Section 5 Tier 1 and Tier 2 Evaluations of Restoration Ideas
[5-1](#section-5-5-tier-1-and-tier-2-evaluations-of-restoration-ideas)

5.1 Tier 1 Criteria and Process [5-2](#tier-1-criteria-and-process)

5.1.1 Developing Criteria [5-2](#developing-criteria)

5.1.2 Process for Applying the Criteria within Each Restoration Category
[5-6](#process-for-applying-the-criteria-within-each-restoration-category)

5.2 Tier 1 Evaluation of Fishing and Fish Habitat Restoration Ideas
[5-6](#tier-1-evaluation-of-fishing-and-fish-habitat-restoration-ideas)

5.2.1 Fish Habitat Manipulations [5-7](#fish-habitat-manipulations)

5.2.2 Stock Enhancement [5-8](#stock-enhancement)

5.2.3 Fishing Access Improvements [5-8](#fishing-access-improvements)

5.2.4 Marine Protected Areas [5-8](#marine-protected-areas)

5.2.5 Public Outreach and Education on Fishing
[5-9](#public-outreach-and-education-on-fishing)

5.2.6 Other Fishing and Fish Habitat Ideas
[5-9](#other-fishing-and-fish-habitat-ideas)

5.3 Tier 1 Evaluation of Bird Restoration Ideas
[5-12](#tier-1-evaluation-of-bird-restoration-ideas)

5.3.1 Bald Eagles [5-12](#bald-eagles)

5.3.2 Peregrine Falcons [5-13](#peregrine-falcons)

5.3.3 Seabirds [5-15](#seabirds)

5.4 Tier 1 Evaluation of Outreach Programs and Research Proposals
[5-17](#tier-1-evaluation-of-outreach-programs-and-research-proposals)

5.4.1 Outreach Programs [5-17](#outreach-programs)

5.4.2 Research Proposals [5-18](#research-proposals)

5.5 Tier 2 Evaluation [5-19](#tier-2-evaluation)

5.5.1 Tier 2 Criteria [5-19](#tier-2-criteria)

5.5.2 Results of the Tier 2 Evaluation
[5-20](#results-of-the-tier-2-evaluation)

Tables

Table 5-1 Relationship between MSRP Evaluation Criteria and Evaluation
Factors Listed in the Federal Natural Resource Damage Assessment
Regulations (43 CFR Part 11)

Table 5-2 List of Ideas to Restore Fishing and Fish Habitats

Table 5-3 List of Ideas to Restore Bald Eagles

Table 5-4 List of Ideas to Restore Peregrine Falcons

Table 5-5 List of Ideas to Restore Seabirds

Table 5-6 List of Public Outreach and Research Ideas

# Section 5 5 Tier 1 and Tier 2 Evaluations of Restoration Ideas

During the early stages of restoration planning, the Natural Resources
Trustees for the Montrose case (Trustees) compiled about 100 potential
restoration ideas. Some of the ideas in this initial inventory were
outdated or were no longer applicable, as they had been identified years
earlier during the damage assessment phase of the case; other ideas
proposed guidelines or management plans that were more appropriately the
responsibilities of other jurisdictions; and yet other ideas were
variations on similar themes and could be combined. The Trustees edited,
sorted, and reorganized this initial inventory of ideas before
undertaking systematic evaluation. A complete compilation of all the
original restoration ideas and a description of how they were sorted and
organized into the lists described in this section has been placed in
the Montrose Settlements Restoration Program (MSRP) administrative
record (MSRP 2004).

After editing, sorting, and reorganizing the initial inventory of ideas,
approximately 50 potential restoration ideas remained. To select actions
from among such a large number of ideas, the Trustees developed a
two-stage evaluation process. The first stage, Tier 1, consisted of a
screening-level analysis of all of the restoration ideas.

The principal objective of the Tier 1 evaluation was to refine and
narrow the list of restoration ideas within each resource category (see
below) to a reasonable number of the most promising candidate
restoration actions. The Tier 1 evaluation consisted of a limited,
systematic analysis of each restoration idea and the rating of each
idea's relative capabilities to achieve the restoration goals of the
Montrose case. The result was a list of ideas arranged from most to
least promising within each category, with the most promising ideas then
advancing to a detailed evaluation and environmental impact analysis in
the subsequent evaluation step, Tier 2.

To facilitate evaluation and to ensure that a diverse set of restoration
ideas were carried forward for further consideration, the Trustees
organized the restoration ideas into general resource categories. In the
public scoping document prepared at the outset of restoration planning
(MSRP 2001), the Trustees suggested the following general types of
restoration actions:

-   Cleaner fish for anglers: projects to restore fishing injured by
    DDTs and PCBs

-   Continued reintroduction of bald eagles to Santa Catalina Island

-   Expansion of efforts to reintroduce bald eagles to all the Northern
    Channel Islands

-   Restoration of peregrine falcons on the Channel Islands

-   Wetlands and estuarine projects to benefit resources injured in the
    Montrose case

-   Seabird projects

Considering the input received during the scoping and the initial
planning phase, the Trustees refined the general categories of
restoration actions into the following:

-   Fishing and fish habitat restoration projects

-   Bald eagle restoration projects

-   Peregrine falcon restoration projects

-   Seabird restoration projects

In addition to restoration ideas that fell within these four categories,
the Trustees received ideas to create and implement general public
outreach and education programs, as well as several specific research
proposals. Public outreach programs and research proposals are addressed
separately later in this section, as they differ in their fundamental
nature from actions whose purpose is to directly restore injured natural
resources and lost services.

## Tier 1 Criteria and Process 

### Developing Criteria

Federal natural resource damage assessment and restoration regulations
at Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations (43 CFR) Part 11 provide
guidance on the selection of restoration alternatives. Specifically,
under 43 CFR Part 11.82, these federal procedures require the authorized
official (in this case the Trustees) to develop a reasonable number of
possible restoration alternatives linked to the injured natural
resources and the services those resources provide, and then select the
alternative determined to be the most appropriate based on all relevant
considerations. The federal procedures list the following factors to
consider:

-   Technical feasibility

-   The relationship of the expected costs of the proposed actions to
    the expected benefits from the restoration, rehabilitation,
    replacement, and/or acquisition of equivalent resources

-   Cost-effectiveness

-   The results of any actual or planned response actions

-   The potential for additional injury from the proposed actions,
    including long-term and indirect impacts, to the injured resources
    or other resources

-   The natural recovery period

-   The ability of the resources to recover with or without alternative
    actions

-   The potential effects of the proposed actions on human health and
    safety

-   Consistency with relevant federal, state, and tribal policies

-   Consistency with relevant federal, state, and tribal laws

This list is not a fixed list of the factors required of all natural
resource restoration plans, but rather is a list of the potentially
relevant factors to consider in developing evaluation criteria that are
tailored to each restoration planning effort. Additional factors may be
considered (for instance, this list does not include an explicit factor
for evaluating the nexus between a potential restoration action and the
injuries of a case). The Trustees considered these factors and other
evaluation criteria developed for previous natural resource restoration
plans. The Trustees then developed six criteria suited to this case and
sought public input on those criteria during the public scoping of this
plan in 2002 and 2003.

Table 5-1 summarizes the relationship between the six evaluation
criteria (and their subcomponents) utilized in the Montrose Restoration
Plan and the list of factors to consider from the federal regulations
(43 CFR Part 11). For the Tier 1 evaluation step in which a large number
of potential actions were screened, the Trustees limited the evaluation
to the first four of these six criteria.

+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Table 5-1                           |                                |
|                                     |                                |
| Relationship between MSRP           |                                |
| Evaluation Criteria and Evaluation  |                                |
| Factors Listed in the Federal       |                                |
| Natural Resource Damage Assessment  |                                |
| Regulations (43 CFR Part 11)        |                                |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| MSRP Evaluation Criteria            | Factors Listed under 43 CFR    |
|                                     | Section 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      |
| -   Degree to which injured natural |     proposed actions to the    |
|     resource values and services    |     expected benefits from the |
|     are improved by the action      |     restoration                |
|                                     |                                |
| -   Degree to which benefits are    | -   Results of any planned or  |
|     measurable                      |     actual response actions    |
|                                     |                                |
| -   Duration of benefits            | -   Natural recovery period    |
|                                     |                                |
| -   Conservation status of          | -   Ability of the resources   |
|     resource(s)                     |     to recover with or without |
|                                     |     alternative actions        |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Ecosystem Benefits                  | -   Relationship of the        |
|                                     |     expected costs of the      |
| -   Degree to which action leads to |     proposed actions to the    |
|     sustainable improvements in     |     expected benefits from the |
|     broader ecological functions    |     restoration                |
|                                     |                                |
|                                     | -   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      |
| -   Includes possible partnerships  |     proposed actions to the    |
|                                     |     expected benefits from the |
|                                     |     restoration                |
|                                     |                                |
|                                     | -   Cost-effectiveness         |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+

The Trustees considered these an initial set of evaluation criteria for
distinguishing the capabilities of the different potential actions to
achieve the restoration objectives. The Trustees determined that the
characteristics most important at the screening stage were the link
between a potential restoration action and the injuries of the case
(i.e., the nexus), feasibility, and potential benefits. The Trustees
organized these characteristics into four specific Tier 1 evaluation
criteria, which are described separately below.

#### Criterion 1: Nexus {#criterion-1-nexus .unnumbered}

Criterion 1 concerns the relationship between a potential action and the
natural resource injuries and lost services of the Montrose case. The
strength of a potential action's connection to the injuries of the
Montrose case was evaluated by considering both the nature of the
proposed action (i.e., whether it addresses injured resources or
services that were lost) and the location of the proposed action.

To evaluate the nature of the proposed action, the Trustees evaluated
the degree to which the fundamental objective of a potential action
focuses on restoring one or more of the natural resources and services
identified for restoration in the final Montrose case consent decree,
which states: "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" (United States
v. Montrose, No. CV 90-3122-R \[C.D. Cal 2001\]).

The Trustees also considered the location of a potential action.
Locations that provide benefits in proximity to where specific natural
resource injuries and service losses are occurring or have occurred
(i.e., in the Southern California Bight \[SCB\]) were given highest
consideration. This consideration did not always equate to actions
proposed at the immediate sites of injury, as contamination is still at
issue, but after considering the limitations of ongoing contamination,
greater value was placed on projects that are as close as feasible to
sites of the original injury/lost services.

For the nexus criterion, the seabird category presented a special
situation. A large number of potential actions benefit one or more
species of seabirds, and specific evidence of injuries from DDTs and
PCBs varies from species to species. For this reason, the Trustees
adopted an evaluation approach for the seabird category that considers
evidence of injury for each seabird species in addition to the nature of
the proposed action and its location.

After consideration of the foraging ecology of seabirds in the SCB, the
Trustee Council concluded that it was likely that most, if not all,
species of seabirds using the SCB had been exposed to DDTs or PCBs.
Across different species, this exposure either caused documented
evidence of adverse injury (specifically, eggshell thinning), documented
elevated DDT levels in eggs, or the injury was unknown. Severe eggshell
thinning is documented when mean eggshell thickness is determined to be
at least 15 percent reduced when compared to the thickness observed in
pre-1947 museum specimens. The seabird species in the SCB for which
there was evidence of severe eggshell thinning (as defined above) are
the double-crested cormorant, Brandt's cormorant, the California brown
pelican, and the western gull (Kiff 1994). A study in 1992 demonstrated
that even though seabird populations in the SCB were not experiencing
continued severe eggshell thinning (with the exception of the
double-crested cormorant), individual eggs of the ashy storm-petrel,
western gull, and Cassin's auklet were measuring greater than 15 percent
thinner than pre-1947 values (Kiff 1994). The 1992 study also found
highly significant differences in mean eggshell thickness (*p* \< 0.01)
compared to pre-1947 values for the double-crested cormorant, the
ashy-storm petrel, Cassin's auklet, and the western gull, as well as
significant differences (*p* \< 0.05) in mean eggshell thickness for the
pelagic cormorant.

The Trustees also considered information regarding elevated DDT levels
in seabird eggs in the SCB compared to eggs of the same or closely
related species at distant colonies along the Pacific coast. Fry (1994)
reported that total DDT egg residues were significantly elevated in the
SCB colonies compared to other colonies for the following species: the
western gull, the double-crested cormorant, the pigeon guillemot, and
the ashy storm-petrel. Xantus's murrelets were also documented as having
elevated residues of DDTs in their eggs on Santa Barbara Island (Fry
1994).

The Trustees assigned nexus ratings to different seabird species of the
SCB after considering the above information regarding eggshell thinning
and DDT levels in seabird eggs. A high nexus rating was given for those
projects targeting species with severe or significant eggshell thinning
and/or for which DDT egg residues were significantly elevated in the SCB
colonies. Consequently, the following seabirds received a high nexus and
are considered priority species for restoration: the double-crested
cormorant, Brandt's cormorant, the California brown pelican, the western
gull, the ashy-storm petrel, Cassin's auklet, the pelagic cormorant, and
the pigeon guillemot. The Trustees assigned a moderate rating to
projects aimed at a species whose eggs did not show severe or
significant eggshell thinning but had elevated levels of DDTs in eggs
(e.g., Xantus's murrelet). The Trustees gave the lowest ratings to
projects directed at species that were likely exposed but for which no
known evidence existed of severe or significant eggshell thinning or
elevated levels of DDTs.

In addition to eggshell thinning and DDT data, the Trustees also
considered the conservation status of a seabird species when determining
priority seabirds for restoration. For example, the California brown
pelican and Xantus's murrelet are considered priority species for
restoration based on their and endangered and threatened status,
respectively.

#### Criterion 2: Feasibility {#criterion-2-feasibility .unnumbered}

Criterion 2 concerns the likelihood that the benefits associated with
potential actions will be achieved in actuality. The feasibility of a
potential action refers to a number of considerations relating to the
likelihood that the action will be completed and will produce its
intended results. For this criterion, the Trustees considered three
sub-factors:

-   An action's technical feasibility (i.e., the practical question of
    an action's ability to be built and/or implemented as envisioned)

-   Potential barriers to an action's implementation (e.g., regulatory
    hurdles or public acceptance)

-   The degree of ongoing operation and maintenance needed to ensure
    that the action continues to produce the intended results

#### Criterion 3: Resource Benefits {#criterion-3-resource-benefits .unnumbered}

Criterion 3 concerns the benefits of a potential action to specific
injured natural resources/lost services. Specifically, the Trustees
considered how effective each action would be in restoring the specific
injured natural resources and lost services at issue in the Montrose
case. For the purposes of Tier 1, evaluation of the Criterion 3 was
isolated from considerations of feasibility or cost and included
consideration of four sub-factors:

-   The degree to which injured natural resource values and services are
    improved by the action

-   The degree to which benefits are measurable

-   The duration of the benefits

-   The conservation status of the resource(s) receiving benefits

#### Criterion 4: Ecosystem Benefits {#criterion-4-ecosystem-benefits .unnumbered}

Criterion 4 concerns the degree to which a potential action leads to
sustainable improvements in broader ecological functions. By design,
some actions are narrowly focused on benefiting a particular resource
(e.g., fish stock enhancement or fishing access improvements are
intended specifically to benefit specific fishing services and not to
have broader benefits on fish habitat). Under this criterion, the
Trustees gave a higher rating to actions that not only benefit a
targeted resource but also benefit multiple species or resources or
employ an ecosystem approach to restoring resources and services.

### Process for Applying the Criteria within Each Restoration Category

In the Tier 1 evaluation, each restoration idea was evaluated only in
relation to the other ideas within the same category, as it is the
Trustees intent to carry forward several ideas from all of the
categories to maintain a diverse set of alternative actions. Thus, a
peregrine falcon project was evaluated against other peregrine falcon
projects, but not against bald eagle, seabird, or fishing projects.

Once all the restoration ideas within each category were evaluated, the
ideas and their ratings were arranged in an ordered list, with those
considered most promising at the top of the list. Tier 1 was not simply
a pass/no pass evaluation; sometimes the most promising elements of two
or more ideas were combined into a single stronger action. The following
sections describe the specific considerations and results of the Tier 1
evaluation by category.

## Tier 1 Evaluation of Fishing and Fish Habitat Restoration Ideas

There were 21 wide-ranging restoration ideas evaluated within the
fishing and fish habitat category. Many of them represented variations
on common themes, and as a result the Trustees found it useful to
organize and consolidate restoration ideas according to five common
themes: habitat manipulation, stock enhancement, public access, marine
protected areas, and public outreach and education.

### Fish Habitat Manipulations 

Habitat manipulations encompass three sub-themes or approaches, each of
which arises from several individual project ideas. The first approach
involves some variation of artificial reef creation, the second approach
involves kelp forest restoration, and the third approach involves
restoring wetland habitats. Reef construction and kelp forest
restoration are primarily directed toward changing habitats from open,
sandy-bottom habitats that produce or attract soft-bottom feeding
fishes, which generally contain higher concentrations of DDTs and PCBs,
to hard-bottom and structured habitats that produce/attract fish species
that forage in the water column or on reef-based food items and
generally contain lower concentrations of these contaminants. Wetland
restoration has more general aquatic habitat benefits that, if properly
designed, include some general and less area- or site-specific
improvements to fishing via the contribution of estuarine/wetland
habitats to fish production.

In applying the Tier 1 criteria, the various artificial reef approaches
rate high. Because fish, fish habitat, and the services that fish
provide to anglers are integrally linked, the MSRP restoration
objectives target not just improvements to fishing services but also to
fish and the habitats on which they depend. Constructing artificial
reefs in areas where fish consumption advisories exist for
soft-bottom-feeding species but not for water-column-feeding species
accomplishes both the fishing and the fish habitat objectives of the
restoration. Thus, reef construction provides a habitat-based solution
to increase the relative abundance of fish that provide maximal health
benefits and pose minimal health risks in areas affected by advisories.

Relative to the predominant expanses of soft-bottom and other types of
hard-bottom habitats in the Southern California marine environment, kelp
forests are relatively rare, with an average total of approximately 88
square kilometers (34 square miles) of canopy coverage in the Southern
California Bight, including the Northern and Southern Channel Islands
(Murray and Bray 1993). This coverage constitutes approximately 0.1
percent of the 78,000-square-kilometer (30,116-square-mile) area of the
SCB (Dailey et al. 1993). Increasing the extent of kelp beds along the
Southern California coast would provide conditions that favor the
production of water-column feeding fishes that are less likely to feed
from contaminated benthic (sediment) communities and may therefore be
less likely to accumulate contaminants. However, kelp forest
rehabilitation by itself (i.e., out-planting of kelp and other algae
species in the absence of other actions to create suitable substrate) is
not viewed as a sustainable approach to restoring habitat in part
because of the transient nature of kelp-forest canopies (Dayton et al.
1992).Thus, "stand-alone" approaches to expanding kelp beds (e.g., the
out-planting of kelp) in the absence of other actions do not rate as
high as artificial reef development approaches that incorporate into
their design the promotion of natural recruitment of kelp. Nevertheless,
the out-planting approach might be investigated at a later date as an
add-on component to artificial reef development should it be found that
such out-planting methods accelerate the creation of self-sustaining
kelp communities.

The restoration of full tidal exchange wetland and estuarine habitats
has broad ecological benefits including benefits to several species of
marine fish. However, based on analysis of factors influencing marine
fish production at local and regional scales, the Trustees estimate that
creation of artificial reefs at sites where consumption advisories are
in place would have more direct, measurable benefits to the specific
lost fishing services of the case. Although wetlands and estuaries are
clearly important habitats for some fishes, the link between production
of fish by newly restored estuarine habitats and changes in fishing
services for the anglers that are most affected by fishing advisories is
difficult to establish (Appendix A3). However, contributing to wetland
restoration may be viewed as fulfilling the MSRP fish habitat objective
by increasing the amount and quality of what is currently an important
but limited aquatic habitat in the region. Furthermore, this approach
could be directed to specifically benefit popular sport fish species
known to depend on coastal estuarine habitat at critical life stages
(e.g., California halibut) and species that are at particularly low
population levels (e.g., spotted sand bass). For this reason, wetland
restoration was carried forward into detailed Tier 2 evaluation.

### Stock Enhancement

Stock enhancement ideas for restoring fishing services (ideas 7, 8, and
15 in Table 5-2) include two approaches. One is a "put-and-take"
approach, whereby fish are cultured until they reach a legal or
nearly-legal size and then are released in marine waters near fishing
locations where fish consumption advisories are in place. In theory,
these fish would be much lower in contaminants and would be caught
instead of existing fish that are contaminated (the released fish could
be tagged so the angler would know which fish were safe to eat).
Although the put-and-take approach has some positive features, its
sustainability is limited because of its high and long-term operational
and maintenance costs. For this reason, restoration ideas involving this
put and take form of stock enhancement were not carried forward to the
Tier 2 evaluation.

A second stock enhancement approach is to use captivity-reared fish to
re-build populations of fish that have reached critically low levels of
abundance or to increase the availability of popular sport fish that are
typically lower in contamination. The effectiveness of this approach for
marine species is uncertain, though there may be some potential for
successful stock enhancement of some estuarine-dependent species (e.g.,
the California halibut or the spotted sand bass).

When considered as isolated projects, the hatchery-based approaches to
restoration did not rate as high as other approaches for fulfilling the
MSRP restoration objectives and were not carried forward to Tier 2.

### Fishing Access Improvements

Several restoration ideas in this category proposed improving fishing
services by creating or improving public access to fishing sites where
anglers are likely to catch fish lower in contaminants (see ideas 5 and
14 in Table 5-2). These improvements could entail building new or
extending existing fishing structures, operating fishing barges, and
other similar approaches.

When evaluated apart from fish habitat improvement projects, fishing
access projects only partially fulfill the restoration objectives of the
case and thus are not rated high overall. Developing fishing access in
association with the creation of artificial reefs links fishery
improvements to anglers and thus is more highly rated. For this reason,
stand-alone fishing access improvement projects were not carried forward
to the detailed Tier 2 evaluation; however, fishing access improvements
have been incorporated as potential design components to enhance the
public benefits of artificial reef creation projects in the Tier 2
evaluation.

### Marine Protected Areas

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are sections of the ocean set aside for
various conservation, restoration, recreational, and fisheries
management purposes. The MPA concept spans a broad range of management
options, from designation of ecological preserves to the application of
limited fishing or biota collection restrictions. MPAs may, among other
things, help rebuild depleted fisheries and improve fish catch outside
of their boundaries, thus enhancing fishing services.

Two fishing restoration ideas proposed for MSRP funding suggested the
use of MPAs as a means of restoring both fishing and fish habitats. One
idea is that the Trustees contribute funds to support a more
comprehensive implementation (i.e., monitoring, public education, and
enforcement) of the newly established Channel Island MPAs. The other
idea is for the Trustees to pursue, in partnership with other
appropriate entities, the future establishment of MPAs in closer
proximity to the areas affected by the contaminants of the Montrose case
(i.e., closer to the Palos Verdes Shelf).

Of the two specific MPA ideas, only the idea of providing implementation
support to the existing Channel Islands MPAs was carried forward for
detailed Tier 2 evaluation. Because these MPAs already exist this
proposal is readily achievable, and strengthening the management and
evaluation of the Channel Island MPAs would contribute to MSRP goals by
clarifying the "spillover" benefits of MPAs to fishing and fish stocks
outside their boundaries, which may ultimately benefit fishing services
throughout California. The idea of creating new MPAs in the Palos Verdes
Shelf region did not receive a high feasibility rating, as the Trustees
consider the likelihood of successfully implementing new MPAs to be
uncertain at this time. This idea was not carried forward to Tier 2.

### Public Outreach and Education on Fishing

Public outreach and education activities are key components of MSRP
restoration activities on a number of levels (see Section 5.4.1). Under
the category of fishing and fish habitat restoration, public outreach
and education activities were proposed as a specific approach to
restoring lost natural resource services by providing information to
people that allows them to make knowledgeable choices about where to
fish, what to fish for, and how to prepare fish for consumption. Because
contamination levels are not uniform but vary by location and species of
fish, adequate fish contamination data would make it possible to
identify and promote optimal fishing services and thus increase public
use and enjoyment of fish services. This type of activity would
transcend current outreach efforts, which focus on warning the public
about where they should avoid fishing or which fish they should avoid
catching and eating.

Although a public information program on fishing services would not
provide any fish habitat benefits, the concept rated high enough with
respect to nexus, feasibility, and resource benefits to be brought
forward to the Tier 2 evaluation.

### Other Fishing and Fish Habitat Ideas

Several other ideas evaluated in Tier 1 did not rate as high overall as
the four combined ideas that have been carried forward to Tier 2. Each
of these ideas is discussed briefly below.

-   **Convert decommissioned oil platforms to artificial reefs.** This
    idea did not rate high enough to be brought forward to Tier 2
    because of regulatory feasibility issues and its appropriateness for
    MSRP implementation. This idea calls for modifying existing permit
    requirements to allow decommissioned oil platforms to remain in
    place; however, there would be no need for MSRP funding given that
    the decommissioning is the responsibility of platform
    owners/operators. Also, the locations of these platforms would not
    make fishing readily accessible to shore-based anglers. Finally,
    there is a potential that chemical contaminants in shell mounds
    (formed over time under platforms as encrusting invertebrates fall
    from the platform support surfaces and accumulate on the bottom) may
    need to be addressed.

-   **Restoring overgrazed seashore in Abalone Cove.** This idea did not
    rate high in the areas of technical and regulatory feasibility. The
    culturing and out-planting techniques suggested raised technical
    practicability issues and long-term sustainability is uncertain.

-   **Provide transportation for anglers to areas with "clean" fish.**
    This idea raised operational and regulatory feasibility issues (e.g.
    concern that such a program could be sustained financially and
    whether local communities would object to out fluxes/in fluxes of
    anglers) as well as concerns that benefits to anglers would likely
    be short-term and highly dependent on many use and preference
    factors beyond the control of the program.

-   **Restore white abalone.** This idea did not have a strong nexus to
    the injuries of the case.

-   **Clean up Consolidated Slip.** This idea did not meet the
    requirements of the final Montrose consent decree, which prohibits
    use of settlement funds for response actions in the "onshore areas,"
    which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of
    California continue to pursue.

-   **Create a 50-acre wetlands and wildlife preserve within the
    Consolidated Slip.** This idea did not rate high overall,
    principally on technical feasibility grounds (creating wetlands out
    of uplands). In addition, the nexus to the injuries of the case was
    moderate since higher, intertidal type of wetlands would not likely
    function as good habitat for the species of fish, such as California
    halibut, commonly caught by marine anglers.

-   **White croaker commercial market certification program.** This idea
    did not rate high in the areas of operational feasibility and
    ecosystem benefits. The feasibility issues that such a program would
    present include having a verifiable system to ensure the integrity
    of the certification that white croaker for sale are in fact clean.

The results of the Tier 1 evaluation of fishing and fish habitat
restoration ideas are presented in Table 5-2. Several separately listed
ideas pertaining to reefs, kelp, and fishing access were combined into a
single concept for the purposes of Tier 2 evaluation.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Table 5-2\                                                         
  List of                                                            
  Ideas to                                                           
  Restore                                                            
  Fishing                                                            
  and Fish                                                           
  Habitats                                                           
  ---------- ------------------------------------------------------- ----------
  Idea No.   Fishing and Fish Habitat Restoration Ideas              Pass to\
                                                                     Tier 2?

  1          Construct artificial reefs and fishing access           Yes
             improvements                                            

  2          Provide public information to restore lost fishing      Yes
             services                                                

  3          Restore full tidal exchange wetlands (several potential Yes
             locations)                                              

  4          Augment funds for implementing Marine Protected Areas   Yes
             in California                                           

  5          Operate fishing barge(s) over existing or constructed   Merge
             reef(s)                                                 concept
                                                                     with #1

  6          Create protected shallow water habitat in existing      No
             harbor areas                                            

  7          Supplement near-shore fisheries in areas affected by    No
             the contaminants of the case with clean,                
             hatchery-raised fish                                    

  8          Spotted sand bass hatchery program                      No

  9          Restore depleted kelp beds of Malibu and Palos Verdes   Merge
                                                                     concept
                                                                     with #1

  10         Convert decommissioned oil platforms to artificial      No
             reefs                                                   

  11         Establish new Marine Protected Areas within the Palos   No
             Verdes Shelf region                                     

  12         Restore overgrazed seashore in Abalone Cove             No

  13         Provide transportation for anglers to areas with        No
             "clean" fish                                            

  14         Improve public amenities and fishing access at Marina   Merge
             del Rey, White Point Beach, Point Vicente, and Point    concept
             Fermin                                                  with #1

  15         Giant sea bass hatchery program                         No

  16         Restore white abalone                                   No

  17         Restore algae (kelp) on Palos Verdes coast              Merge
                                                                     concept
                                                                     with #1

  18         Protect and restore Ormond Beach wetlands               Merge
                                                                     concept
                                                                     with #3

  19         Clean up Consolidated Slip                              No

  20         Restore/create 50-acre wetlands and wildlife preserve   No
             within the Consolidated Slip of Los Angeles Harbor      

  21         White croaker commercial market certification program   No
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

##  Tier 1 Evaluation of Bird Restoration Ideas

Three categories of bird resources were considered separately for the
purposes of this Restoration Plan: bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and
seabirds.

### Bald Eagles

The Trustees are funding two ongoing studies for bald eagles in the SCB
(see Section 4.2.1). The outcomes of the studies will influence the
ultimate selection of bald eagle restoration actions within this
Restoration Plan. Nevertheless, the Trustees were able to refine some of
the initial restoration options through Tier 1 evaluation, irrespective
of future study results. These results are presented below.

All of the restoration ideas for bald eagles fell into three main
concepts: (1) restoring bald eagles to the Northern Channel Islands, (2)
restoring bald eagles to Santa Catalina Island, and (3) restoring bald
eagles to the mainland.

-   Restoring bald eagles to the Northern Channel Islands. In 2002, the
    Trustees initiated a multi-year study to investigate the feasibility
    of re-establishing bald eagles on the Northern Channel Islands. This
    study, described in an Environmental Assessment released by the
    Trustees (MSRP 2002), seeks to determine whether current levels of
    DDTs in the marine environment surrounding the Northern Channel
    Islands have declined sufficiently to allow a self-sustaining
    population of bald eagles to once again occupy this habitat. Because
    the young bald eagles hacked onto Santa Cruz Island under this study
    will not attain reproductive age for several years, the outcome of
    the study will not be known within the time frame of the development
    of this Restoration Plan. For this reason, the Trustees will
    continue to retain options in support of restoring bald eagles to
    the Northern Channel Islands, including maintaining a bald eagle
    captive breeding program and releasing additional eagles. These
    options were further explored within the context of the Tier 2
    evaluation; however, final decisions on whether to implement
    additional actions will be made once the outcomes of the Northern
    Channel Islands (NCI) Feasibility Study are known (in or around
    2008). Once the Trustees decide on a specific course of action, they
    will document it and provide the public an opportunity for review
    and comment.

-   Restoring bald eagles to Santa Catalina Island. This concept entails
    continuing and/or modifying the ongoing program to restore/maintain
    bald eagles on Santa Catalina Island in addition to completing the
    NCI Feasibility Study. This program was initiated in the early 1980s
    by the Institute for Wildlife Studies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, and other
    parties, independent of the governments' natural resource damage
    assessment case against the Montrose defendants. The MSRP began
    funding this effort after the settlement in 2001 as a data gap study
    (see Section 4.2.1). Although DDT discharges virtually ceased many
    years ago, exposure to the residual levels of DDTs still present in
    the environment have thus far prevented the Santa Catalina Island
    bald eagles from successfully reproducing without human
    intervention. Annual collection of eggs from the nests of Santa
    Catalina Island bald eagle pairs, artificial incubation of the eggs,
    and fostering of chicks back into the nests are required to maintain
    this population. In recent years, the Trustees have assumed full
    funding of this program to ensure that the option of maintaining a
    population of bald eagles on Santa Catalina Island received
    consideration within this Restoration Plan. The current program and
    any additional options to restore this population were rated high
    enough to be brought forward to detailed analysis in the Tier 2
    evaluation**.**

-   Restoring bald eagles on the mainland. The third concept entails
    restoration of bald eagles at one or more sites on the mainland of
    Southern California and Baja California. The goal of this concept
    would be to promote and enhance breeding and wintering opportunities
    in general geographic proximity to, but not in the Channel Islands.
    This concept could include such actions as the enhancement of
    nesting and foraging habitat, protection of nest and roosting trees,
    and reintroduction of eagles into suitable, but unoccupied, habitat.
    Several specific ideas for this concept were proposed, including the
    reintroduction of eagles to the Baja California coastline and
    enhancement of foraging habitat at Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park,
    located on the Palos Verdes Peninsula.

> In the Tier 1 evaluation, the mainland bald eagle restoration concept
> did not rate as high as the Northern Channel Island and Santa Catalina
> Island concepts for nexus and resource benefits. Mainland restoration
> of bald eagles was not found to have a strong nexus to the Montrose
> case (as the bald eagle injuries occurred and continue to occur in the
> Channel Islands). Furthermore, because bald eagle populations on the
> mainland of California are already recovering from past decline
> (Jurek, pers. comm., 2004), and because intensive urbanization
> throughout the greater Los Angeles metropolitan region leaves suitable
> bald eagle breeding habitat extremely scarce, the potential benefits
> did not rate as high as the benefits associated with the other two
> concepts. Thus, the mainland bald eagle restoration concept was not
> carried forward to Tier 2 evaluation. The results of the Tier 1
> evaluation of bald eagle restoration ideas are presented in Table 5-3.
> The two ideas brought forward to Tier 2 were further developed and
> renamed as described in Section 5.5, Section 6, and Appendix B.

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Table                                                             
  5-3\                                                              
  List of                                                           
  Ideas to                                                          
  Restore                                                           
  Bald                                                              
  Eagles                                                            
  --------- ------------------------------------------------------- ----------
  Idea No.  Bald Eagle Restoration Project Ideas                    Pass to\
                                                                    Tier 2?

  1         Restore bald eagles to the Northern Channel Islands     Yes

  2         Restore bald eagles to Santa Catalina Island            Yes

  3         Restore bald eagles on the mainland                     No
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

### Peregrine Falcons

A total of five restoration ideas for peregrine falcons were analyzed
within the Tier 1 evaluation. These ideas ranged from restoring
peregrine falcons to the Southern Channel Islands to forming a
management group to address peregrine falcon--related issues. The
project ideas fell into the following five concepts: (1) restoration of
peregrine falcons to the Southern Channel Islands, (2) restoration of
peregrine falcons on the Baja California Pacific Islands, (3)
acquisition and enhancement of peregrine falcon habitat on the Palos
Verdes Peninsula, (4) creation of a peregrine falcon management group,
and (5) enhancement of foraging habitat for peregrine falcons at Ken
Malloy Harbor Regional Park.

The first concept involves the restoration of peregrine falcons to the
Southern Channel Islands. It is estimated that historically up to 30
pairs of peregrine falcons nested on the Channel Islands prior to 1945
(Hunt 1994). The first re-established pair of peregrine falcons was
recorded in 1987 on San Miguel Island. Although peregrine falcons have
resumed nesting on all the Northern Channel Islands, up until recently
no nesting observations have been confirmed for peregrine falcons on the
Southern Channel Islands, with the exception of Santa Barbara Island. To
confirm the anecdotal accounts of the presence of breeding peregrine
falcons on Santa Catalina Island, the Trustees funded a survey of the
island in 2004 (PBRG 2004). The survey confirmed the presence of two
pairs of peregrine falcons on Santa Catalina Island, although successful
breeding was not observed. Coupled with observations of increasing
numbers of peregrine falcons throughout the Channel Islands, the
Trustees brought forward two different approaches for evaluation in Tier
2 for the restoration of peregrine falcons to the Channel Islands:
implement active peregrine falcon restoration (Appendix C1) and monitor
the recovery of peregrine falcons (Appendix C2).

The Trustee Council also brought forward the concept of restoring
peregrine falcons populations on the Pacific islands off of Baja
California, Mexico. By increasing the number of peregrine falcons on
these islands, the recovery of this species on the Channel Islands may
occur faster due to an increase in dispersing juveniles from the Baja
California Pacific Islands. The Trustees further explored this concept
within a Tier 2 evaluation (Appendix C3).

The concept of enhancing foraging habitat for peregrine falcons on the
Southern California mainland (ideas 3 and 5 in Table 5-4) was not
selected for Tier 2 evaluation. This decision was largely due to the
successful recovery of peregrine falcons on the mainland. The Trustees
received two specific restoration ideas for habitat enhancement on the
Palos Verdes Peninsula; however, because peregrine falcons in this area
are not limited by foraging habitat, the benefits associated with this
concept are expected to be minimal.

The final concept of creating a management group to work on peregrine
falcon issues was likewise not carried forward to the Tier 2 evaluation.
Although the presence of such a group would be useful in coordinating
regional issues, the creation of a management group would not result in
on-the-ground restoration of peregrine falcons. This concept does not
further the Trustees' goal of restoring the peregrine falcon population
on the Channel Islands.

The results of the Tier 1 evaluation of peregrine falcon restoration
ideas are presented in Table 5‑4.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Table 5-4\                                                   
  List of                                                      
  Ideas to                                                     
  Restore                                                      
  Peregrine                                                    
  Falcons                                                      
  ----------- ------------------------------------------------ ----------------
  Idea No.    Peregrine Falcon Restoration Project Ideas       Pass to\
                                                               Tier 2?

  1           Restore peregrine falcons to the Channel Islands Yes, divided
                                                               into two
                                                               actions:
                                                               implement active
                                                               restoration and
                                                               monitor ongoing
                                                               recovery

  2           Restore peregrine falcons to the Baja California Yes
              Pacific Islands                                  

  3           Acquire and enhance peregrine falcon habitat on  No
              the Palos Verdes Peninsula                       

  4           Create a peregrine falcon management group       No

  5           Enhance foraging habitat for peregrine falcons   No
              at Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park               
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

### Seabirds

Eighteen restoration ideas receiving consideration fell within the
category of seabird restoration. The Trustees evaluated these projects
against the criteria and rating considerations identified in Section
5.1.

For the nexus criterion, the seabird category presented a special
situation, given the large number of proposed actions that would benefit
one particular species of seabird or group of similar seabirds. Not all
seabirds proposed for restoration can be clearly shown to have been
impacted by DDTs and/or PCBs. The Trustees concluded that they would
consider injury evidence for seabirds species by species and rank higher
those projects that benefit species having an injury associated with
these contaminants (see Section 5.1.1).

The seabird projects that were carried forward to Tier 2 represented a
diverse set of ideas to restore seabird populations in the SCB. The
majority of the projects that were carried forward include some form of
habitat restoration, creation, or enhancement that would provide
benefits to multiple species. The highest-rated projects also
demonstrated a high degree of feasibility and benefit, as demonstrated
by similar projects that have been successfully carried out elsewhere.

Several other ideas evaluated in Tier 1 did not rate as high overall as
the eight ideas that were carried forward to Tier 2. These other ideas
are described briefly below.

-   **Restore ashy storm-petrels to the Southeast Farallon Island.**
    This idea did not rate as high as other seabird projects primarily
    due to its location outside of the SCB. Although this project
    targets a priority species for restoration (the ashy storm-petrel),
    other projects targeting ashy storm-petrels within the SCB received
    higher ratings with respect to nexus.

-   **Create mainland nesting habitat for colonial seabirds.** This idea
    did not pass Tier 1 due to a relatively weak nexus to the injuries
    of the case (see Section 5.1.1). Although the benefits of this idea
    were considered high for the target species, this idea did not rate
    high in the ecosystem benefits category because it focuses on
    certain colonial seabirds.

-   **Create cormorant nesting platforms.** Although this idea rated
    high for nexus, benefits were not considered long term due to the
    necessary maintenance on such platforms. This idea also received a
    lower rating in the category of ecosystem benefits since it would be
    designed solely to attract nesting cormorants.

-   **Fund a California brown pelican patrol/enforcement position.**
    This idea did not pass Tier 1 because the benefits were anticipated
    to last only as long as the project was in place, and would
    therefore not be self-sustaining. This idea also received a lower
    rating in the category of ecosystem benefits, as it would primarily
    target California brown pelicans.

-   **Enhance nesting habitat for shearwaters in New Zealand.** This
    idea did not pass Tier 1 due to a relatively weak nexus and a
    location outside of the SCB (see Section 5.1.1).

-   **Reintroduce tufted puffins to Prince Island.** This idea did not
    pass Tier 1 due to a combination of factors. This species received a
    lower nexus rating and is not considered a priority for restoration
    (see Section 5.1.1). This idea also received a lower rating in the
    category of ecosystem benefits, as it focuses on the reintroduction
    of a single species.

-   **Purchase Bird Rock off of Santa Catalina Island.** This idea did
    not pass Tier 1 because its benefits to the priority seabirds and
    ecosystem are expected to be low. Given its proximity to Santa
    Catalina Island, seabirds on the 1.3-acre Bird Rock receive a high
    level of disturbance from human activity (e.g., from kayakers and
    boaters). It is also highly unlikely that Bird Rock would be
    developed in the future; therefore, purchase of the Rock would not
    provide substantial long-term benefits to seabirds.

-   **Create a Geographic Information System (GIS) atlas of California
    brown pelican roost sites.** Although this project targets a
    priority seabird, the atlas would cover areas outside of the SCB, as
    a similar atlas is currently being created for Southern California.
    Because this idea would target areas outside of the SCB, it received
    a relatively low nexus rating. The benefits of this atlas are
    expected to be lower than on-the-ground restoration projects for
    California brown pelicans because it would largely be a planning
    tool for events such as oil spills and would need to be updated on a
    periodic basis. This idea also received a lower rating in the
    category of ecosystem benefits, as it focuses only on the roosting
    locations of California brown pelicans.

-   **Enhance nesting habitat for grebes and loons in Northern
    California.** This idea proposes to reduce human disturbance at
    nesting locations. This idea did not pass Tier 1 due to a relatively
    weak nexus (see Section 5.1.1). Also, implementation of this idea
    would occur outside of the SCB. In addition, this idea received a
    lower rating in the category of ecosystem benefits, as it focuses on
    reducing human disturbance at particular nesting colonies.

-   **Attract common murres to Prince Island.** This idea did not pass
    Tier 1 due to a relatively weak nexus (see Section 5.1.1). Common
    murres do not currently breed in the target area, and the
    feasibility of the idea is uncertain. This idea also received a
    lower rating in the category of ecosystem benefits, as it focuses on
    the restoration of one species.

-   **Attract California brown pelicans to Prince Island and Scorpion
    Rock.** This idea was evaluated separately for the two locations.
    Although the nexus rated high for both locations, the benefits of
    the idea received a low rating. California brown pelicans are
    currently not limited by available breeding habitat on Anacapa and
    Santa Barbara Islands; therefore, no substantial benefits are
    anticipated from establishing breeding at these locations. This idea
    also received a lower rating in the category of ecosystem benefits,
    as it focuses on the restoration of one species.

The results of the Tier 1 evaluation of seabird restoration ideas are
presented in Table 5-5.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Table 5-5\                                                         
  List of                                                            
  Ideas to                                                           
  Restore                                                            
  Seabirds                                                           
  ---------- ------------------------------------------------------- ----------
  Idea No.   Seabird Restoration Project Ideas                       Pass to\
                                                                     Tier 2?

  1          Restore seabirds to San Miguel Island                   Yes

  2          Restore alcids to Santa Barbara Island                  Yes

  3          Restore seabirds to San Nicolas Island                  Yes

  4          Restore seabirds to Scorpion and Orizaba Rocks          Yes

  5          Restore seabirds to Baja California Pacific Islands     Yes

  6          Create/enhance/protect California brown pelican roost   Yes
             habitat                                                 

  7          Implement an entanglement reduction and outreach        Yes
             program to protect seabird populations                  

  8          Restore ashy storm-petrels to Anacapa Island            Yes

  9          Restore ashy storm-petrels to the Southeast Farallon    No
             Island                                                  

  10         Create mainland nesting habitat for colonial seabirds   No

  11         Create cormorant nesting platforms                      No

  12         Fund a California brown pelican patrol/enforcement      No
             position                                                

  13         Enhance nesting habitat for shearwaters in New Zealand  No

  14         Reintroduce the tufted puffin to Prince Island          No

  15         Purchase Bird Rock off of Santa Catalina Island         No

  16         Create a GIS atlas of California brown pelican roost    No
             sites                                                   

  17         Enhance nesting habitat for grebes and loons in         No
             Northern California                                     

  18         Attract common murres to Prince Island                  No

  19         Attract California brown pelicans to Prince Island and  No
             Scorpion Rock                                           
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

## Tier 1 Evaluation of Outreach Programs and Research Proposals

### Outreach Programs

Effective public communication and involvement is an integral element of
the MSRP. Public outreach and education activities are a means for
achieving several goals: ensuring transparency and public involvement in
the planning and implementation of the restoration program; improving
utilization of and thus increasing human use services provided by
natural resources; and potentially benefiting natural resources
themselves by modifying human actions that can cause injuries. For the
purposes of this restoration plan, the Trustees are not classifying
proposals for public outreach and education work as a separate natural
resource restoration category. Instead, the Trustees are including
outreach ideas submitted for consideration in developing a comprehensive
and coordinated public outreach and education program that will ensure
the accuracy and consistency of messages, establish effective
partnerships with other programs sharing common goals, and support the
restoration goals of the MSRP.

In response to solicitations for restoration ideas during the initial
stages of restoration planning, the Trustees received several proposals
that MSRP funds be used to support existing outreach and education
programs that raise awareness of regional environmental issues and
stewardship on a broader scale. These programs are listed in Table 5-6.
To the extent that such programs may support MSRP restoration goals
(e.g., through the development of educational materials specific to the
injuries and restoration of the Montrose case) or the utilization of
facilities and staff in direct support of MSRP outreach goals, the
programs are being retained for funding consideration. However, the
Trustees are not evaluating such programs against specific projects that
restore fishing and fish habitat, bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and
seabirds. Rather, as the MSRP outreach program proceeds, these proposals
will receive consideration as a means of implementing outreach
objectives.

### Research Proposals 

The received several proposals that MSRP funds be used for scientific
investigations designed to fill gaps in our current understanding of the
pathways Trustees and exposures of biota to DDTs and PCBs in the SCB as
well as gaps in our understanding of the conservation status and
recovery of seabirds. These proposals are listed in Table 5-6.

One of the goals identified in this restoration plan is to conserve as
much of the funding as possible for actual on-the-ground restoration.
Although many important questions remain unanswered regarding the fate
and effects of DDTs and PCBs in the marine ecosystem, the Trustees seek
to limit expenditures on scientific investigations to those deemed
essential to informed restoration decision-making, design, and
implementation. Rather than passing these research proposals through
tiered evaluation, the Trustees will retain them for consideration in a
stepwise fashion as planning and decision-making proceed and specific
data needs become apparent.

+----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| T  |                                                                 |
| ab |                                                                 |
| le |                                                                 |
| 5- |                                                                 |
| 6\ |                                                                 |
| Li |                                                                 |
| st |                                                                 |
| of |                                                                 |
| Pu |                                                                 |
| bl |                                                                 |
| ic |                                                                 |
| Ou |                                                                 |
| tr |                                                                 |
| ea |                                                                 |
| ch |                                                                 |
| a  |                                                                 |
| nd |                                                                 |
| Re |                                                                 |
| se |                                                                 |
| ar |                                                                 |
| ch |                                                                 |
| I  |                                                                 |
| de |                                                                 |
| as |                                                                 |
+====+=================================================================+
| Ou |                                                                 |
| tr |                                                                 |
| ea |                                                                 |
| ch |                                                                 |
| I  |                                                                 |
| de |                                                                 |
| as |                                                                 |
+----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1  | Provide funds for the Channel Islands National Park/ Sanctuary  |
|    | educational programs                                            |
+----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2  | Provide funds for the Center for Marine Studies educational     |
|    | programs                                                        |
+----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3  | Expand the existing educational program of the Marine Mammal    |
|    | Care Center                                                     |
+----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 4  | Develop interdisciplinary curriculum/activity guide for middle  |
|    | school grade levels                                             |
+----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 5  | Provide funds for construction of an interpretive center at     |
|    | White Point Nature Preserve                                     |
+----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Re |                                                                 |
| se |                                                                 |
| ar |                                                                 |
| ch |                                                                 |
| I  |                                                                 |
| de |                                                                 |
| as |                                                                 |
+----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1  | Monitor DDT/PCB concentrations in peregrine falcons             |
+----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2  | Marine mammal monitoring/sampling program in the Los Angeles    |
|    | area                                                            |
+----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3  | Enhancement of restoration efforts for birds through collection |
|    | and assessment of pinniped carcasses                            |
+----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 4  | Seabird monitoring                                              |
|    |                                                                 |
|    | -   Implement a comprehensive seabird monitoring program        |
|    |     (contaminant concentrations, population, effectiveness of   |
|    |     MPAs in protecting populations)                             |
|    |                                                                 |
|    | -   Expand monitoring of seabird populations at Northern        |
|    |     Channel Islands                                             |
|    |                                                                 |
|    | -   Augment seabird monitoring of Anacapa Restoration Program   |
|    |     funded by the American Trader Restoration Council           |
+----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 5  | Determine current DDT/PCB concentrations in seabird eggs within |
|    | and adjacent to the SCB                                         |
+----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 6  | Analysis of impacts to seabirds from chronic releases of DDT    |
|    | and PCBs into SCB                                               |
+----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 7  | Increase scope and monitoring of brown pelican nesting area     |
|    | closures                                                        |
+----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+

## Tier 2 Evaluation

Seventeen actions were brought forward from the Tier 1 evaluation for
detailed evaluation in Tier 2:

**Fishing and Fish Habitat**

-   Construct artificial reefs and fishing access improvements

-   Provide public information to restore lost fishing services

-   Restore full tidal exchange wetlands (several potential locations)

-   Augment funds for implementing Marine Protected Areas in California

    **Bald Eagles**

-   Complete the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study before deciding on
    further restoration actions

-   Complete the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study; regardless of its
    outcome, continue funding Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program

    **Peregrine Falcons**

-   Restore peregrine falcons to the Channel Islands

-   Monitor the recovery of peregrine falcons on the Channel Islands

-   Restore peregrine falcons to the Baja California Pacific Islands

    **Seabirds**

-   Restore seabirds to San Miguel Island

-   Restore alcids to Santa Barbara Island

-   Restore seabirds to San Nicolas Island

-   Restore seabirds to Scorpion and Orizaba Rocks

-   Restore seabirds to Baja California Pacific Islands

-   Create/enhance/protect California brown pelican roost habitat

-   Implement an entanglement reduction and outreach program to protect
    seabird populations

-   Restore ashy storm-petrels to Anacapa Island

### Tier 2 Criteria

For the Tier 2 evaluation, the Trustees expanded on the set of criteria
used in Tier 1 to distinguish how well the different potential
restoration actions achieve the restoration objectives. Four of the
criteria for evaluating actions in the Tier 2 evaluation are identical
to those used in the Tier 1 evaluation:

-   **Criterion 1: Nexus** (relationship to the natural resource
    injuries and lost services of the Montrose case)

-   **Criterion 2: Feasibility** (likelihood that potential benefits
    will be achieved in actuality)

-   **Criterion 3: Resource benefits** (benefits to specific injured
    natural resources and lost services)

-   **Criterion 4: Ecosystem benefits** (degree to which the actions
    lead to sustainable improvements to broader ecological functions)

Among these criteria, the Trustees consider the nexus and resource
benefits to be of paramount importance.

In the Tier 2 evaluation the Trustees considered two additional factors:

-   **Criterion 5: Environmental acceptability.** All of the restoration
    actions under consideration are intended to improve the natural and
    human environment. Nevertheless, there can be environmental
    trade-offs in any project and the National Environmental Policy Act
    (NEPA), California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and other
    requirements mandate full consideration and disclosure of potential
    environmental consequences. Actions are evaluated to determine
    whether they have no significant impacts to the environment, have
    impacts that may be easily mitigated to non-significance, or are
    likely to result in significant impacts that require substantial
    mitigation commitments.

-   **Criterion 6: Cost.** Cost estimates were developed for each
    action. If an action being evaluated is still conceptual (e.g., an
    artificial reef program) and is scalable, estimates of incremental
    components were developed. For the actions ultimately selected, the
    Trustees may pursue partnerships to increase the effectiveness of
    the projects and reduce their costs.

### Results of the Tier 2 Evaluation

All of the actions evaluated individually in Tier 2 were found to
satisfy the evaluation criteria and are considered reasonable approaches
to restoration, though some are still conceptual and would require
further evaluation and impact assessment on development of greater
project specificity. The complete write-ups of the Tier 2 evaluations
are lengthy and have been provided in Appendices A--D.

All 17 actions cannot be included within a single comprehensive
restoration plan alternative, as some are mutually exclusive (e.g., the
two bald eagle actions) and available funding is not sufficient to cover
all the projects. The ultimate aim of this Restoration Plan is to
identify alternative combinations of these individual actions and to
select one alternative that optimizes restoration of natural resources
and services within the constraints of available funds.

As a final step in developing this Restoration Plan, the Trustees
assembled different combinations of the individual restoration actions
from Tier 2 into comprehensive alternatives for comparison and analysis.
In the next section, the 17 potential restoration actions are first
summarized, and then the comprehensive alternatives assembled from
different combinations of these actions are described.