Source(s): J. Adams

This action will have an adaptive management plan. The status of the
action and the artificial nest sites will be decided after reviewing the
results and the status of the population on the island.

### Comments on "Restore Seabirds to Scorpion Rock" 

Comment: An important first step for the project is to reduce human
disturbance at colony through signage and effective educational outreach
actions.

Source(s): J. Adams

Disturbance reduction and educational outreach are major components of
this action.

Comment: Erosion problems on island need to be stabilized.

Source(s): J. Adams

Erosion control is a major component of this action.

Comment: It should be recognized that at present Scorpion Rock is a
somewhat ephemeral nesting colony for auklets. Auklets nested there
during the cool and productive years of 1999-2003. Reproductive success
is likely to be lower and more variable that at principal colonies off
San Miguel Island. None of the sites on the rock were occupied in 2004
and anomalous conditions may prevent auklets from nesting there this
season. The trustees need to establish a restoration criterion that
evaluates the success of this colony in the context of oceanographic
conditions and availability of suitable prey resources.

Source(s): J. Adams

Cassin's auklets were nesting on Scorpion Rock when the first nest boxes
were established and have made some effort every year following that.
Cassin's auklets suffered poor reproductive success in 2004, not just on
Scorpion Rock but throughout the Southern California Bight. As a result,
the Trustees do not feel that the Scorpion Rock colony is ephemeral, but
do agree that the restoration success criteria (which will be identified
when the monitoring plan is developed) should take into consideration
the potential impacts oceanographic conditions and prey availability.

Comment: Plan should outline quantitative measures that can be used to
demonstrate successful vegetation restoration and erosion control.

Source(s): J. Adams

The monitoring plan for this action will outline measures to document
successful vegetation restoration and erosion control. The evaluation of
the action (Appendix D4) has been modified to reflect this.

Comment: Adding additional nest sites and then determining that the
sites are used by seabirds does not necessarily constitute restoration.

Source(s): J. Adams

The Trustees do not agree with the contention that this action does not
constitute restoration. Increasing the number of birds nesting on the
rock and their productivity will have significant impacts on the
population.

Comment: The Trustees should consider supporting longer term monitoring
(\> 5-yrs) of auklets at Scorpion Rock and Prince Island within the
context of oceanographic assessments, to better understand and interpret
restoration success.

Source(s): J. Adams

The specifics of the monitoring plan will be determined during the
development of the action-specific plan. The Trustees will take into
consideration the potential impacts of oceanographic conditions. Auklet
monitoring on Prince Island will be considered as part of the action
"restore seabirds to San Miguel Island" (see Appendix D1).

### Comments on "Restore Seabirds to Baja California Pacific Islands"

Comment: Projects on Guadalupe Island should be funded regardless of the
outcome of the NCI Feasibility Study.

Source(s): J. Adams

All of the seabird restoration actions on the Baja California Pacific
islands have a strong nexus to the Montrose case and would benefit
seabirds injured by the contaminants of the case. However, because the
Trustees have chosen to modify the preferred alternative to reserve
\$6.2 million exclusively for bald eagle restoration, the balance of
that money will no longer be available for seabird restoration, pending
the results of the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study. For this reason,
two seabird actions, "restore seabirds to Baja California Pacific
islands" (Guadalupe Island) and "restore ashy storm-petrels to Anacapa
Island," may not be funded during this phase of restoration. However,
the Trustees believe that the possibility of cost-sharing and the
eventual allocation of a second round of funds in Phase 2 of restoration
may result in the eventual implementation of these actions.

### Comments on "Restore Ashy Strom-Petrels to Anacapa Island" 

Comment: The Trustees should reconsider the project to eradicate the
introduced House Mouse from the Farallon Islands to effectively restore
this species injured by chemical pollution in the SCB.

Source(s): J. Adams

This idea did not rate as high as other seabird ideas primarily due to
its location outside of the Southern California Bight. Other projects
targeting ashy storm-petrels received higher ratings in respect to
nexus. Also, Luckenbach Trustee Council is considering the Farallon
Islands project for funding.

Comment: The Plan in its current form suggests that social attraction
has been used successfully on this species; it is important to point out
that this technique has only been used successfully to capture birds,
but social attraction to nest sites has never been demonstrated. Social
attraction with this species has never been demonstrated. Efforts to
attract petrels to nest sites on the Farallon Islands have failed.
Researchers have also found that only boxes that were installed within
pre-existing nest sites were used by breeding individuals. Boxes
installed in suitable nesting habitat failed. The Trustees are urged to
consider support for ongoing petrel studies throughout the Channel
Islands that are designed to evaluate efficacy and limitations at
vocalization broadcasts, catch-per-unit effort, inter-island exchange,
adult survival and population size.

Source(s): J. Adams

The Trustees did not mean to indicate that social attraction has been
used successfully to establish a nesting colony of ashy storm-petrels,
but instead that playbacks have been used successfully to capture ashy
storm-petrels in mist nets. The appendix has been modified to make this
point clearer. However, social attraction has been used successfully to
establish nesting colonies of other species of petrels on islands in the
Galapagos and off the coast of Maine. The Trustees will take the
information learned from the Farallon Islands project into consideration
when implementing the Anacapa Island action. Details of the monitoring
plan for this action will be developed prior to implementation.

Comment: The Trustees should examine disturbance issues impacting
reproductive success of petrels in sea caves that are open to public.

Source(s): J. Adams

The dry caves on Anacapa Island where petrels nest are already closed to
public access. Disturbance issues in the caves of the Channel Islands
National Park are the responsibility of the National Park Service.

Comment: At present suitable nesting habitat for this species does not
appear to be limiting. Furthermore, from a demographic perspective,
increasing reproductive output for such a long-lived, late-maturing
seabird with low lifetime reproductive output is not likely to enhance
the population. More information is required to assess what limits
sub-adult and adult survival (i.e., predation, attraction to artificial
light, pollution, plastic ingestion, etc.). 

Source(s): J. Adams

Now that the introduced black rat has been removed from Anacapa Island,
there is a great opportunity for the ashy storm-petrel population to
increase and expand into parts of the island that the species did not
previously use due to the presence of rats. The birds may be reluctant
to do so without the social cues provided by social attraction.
Spreading the population to more than one or two islands greatly reduces
the risk of catastrophic events (such as an oil spill or the unintended
reintroduction of rats to the island) eliminating this rare and endemic
population.