Section 1 ONE Purpose and Need for Proposed Action
[1-1](#section-1-1-purpose-and-need-for-proposed-action)

1.1 Proposed Action: Implement Projects That Restore Natural Resources
Injured and Services Lost Due to DDT[S]{.smallcaps} and
PCB[S]{.smallcaps} Discharged to Coastal Waters of Southern California
[1-1](#proposed-action-implement-projects-that-restore-natural-resources-injured-and-services-lost-due-to-ddts-and-pcbs-discharged-to-coastal-waters-of-southern-california)

1.2 Need for the Action: DDT and PCB Contamination and Natural Resource
Injuries In the Southern California Bight
[1-2](#need-for-the-action-ddt-and-pcb-contamination-and-natural-resource-injuries-in-the-southern-california-bight)

1.2.1 Geographic Target Area [1-3](#geographic-target-area)

1.2.2 Overview of Injuries to Natural Resources
[1-3](#overview-of-injuries-to-natural-resources)

1.2.3 Coordination With Cleanup Actions
[1-5](#coordination-with-cleanup-actions)

1.3 Purpose of the Action: Restore Injured Natural Resources and Lost
Services
[1-5](#purpose-of-the-action-restore-injured-natural-resources-and-lost-services)

1.4 Public Involvement [1-6](#public-involvement)

1.5 Administrative Record [1-8](#administrative-record)

Figures

Figure 1-1. Geographic extent of the Southern California Bight

# Section 1 1 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action

## Proposed Action: Implement projects that Restore Natural Resources Injured and services lost due to DDT[s]{.smallcaps} and PCB[s]{.smallcaps} Discharged to Coastal Waters of Southern California

For more than five decades, DDTs and PCBs have contaminated the Southern
California marine environment. Although the major point source
discharges of these chemicals were curtailed in the 1970s, large amounts
of DDTs and PCBs persist in ocean water and sediments, and certain fish,
birds, and other wildlife continue to accumulate DDTs and PCBs in
harmful amounts. The state and federal governments investigated these
problems and in 1990 filed an action in U.S. District Court against
several of the parties responsible for the discharges of DDTs and PCBs.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA or "Superfund," Title 42 United States Code \[U.S.C.\]
Section 9601 et seq.) provides a mechanism for addressing the nation's
hazardous waste sites: states and the federal government may sue
polluters for the cleanup and restoration of sites. CERCLA provides for
the designation of "natural resource trustees," who are federal, state,
or tribal authorities who represent the public interest in natural
resources. These trustees may seek monetary damages from polluters for
injury, destruction, or loss of natural resources resulting from
releases of hazardous substances. These damages, which are distinct from
cleanup costs, must be used by the natural resource trustees to
"restore, replace, rehabilitate, or acquire the equivalent of" the
natural resources that have been injured.

At the end of October 2000, after ten years of litigation, the federal
and state governments and the remaining defendants signed the last of a
series of settlements. The court approved the final settlement in March
2001. Under the terms of the four separate settlement agreements,
Montrose Chemical Corporation and the other defendants[^1] agreed to pay
\$140.2 million plus interest to the federal and state governments. Of
this amount, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a
total of \$66.25 million; the Natural Resource Trustees for the Montrose
case (Trustees)[^2] received \$63.95 million; and \$10 million was set
aside in a special account (swing money).[^3] The EPA and DTSC are using
their recovery funds to address the contaminated sediments offshore and
for institutional controls. The Trustees have used \$35 million to
reimburse past damage assessment costs and are using the remainder plus
the accumulated interest to plan and implement the actions necessary to
restore the natural resources and their services[^4] that were injured
by the DDTs and PCBs. Further discussion regarding the current balances
and the proposed allocation of restoration funds can be found in Section
6.3.2.

Once the case was settled, the Trustees established the Montrose
Settlements Restoration Program (MSRP) to plan and conduct the natural
resource restoration work called for under the settlement agreements. To
satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
(42 U.S.C. Section 4321 et seq.) and the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Parts 21000--21178.1), the
Trustees are combining the restoration planning process provided for
under CERCLA with the development of a programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

This document is the Restoration Plan and programmatic EIS/EIR for the
Montrose Settlements Restoration Program. The Restoration Plan has
incorporated public and professional opinion to develop, evaluate, and
select specific actions to restore injured resources and the lost
services that the natural resources provide. Some actions will be
initiated in the near-term. Other actions have been selected
conditionally, because they must await the outcome of further study,
testing, and public review prior to final selection and implementation.
Thus the Restoration Plan has a range of selected restoration actions
that together will form the basis of a comprehensive plan to restore the
natural resources and services affected by the DDTs and PCBs at issue in
this case.

This document will guide the MSRP restoration effort as a whole, as well
as the specific restoration actions selected for near-term
implementation. Thus, this Restoration Plan establishes a process for
adaptive decision-making, and future NEPA and CEQA documentation will
incorporate by reference (or in the terminology of NEPA "tier off of")
this programmatic EIS/EIR.

## Need for the Action: DDT and PCB Contamination and Natural Resource Injuries in the Southern California Bight 

From the late 1940s to the early 1970s, Los Angeles area industries
discharged approximately 2,000 metric tons (about 2,200 U.S. tons) of
DDTs and PCBs into the ocean waters off the Southern California coast.
Almost all of the DDTs released to the Southern California marine
environment originated from the Montrose Chemical Corporation (Montrose)
manufacturing plant in Torrance, California. The Montrose plant
discharged waste into the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
(LACSD) sewer collection system. Wastewater treatment methods employed
at that time did not capture the DDTs prior to their discharge through
ocean outfall pipes that empty into the Pacific Ocean off of White Point
on the Palos Verdes Shelf. Montrose also dumped DDT-contaminated waste
from barges into deep ocean waters in the San Pedro Basin near and
possibly en route to Santa Catalina Island. In addition, large
quantities of PCBs from numerous sources throughout the Los Angeles
Basin were released into ocean waters through the LACSD and City of Los
Angeles wastewater outfalls and the regional storm drain systems.
Although DDTs were also released into the Southern California Bight
through agricultural runoff and atmospheric deposition, these sources
were found to be insignificant in comparison to the Montrose discharges.

In 1992 and 1993, surveys by the U.S. Geological Survey (Lee et al.
2002) found that more than 100 metric tons (110 U.S. tons) of DDTs and
10 metric tons (11 U.S. tons) of PCBs still remained in the sediments on
the ocean bottom of the Palos Verdes Shelf. The highest concentrations
of DDTs and PCBs were centered near the ends of the White Point
outfalls, ranging between water depths of 40 to 80 meters (130 to 260
feet). Surveys conducted as part of the Southern California Bight 1994
Pilot Project (Schiff and Gossett 1998) showed that elevated
concentrations of DDTs and PCBs in bottom sediments extended beyond the
Palos Verdes Shelf into Santa Monica Bay and were also present in Los
Angeles and Long Beach Harbors. The discharge and fate of these
chemicals in the Southern California Bight is further described in
Section 2 of this Restoration Plan.

### Geographic Target Area

The geographic focus of the Trustees' natural resource damage assessment
and restoration efforts is the marine region bordering the Southern
California mainland known as the Southern California Bight (SCB) (Figure
1-1). For the purposes of the Restoration Plan, the SCB is defined as
the area between Point Conception (north), Cabo Colonet, located south
of Ensenada, Mexico (south), outside of the Cortez and Tanner Banks
(west), and coastal watersheds (east). The SCB includes the Northern and
Southern Channel Islands and surrounding waters.

The SCB is a unique, discrete marine ecosystem. Although the SCB has
been significantly affected by human activities, it has numerous
environmental restoration, preservation, and enhancement opportunities.
The SCB has been studied extensively at the ecosystem level, and a large
body of data is available to evaluate environmental issues at both the
local and the regional levels.

The portion of the SCB known as the Palos Verdes Shelf is located off
the Palos Verdes peninsula, which separates Santa Monica Bay and San
Pedro Bay. The Palos Verdes Shelf is generally defined as the offshore
area extending from Point Vicente in the northwest to Point Fermin in
the southeast. This sub-region contains the most significant deposits of
DDTs and PCBs in sediments from historical discharges and is also the
focus of Superfund cleanup activities by the EPA. However, DDTs and PCBs
have come to be distributed over a wide region (through movement of
sediments, water, and uptake by mobile biological organisms) beyond the
immediate area of the Palos Verdes Shelf. Also, as further described in
Section 2, the natural resource injuries and lost services caused by the
DDTs and PCBs discharged by the defendants have occurred over a broader
area of the SCB. For this reason, the SCB, rather than just the Palos
Verdes Shelf, forms the primary geographic area of focus for the
Trustees' natural resource restoration actions.

### Overview of Injuries to Natural Resources

Numerous independent studies have shown that DDTs and PCBs are still
found at harmful levels in the marine life and birds of Southern
California (e.g., Hickey and Anderson 1968, Risebrough et al. 1971,
Gress et al. 1973, Lee and Wiberg 2002). During the Montrose litigation,
the Trustees carefully evaluated the evidence of injury to a number of
resources. From this evaluation, the Trustees narrowed their claim at
trial to focus on (1) reproductive problems in bald eagles and peregrine
falcons and (2) PCB/DDT contamination of fish that resulted in a
commercial fishing ban and fish consumption advisories. Although the
Trustees recognized that DDTs had adversely affected a variety of other
species in the past, notably California brown pelicans and
double-crested cormorants, the priority was to focus the trial and the
damages claim on those injuries that were continuing.

DDTs and PCBs degrade slowly in the environment and biomagnify (become
more concentrated) in animals at higher levels in the food web. When
feeding on prey contaminated with DDTs and PCBs, animals at the top of
the food web, such as bald eagles and peregrine

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.5in" height="6.554166666666666in"}

Figure 1-1. Geographic extent of the Southern California Bight.

falcons, can accumulate injurious concentrations of these chemicals,
even when levels in the water column appear to be very low. DDTs in
particular cause these birds to produce eggs with shells that are so
thin that they break when the adults sit on them during incubation, or
allow the developing embryos to dry out.

Many common sport fish caught from the ocean in the Los Angeles area
(eight species or species groups) have levels of DDTs high enough that
the State of California has issued fish consumption advisories, which
are recommendations that people limit or avoid consumption of certain
fish. A number of these sports fish also have concentrations of PCBs
high enough to be of concern for human consumption. Consequently, the
State of California has issued health advisories to limit or avoid
consumption of these fish when caught at certain coastal locations in
Los Angeles and Orange Counties. In addition, because of especially high
levels of DDTs and PCBs in the white croaker, the State of California
has imposed bag limits for this fish and has banned commercial fishing
for white croaker in the vicinity of the Palos Verdes Shelf.

### Coordination with Cleanup Actions

In addition to the Trustees' natural resource restoration efforts, the
EPA and the DTSC are using a part of the settlement funds to attempt to
reduce ongoing exposure to DDTs and PCBs. For example, these agencies
are considering covering the contaminated sediments with clean sediments
and conducting additional efforts to reduce public consumption and
prevent commercial catch of contaminated fish. The selection, design,
and implementation of EPA actions to remediate contaminated sediments
are likely to take five years or more. (More information on these
agencies' activities in this regard may be found by contacting the EPA
at (800) 231-3075 or
[www.epa.gov/region9/features/pvshelf](http://www.epa.gov/region9/features/pvshelf).)

If instituted, cleanup options under evaluation by the EPA would in
theory minimize trophic transfer of DDT and PCB contamination in the
local ecosystem; however, at present it appears not to be feasible to
clean up all of the area contaminated with DDTs and PCBs. The studies
conducted for the Trustees have indicated that the reservoir of DDTs and
PCBs in the bottom sediments on the Palos Verdes Shelf and surrounding
areas will likely continue to contaminate and injure marine life and
birds over a large area of the SCB for many years to come. Thus, the
selection and design of restoration actions must take into account the
likelihood of long-term effects from the remaining DDTs and PCBs in the
coastal food web.

## Purpose of the Action: Restore Injured Natural Resources and Lost Services

The Trustees propose to undertake actions aimed at restoring key species
and services to their baseline condition (i.e., the condition that would
exist if the releases of DDTs and PCBs had not occurred). The Trustees
further propose to undertake additional natural resource restoration
actions to compensate the public for the lost use of injured natural
resources from December 1980 (when CERCLA provisions became effective)
until the time when those injured resources have recovered to as close
to baseline as possible given available restoration funds. These actions
are referred to as compensatory restoration. One key criterion in the
planning of compensatory restoration is that the restoration approaches
benefit the same or similar natural resources as those that sustained
injury as a result of the DDT or PCB releases addressed in Montrose
case. Restoration actions implemented under this plan would thereby
accelerate recovery of the injured natural resources and the services
they provide and provide compensation for the interim losses of
resources and services.[^5]

To accomplish these restoration objectives, the Trustees will implement
a series of actions directed at a range of natural resources and
services. The settlement agreements call for the Trustees to use
settlement funds to restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent of the
injured natural resources and/or the services provided by such
resources. The final consent decree for the Montrose case further
specifies that "\[t\]he 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" (page 5,
lines 18--22).

In keeping with the settlement agreements and the laws and regulations
governing natural resource damage assessment and restoration, the
Trustees will target the following natural resource restoration actions:
(1) primary restoration of specific natural resources still being
injured by DDTs and PCBs (i.e., the bald eagle and peregrine falcon
populations that historically inhabited the Channel Islands); (2)
primary restoration/replacement of human use services that continue to
be harmed (i.e., the public's ability to fish for clean fish where
certain marine species are contaminated to levels that have prompted the
State of California to issue consumption advisories); and (3)
compensatory restoration of these resources and services as well as the
seabirds and their habitats and the fish and their habitats for which
there is evidence of past harm from DDTs or PCBs.

As an overarching element of the restoration program, the Trustees will
conduct active public outreach and education aimed at informing and
engaging the public on ways to participate in, benefit from, and enhance
the restoration of the environment injured by the DDTs and PCBs that
were the subject of these settlements. The Trustees will also continue
to undertake a limited amount of study and research to ensure that the
restoration actions ultimately taken represent an efficient and
effective use of settlement funds and maximize benefits to natural
resources and their services.

Section 2 provides the background and context necessary for
understanding the natural resource restoration planning process for the
MSRP.

##  Public INVOLVeMENT

As mentioned above, the restoration planning process is guided by NEPA
and CEQA regulations. These regulations require significant public
involvement to support and direct the planning process. Public review is
an integral component of the MSRP. Public involvement was initiated
through a scoping document released on August 24, 2001, which included
notices of public meetings to discuss restoration planning. The document
was disseminated to approximately 500 recipients, including individuals,
organizations, and government agencies, and was posted to the program
web site. The Trustees also advertised the upcoming public meetings in
local and area newspapers. The scoping document was followed by the
publication of a Federal Register notice on October 9, 2001. The
official public scoping period extended from October 9, 2001, to
November 24, 2002.

The locations and dates of the MSRP public scoping meetings were as
follows:

-   **October 13, 2001:** Channel Islands National Park Headquarters

Ventura, CA

-   **October 21, 2001:** Cabrillo Sea Fair

Cabrillo Marine Aquarium

San Pedro, CA

-   **November 1, 2001:** Ken Edwards Center

Santa Monica, CA

In addition to the notice published in the Federal Register, the
Trustees published a Notice of Preparation in the California State
Clearinghouse on March 15, 2002. This established a second 30-day
comment period, which extended from March 15, 2002, to April 15, 2002.

After the close of the official scoping period, the Trustees maintained
open channels of communication with the public, other organizations, and
government agencies. As the planning progressed, the Trustees initiated
a second round of technical and public workshops to encourage roundtable
review of the draft restoration program goals and objectives as well as
the screening criteria and to solicit restoration project ideas. The
locations and dates of the MSRP workshops were as follows:

-   **January 9, 2003: Bird Technical Workshop**

> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento Office
>
> Sacramento, CA

-   **January 22, 2003: Fish Technical Workshop**

> Long Beach Federal Building
>
> Long Beach, CA

-   **January 27, 2003: Public Workshops**

> Cabrillo Marine Aquarium
>
> San Pedro, CA
>
> (Two sessions: morning and evening)

These workshops were followed by a March 17, 2003, public announcement
further soliciting restoration ideas that was disseminated to the
mailing list.

MSRP representatives also attend local and area outreach events to
increase awareness of the project and the restoration planning process.
Periodic updates and notices are disseminated through the MSRP mailing
list, and updates are always available at the MSRP web site:
[www.montroserestoration.gov](http://www.montroserestoration.gov/).

On April 8, 2005, the Trustees released the draft Restoration Plan and
programmatic EIS/EIR for public review and comment. A 45-day comment
period was provided, which ran through May 23, 2005. During this time,
four public meetings were conducted in affected locations to accept
comments on the draft Restoration Plan. The locations and dates of these
public meetings were as follows:

-   **Saturday, April 23, 2005:** 1:00 p.m.--3:00 p.m.

> Cabrillo Marine Aquarium
>
> John M. Olguin Auditorium
>
> 3720 Stephen White Dr.
>
> San Pedro, CA 90731

-   **Sunday, April 24, 2005:** 5:00 p.m.--7:00 p.m.

> Long Beach Aquarium of the Pacific
>
> Honda Theater
>
> 100 Aquarium Way
>
> Long Beach, CA 90802

-   **Thursday, April 28, 2005:** 10:00 a.m.--12:00 p.m.

> Long Beach Federal Building
>
> 501 W. Ocean Blvd.
>
> Suite 3470
>
> Long Beach, CA 90802

-   **Monday, May 9, 2005:** 7:00 p.m.--9:00 p.m.

> Channel Islands National Park
>
> Visitor Center Auditorium
>
> 1901 Spinnaker Dr.
>
> Ventura, CA 93001

The MSRP sought comments on the individual restoration actions, the
evaluation criteria, the restoration alternatives (including the
proposed allocation of restoration funds across the different actions
and categories of resources), and other aspects of the draft plan.
Numerous comments were received. Section 9 of this plan summarizes the
comments received and presents the Trustees' responses to the comments.

The public is encouraged to follow the MSRP restoration implementation
process by accessing the program web site at
[www.montroserestoration.gov](http://www.montroserestoration.gov/), by
contacting program staff at (562) 980-3236, or by e-mailing staff at
msrp@noaa.gov.

## ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

The Trustees have opened an Administrative Record (Record) for
restoration activities. The Record includes documents relied on by the
Trustees during the restoration planning performed in connection with
the release of DDTs and PCBs in the Southern California Bight.

The Record is on file at the MSRP Long Beach office. Arrangements may be
made to review the Record by contacting:

Trina Heard

501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4470

Long Beach, CA 90802

\(562\) 980-4070

[^1]: The other defendants were Aventis CropScience USA, Inc. (formerly
    Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., and corporate successor to Stauffer Chemical
    Company); Chris-Craft Industries, Inc.; Atkemix Thirty-Seven, Inc.;
    CBS Corporation (formerly Westinghouse Electric Corp.); Potlatch
    Corporation; Simpson Paper Company; and County Sanitation District
    No. 2 of Los Angeles County, and 150+ local governmental entities.

[^2]: The Trustees for the Montrose case are 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 Department of Parks and Recreation, and the
    California State Lands Commission.

[^3]: The swing money goes to the Natural Resource Trustees in the event
    that EPA makes a decision not to select any in situ response or
    remedial action for the Palos Verdes Shelf.

[^4]: The "services" that a natural resource provides are the functions
    performed by a natural resource for the benefit of another natural
    resource and/or the public.

[^5]: Under the CERCLA regulatory framework, natural resource damages
    may include, "The compensable value of all or a portion of the
    services lost to the public for the time period from the discharge
    or release until the attainment of the restoration, rehabilitation,
    replacement, and/or acquisition of the equivalent of the resources
    and their services to baseline" (Title 43 Code of Federal
    Regulations \[CFR\] Part 11.80). In the Montrose settlements, no
    distinction was made between settlement funds for primary
    restoration and settlement funds for compensatory restoration. As a
    result, the Trustees will use this planning process to develop an
    appropriate mix of primary and compensatory restoration activities
    that will be conducted using the settlement funds.