Superfund: Status of Selected Federal Natural Resource Damage Settlements
(Letter Report, 11/20/96, GAO/RCED-97-10).

Under federal law, parties responsible for the release of hazardous
substances are liable for damages to natural resources caused by the
release. GAO reported in April 1996 on settlements for the five largest
federal natural resource damage cases. (See GAO/RCED-96-71.) This
follow-up report finds that settlements have been reached at an
additional 62 sites as of July 1996, resulting in $33.8 million in
awards to federal trustees. About 80 percent of the funds awarded had
been collected. Of the collected funds, about 19 percent had been
allocated for performing damage assessments, planning, or restoration.
One site had been restored, and seven were in various stages of
restoration. The trustees' use of the remaining 81 percent of the
collected money was awaiting the completion of restoration plans or
other activities, such as cleanups or settlements with other responsible
parties at the same site.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-97-10
     TITLE:  Superfund: Status of Selected Federal Natural Resource 
             Damage Settlements
      DATE:  11/20/96
   SUBJECT:  Claims settlement
             Environmental monitoring
             Renewable natural resources
             Environment evaluation
             Damage claims
             Hazardous substances
             Pollution control
             Environmental law
             Liability (legal)
             Government collections
IDENTIFIER:  EPA National Priorities List
             Superfund Program
             Texas
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Chairman, Committee on Commerce, House of
Representatives

November 1996

SUPERFUND - STATUS OF SELECTED
FEDERAL NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE
SETTLEMENTS

GAO/RCED-97-10

Natural Resource Damage Settlements

(160352)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
     Liability Act of 1980
  DOI - Department of the Interior
  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
  FWS - Fish and Wildlife Service
  NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  NPL - National Priorities List
  NRD - natural resource damage
  PRP - potentially responsible party
  VOC - volatile organic chemical

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-274458

November 20, 1996

The Honorable Thomas J.  Bliley, Jr.
Chairman, Committee on Commerce
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), a party responsible for the release
of a hazardous substance is liable for injuries to natural resources
resulting from the release.  The regulations implementing the act
designate certain federal agencies, state governments, and tribal
authorities as natural resource trustees and authorize them to make
claims against the parties responsible for the injuries.  The federal
trustees include the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service. 

In April 1996, we reported on the status of the settlements reached
in the five largest federal natural resource damage cases.\1 As a
follow-on to that report, you asked us to determine (1) the number
and status of the remaining settlements under CERCLA and (2) the uses
made of the collected funds. 


--------------------
\1 Superfund:  Outlook for and Experience With Natural Resource
Damage Settlements (GAO/RCED-96-71, Apr.  16, 1996). 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

As of July 1, 1996, in addition to the settlements for the five
largest cases, settlements had been reached at 62 sites, resulting in
$33.8 million in awards to federal trustees.\2 Of the $33.8 million
awarded, about 80 percent had been collected.  Of the collected
funds, about 19 percent had been allocated for performing damage
assessments, planning, or restoration.  One site had been restored,
and seven were in various stages of restoration.  The trustees' use
of the remaining 81 percent of the collected funds was awaiting the
completion of restoration plans or other activities, such as cleanups
or settlements with other responsible parties at the same site. 


--------------------
\2 We reported in April 1996 that the settlements for the five
largest natural resource damage cases totaled $83.8 million. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

Under CERCLA, the parties responsible for the release of hazardous
substances into the environment are liable for their cleanup.  In
addition, CERCLA makes these responsible parties liable for the costs
of restoring natural resources that have been injured by releases of
hazardous substances.  The law defined these resources broadly to
include land, fish, wildlife, groundwater, and other resources
belonging to, managed by, or otherwise controlled by federal or other
governmental entities.  Only natural resource trustees can file
natural resource damage claims under CERCLA against potentially
responsible parties. 

A natural resource damage claim has three basic components: 

  -- the necessary and reasonable costs of performing the damage
     assessment;

  -- the costs of restoring the resource to the condition that would
     have existed had the release not occurred (restoration costs),
     taking into consideration the effects over time of natural and
     human activities unrelated to the release of the contamination;
     and

  -- the costs associated with the loss of the resource and/or the
     benefits or services derived from the resource (e.g., a
     wetland's provision of habitat for animals and birds or a body
     of water's provision of opportunities for commercial or
     recreational fishing) from the date of the injury until the full
     restoration of the resource and/or the benefits or services. 


   NUMBER AND STATUS OF
   SETTLEMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

As of July 1, 1996, the federal trustees had reached settlements with
potentially responsible parties for injuries to natural resources at
62 sites.\3 Of the $33.8 million awarded to the federal trustees in
the settlements, $27.1 million had been collected for 56 of these
sites, leaving an uncollected balance of $6.7 million.  According to
agency officials, most of the uncollected balance was either for
recently concluded settlements or for settlements being collected
under a structured payout schedule.  (See app.  I for additional
details.)


--------------------
\3 Again, this figure excludes the settlements for the five largest
cases. 


   USES OF COLLECTED FUNDS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Of the $27.1 million in collected funds, $5.2 million had been
allocated (i.e., spent or made available for expenditure) as of July
1, 1996, to reimburse the trustees for performing past damage
assessments, to prepare natural resource restoration plans, or to
restore or replace the natural resources that had been injured. 
Restoration had been completed at one site--French Limited, located
in Harris County, Texas.  This restoration was accomplished by the
responsible parties.  Figure 1 summarizes the status of restoration
at the 62 sites as of July 1, 1996.  The remaining $21.9 million in
collected funds had not yet been allocated for any purpose.  (See
app.  II for information on how the agencies plan to use, or are
using, the funds collected for the sites whose restoration plans have
been completed.)

   Figure 1:  Status of
   Restoration at 62 Sites

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  No damages had been collected for five of the sites where no
planning had started as of July 1, 1996. 

Source:  GAO's presentation of data from FWS and NOAA. 

FWS and NOAA officials, at headquarters and in the field, point to
several factors that hamper their ability to begin planning and
conducting a restoration effort after damages have been collected. 
These factors include the following: 

  -- When a natural resource restoration project is associated with a
     Superfund site, the restoration usually cannot begin until the
     Environmental Protection Agency has completed its cleanup of the
     site. 

  -- Although one settlement may have been reached at a site, work
     usually cannot begin if litigation is pending against other
     potentially responsible parties at the site. 

  -- The money collected under a bankruptcy proceeding may not be
     sufficient to undertake a viable restoration effort.  Therefore,
     it may be combined with other moneys to benefit natural
     resources in the same geographic area. 

  -- When a settlement includes a negotiated payment schedule, the
     trustees may have to wait to accumulate enough money to begin a
     restoration. 

  -- Agency staff may not be available to perform the necessary work
     and carry out the restoration. 

  -- Restoration projects may be complicated by environmental laws,
     permit requirements, or requirements for public participation. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

We transmitted copies of a draft of this report to the departments of
Commerce and of the Interior for review and comment.  In general,
both agencies agreed with the facts presented in the report.  The
Department of Commerce noted that the topic is complex and described
our analysis as complete and accurate.  The Department of the
Interior (DOI) described our review as detailed and fair.  The
agencies' comments appear in appendixes III and IV, respectively. 

Both agencies generally elaborated on points already covered in the
report.  For example, the Department of Commerce said that several
factors have hampered the trustees' ability to begin restoration. 
The Department stated that restoration could be slowed when payments
are received over time or when environmental laws or requirements for
public participation extend the process.  We included these factors
in the list of reasons that the agencies gave for slow restoration. 
The Department also provided technical and editorial comments, which
we incorporated into the report as appropriate. 

DOI said that in addition to the restoration activities performed
through the settlements discussed in our report, restoration has been
accomplished through settlements requiring work by responsible
parties and through cleanup settlements containing restoration
requirements.  DOI officials told us they did not have data on the
number of settlements requiring work by responsible parties (referred
to as "in-kind" settlements) but said such settlements were not
common.  Furthermore, DOI officials told us they could not readily
provide information on the frequency of the cleanup settlements or
the nature of the restoration activities; however, the officials
believed that these settlements were more frequent. 

For many of the cases we reviewed, DOI officials also indicated why
restoration planning had not yet begun.  They said, for example, that
collections have only recently been made or that payments have been
partially received.  We agree that many of these reasons could cause
delays, and we had already listed them in our report.\4 However, one
factor mentioned by DOI may not be sufficient to account for delays
in restoration planning.  DOI indicated that when collections in
bankruptcy cases fall below the damages that the government has been
awarded, restoration planning can be delayed.  Although the trustees
may need to wait until bankruptcy collections have been completed
before starting a restoration, in most of the cases discussed in this
report, DOI had received all or most of the moneys expected under the
bankruptcy settlement. 


--------------------
\4 DOI also disagreed with the note to fig.  1 of the report, stating
that no collections had been made at six, not five, of the sites
where planning had not yet started.  After we discussed this number
with DOI officials, they agreed that five was the correct number. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

From information provided by the Department of Justice, FWS, and
NOAA, we compiled a list of CERCLA's natural resource damage
settlements that required a cash payment by a responsible party to a
federal trustee.\5 We considered a case settled if, as of July 1,
1996, a consent decree had been entered by a court or an
administrative order on consent had been signed by the Environmental
Protection Agency.  To obtain information on how much money had been
collected through June 30, 1996, under these settlements and how
these funds were being used, we interviewed officials from FWS and
NOAA--the principal federal trustees--in Washington, D.C., and
officials from the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service in the
field.  We also interviewed responsible officials at (1) FWS'
regional offices in Albuquerque, New Mexico; Portland, Oregon;
Minneapolis and St.  Paul, Minnesota; and Hadley, Massachusetts, and
(2) NOAA's field office in Portland, Oregon.  In addition, we
interviewed representatives of the Coalition for Natural Resource
Damage Reform--an industry-supported interest group.  To see how
funds are being spent to restore or replace injured natural
resources, we visited the John Day River and Blackbird Mine
sites--where restoration was ongoing--and French Limited--the only
site where restoration is complete. 


--------------------
\5 The Department of Justice represents the federal trustees during
negotiations of natural resource damage settlements and maintains
information on the status of these settlements. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

As arranged with your office, unless you announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after the date of this letter.  At that time, we will send copies to
the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretaries of Commerce
and of the Interior, and other interested parties.  We will also make
copies available to others on request. 

We hope this information will assist you as you consider the
reauthorization of the Superfund legislation.  If you have any
further questions, please call me at (202) 512-6520.  Major
contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Sincerely yours,

Stanley J.  Czerwinski
Associate Director, Environmental
Protection Issues


STATUS OF FEDERAL NATURAL RESOURCE
DAMAGE SETTLEMENTS UNDER CERCLA AT
SELECTED SITES
=========================================================== Appendix I


                                           Collected\  Allocated\              Restoratio
Site                              Settled           a           b  Planning    n
-----------------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Applied Environmental            $124,000    $124,000          $0  Complete    No
Services, (Shore Realty) N.Y.

Army Creek Landfill, Del.         532,000     532,000           0  Complete    No

Arrowhead Refinery, Minn.         153,753      62,753           0  No          No

Asbestos Dump-Dietzman Tract,   3,500,000   3,397,475           0  No          No
N.J.

Blackbird Mine, Idaho           4,545,100   4,880,146   3,470,902  Complete    Ongoing

Brown's Battery Breaking, Pa.      24,217           0           0  No          No

Bunker Hill Mining &            8,255,000   8,255,000   1,025,700  No          No
Metallurgical, Idaho\c

C & R Battery Co., Inc., Va.       93,384      93,383      27,000  No          No

Caldwell Trucking, N.J.            40,000      40,000       7,038  No          No

Carver Scrap Salvage Yard,          5,000           0           0  No          No
Mo.

Charles-George Reclamation        459,550     465,378      25,800  Ongoing     No
Landfill, Mass.

Cherokee County, Kans.          3,540,171     540,171           0  No          No

Cleveland Mill, N.M.\c            165,000     165,000           0  Ongoing     No

Clinton Street (I. Jones           55,000      31,309       1,722  Ongoing     No
Recycling) Ind.

Coakley Landfill, N.H.            225,502     221,547      12,000  Ongoing     No

Cokers Sanitation Service          80,000      80,000       3,750  Complete    No
Landfills, Del.

Commercial Oil, Ohio                2,849       2,849           0  No\d        No

Cortese Landfill, N.Y.             84,850      84,850           0  No          No

Crab Orchard NWR, Ill.          2,500,000   2,500,000           0  Ongoing     No

Douglass Road/Uniroyal, Inc.      163,035      29,738           0  No          No
Landfill, Ind.

Energy Cooperative Inc., Ind.     100,000     100,000     100,000  No          No

Envirochem Corp., Ind.             32,500      31,804      31,804  Complete    Ongoing

Fisher-Calo Chemical, Ind.         20,000      20,000      20,000  Complete    Ongoing

Fort Wayne Reduction Dump,          5,000           0           0  No          No
Ind.

French Limited, Tex.               29,980      29,980      29,980  Complete    Complete

G&H Landfill, Mich.               217,964     217,964           0  No          No

Great Lakes Asphalt, Ind.          30,730      28,830      28,830  Complete    Ongoing

H.O.D. Landfill, Ill.              15,000      14,561           0  No          No

Hardage/Criner, Okla.               4,567       4,567           0  No          No

Hi View Terrace, N.Y.              25,000      25,000           0  No          No

Hunterstown Road, Pa.               3,000       3,000           0  No          No

Jack's Creek/Sitkin Smelting      136,465         522           0  No          No
and Refinery, Pa.

John Day River, Ore.              275,000     100,710     100,710  Complete    Ongoing

Kummer Sanitary Landfill,          22,000      22,000      22,000  Complete    Ongoing
Minn.

Linemaster Switch Corp.,            6,000       6,000       2,768  No          No
Conn.

Midco I & II, Ind.                304,567      55,746      15,000  Ongoing     No

Missouri Dioxin, Mo.              200,000     200,000           0  No          No

Mobil Mining and Minerals          76,901           0           0  Complete    No
Co., Tex.

Nemadji River Spill, Wis.\c       140,000     140,000           0  Ongoing     No

Ninth Avenue Dump, Ind.           257,916      85,697           0  No          No

Northside Sanitary Landfill,       22,500      22,500      22,500  Complete    Ongoing
Inc., Ind.

Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill,      150,327     149,018           0  No          No
Minn.

Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt,      424,000           0           0  No          No
Mo.

PSC Resources, Mass.              153,720     157,040           0  No          No

Peterson/Puritan Inc., R.I.        43,883      43,883           0  No          No

Pine Street Canal, Vt.            150,000           0           0  No          No

Portland Cement, Utah             200,000     196,626           0  No          No

Publicker Industries, Inc.,       547,000      40,000           0  Ongoing     No
Pa.

Saegertown Industrial Area,        94,510      94,510      10,102  Ongoing     No
Pa.

Santa Clara I Cargo Vessel,       205,000     198,849       6,238  Ongoing     No
N.J.

Sharon Steel Corp., Utah        2,300,000   2,300,000     120,000  Ongoing     No

Solvents Recovery Service of       76,935      77,855         865  No          No
New England, Conn.

Somersworth Sanitary                3,000       3,092           0  No          No
Landfill, N.H.

Southern Lakes Trap and            36,190      26,190      26,190  No\e        No
Skeet, Wis.

Southern Ohio Coal, Ohio        1,910,200     760,200      10,200  Ongoing     No

Sullivan's Ledge, Mass.            30,000      30,000      10,000  No          No

Syncon Resins, N.J.                25,000      25,000           0  No          No

Tar Creek, Okla.                  716,150     142,150           0  Ongoing     No

Vertac Inc., Ark.                 126,000     126,000      84,000  No          No

Wayne Reclamation &                73,474      73,474           0  Ongoing     No
Recycling, Ind.

Wide Beach Development, N.Y.       57,974      40,000           0  No          No

Yeoman Creek, Ill.                  5,000       4,854           0  No          No

=========================================================================================
Total                          $33,801,86  $27,103,21  $5,215,099
                                        5           9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  This table lists the sites at which (1) settlements for
natural resource damages were reached as of July 1, 1996, (2) CERCLA
authority was used, and (3) a federal trustee was a party.  It
excludes the five sites with the largest settlements--Elliot Bay,
Wash.; Montrose, Cal.; New Bedford Harbor, Mass.; Commencement Bay,
Wash.; and Cantara Loop, Cal.  We reported in April 1996 that
settlements for these five sites totaled $83.8 million.  The table
also excludes a $15.1 million dollar bankruptcy settlement with the
Summitville Consolidated Mining Company, Colo., for which no money
will be recovered. 

\a The amounts collected may exceed the amounts agreed upon in the
settlements because of late payments.  In addition, payments are not
yet due for several recent settlements.  Also, at the Southern Ohio
Coal site, the payments are being made under a structured payout
schedule. 

\b As used in this table, allocated funds are those moneys that have
been used to pay for past costs or have been made available for
future costs.  Costs may be incurred to assess the damage, plan the
restoration, or restore the injured natural resource. 

\c The amounts shown for these sites include the funds awarded to the
states and tribes as natural resource trustees because the settlement
agreements did not specify the monetary damages awarded to each
trustee. 

\d According to a Fish and Wildlife Service official, this settlement
is too small to warrant a restoration plan. 

\e According to agency officials, no restoration plan is required for
this site, since the PRP agreed to restore the injured natural
resource as part of the site's cleanup. 

Source:  The information in this table comes from interviews and
documents obtained from the Department of the Interior's Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Department of Justice, and the Department of
Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 


USES OF COLLECTED FUNDS
========================================================== Appendix II

As of July 1, 1996, restoration\6 had been completed at one site
(French Limited) and was ongoing at seven sites.  Restoration plans
were complete for four other sites.  This appendix provides
background information on each of these sites, as well as a brief
description of the natural resources that were injured, the
settlement that was reached with the responsible parties, and the
actual or planned uses of the collected funds. 


--------------------
\6 The term "restoration" includes activities to restore, replace, or
acquire the equivalent of the injured natural resource. 


   FRENCH LIMITED
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

Restoration is complete at the French Limited site.  Located
approximately 20 miles northeast of Houston, within Harris County,
Texas, this site was a sand pit used to dispose of hazardous liquid
chemicals between 1966 and 1971.  The infiltration of liquid
chemicals into the soil and the leaching of chemical residues at the
bottom of the pit (referred to as a lagoon) contaminated groundwater
and subsoils in the vicinity of the site.  Among the contaminants
identified in groundwater were polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and
heavy metals.  In 1982, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
placed the site on the National Priorities List (NPL), its list of
sites eligible for cleanup under the Superfund program.  The
potentially responsible parties (PRP) at the site formed the French
Limited Task Group in 1983 to manage the cleanup and later assumed
responsibility for a marsh restoration project. 


      INJURIES TO TRUST RESOURCES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.1

The migration of contaminated groundwater and subsoils to a nearby
waterway injured trust resources, such as migratory birds, and
damaged crab fisheries.  A total of 21 acres of habitat that support
trust resources was estimated to be injured.  About 7 acres were lost
when a cap was placed on the site to minimize the infiltration of
water, and 14 acres were lost downstream through contamination from
the site.\7 The Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Department
of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
suggested that 21 to 25 acres of land, suitable for marsh
restoration, should be acquired to replace the lost habitat. 


--------------------
\7 A cap is an impermeable membrane or soil cover intended to prevent
the movement of water through the contaminated area and into the
groundwater. 


      SETTLEMENT WITH POTENTIALLY
      RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.2

The federal trustees and the PRPs entered into a consent decree on
March 16, 1993.  Under this consent decree, the PRPs agreed to
restore a marsh to provide for the replacement of natural resources
that had been injured, destroyed, or lost.  Specifically, they agreed
to

  -- acquire a 21- to 25-acre site, suitable for restoration as a
     marsh, that could be connected to the tidal movement of the San
     Jacinto River and would, if possible, be located in the general
     vicinity of the French Limited site;

  -- draft a marsh restoration plan that would include the
     anticipated date for completing the project and identify a
     public entity that would accept title to the marshland;

  -- establish and maintain a $30,000 marshland restoration fund to
     repair any damages to the site caused by hurricanes or floods;
     and

  -- establish a $30,000 fund for the future maintenance of the
     project. 

The consent decree also required the PRPs to reimburse the federal
trustees and the state of Texas for the costs they incurred in
assessing the injuries to natural resources and for any future costs
they might incur in implementing and monitoring the restoration plan. 
At the federal level, DOI was to receive $16,800 and NOAA was to
receive $13,180.  Reimbursements at the state level provided $2,520
to the Texas Attorney General's office, $1,745 to the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department, $1,077 to the Texas Water Commission, and $460
to the Texas General Land Office.  The PRPs agreed to reimburse the
trustees for any future costs that exceeded these amounts and were
incurred within 5 years of the project's completion. 


      USES OF COLLECTED FUNDS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.3

The federal natural resource damage collections were used to
reimburse the trustees for the costs of performing damage
assessments.  The cost of the restoration was incurred by the French
Limited Task Group. 

On August 4, 1994, the French Limited Task Group signed an agreement
with the city of Baytown, Texas, for the creation of a 60-acre
wetland system in an area formerly occupied by the condemned
Brownwood subdivision, a residential area that had been destroyed by
a hurricane.  The task group purchased part of the 60 acres, and the
balance was provided by the city of Baytown, which owned a large
portion of the condemned property.  The task group considered the
60-acre site the most viable for providing the high-quality wetlands
required by the consent decree. 

On March 22, 1996, the task group issued a report on the completed
restoration project--French Limited Wetlands Mitigation - Brownwood
Marsh Restoration Project.  This project was developed in response to
the 1993 consent decree and the subsequent restoration plan, which
provided for establishing 40 acres of saline to brackish marsh, 10
acres of forested land containing freshwater pools, and 10 acres of
stream channels allowing the tidal influence into the system from the
surrounding bays, as well as creating suitable habitat for migratory
birds and other trust resources.  The task force has completed these
enhancements to the property, having planted certain types of
vegetation and removed the foundations, sewers, and power lines in
the former subdivision.  Nature is taking over, and the trust
resources are returning to the restored marshland.  The property will
be maintained by the city of Baytown as a natural resource reserve
that will be available for such uses as nature walks and fishing. 


   BLACKBIRD MINE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

Restoration at Blackbird Mine is ongoing.  This site is located in
the Salmon National Forest, approximately 20 miles west of Salmon,
Idaho.  Mineral deposits were discovered in 1893, and the production
of gold, copper, and cobalt began in 1917.  The most extensive period
of production was from 1949 to 1967 and included both the underground
and open-pit mining of cobalt.  Cobalt is used to strengthen metals
used in the production of military equipment and ammunition.  As the
largest cobalt deposit in the Western Hemisphere, this mine is
considered strategic for U.S.  defense purposes.  Mining activity
peaked in the late 1950s, and Blackbird Mine is currently inactive. 
Currently, most of the world's cobalt comes from Nigeria.  According
to a NOAA official, EPA is overseeing the cleanup. 


      INJURIES TO TRUST RESOURCES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.1

According to documents from NOAA and the Forest Service, ore was
removed from subterranean, surface, and open-pit workings at
Blackbird Mine and was then processed to recover copper, cobalt, and
other valuable minerals.  Toxic metals, which leached from the
exposed rock and tailings piles, migrated to the Blackbird and Big
Deer Creek drainages.  In addition, groundwater and surface water
flowing through the underground tunnels at the mine constantly
discharged contaminated water into these drainages. 

The injuries found at Blackbird Mine include the following: 

  -- All surface water resources in the Panther Creek watershed\8
     downstream from Blackbird Mine were found to be contaminated
     throughout both the high flows of the spring snow melt and the
     low flows of the late summer and early fall. 

  -- The population levels in the Panther Creek watershed for all
     species of salmonids were severely reduced downstream from the
     mine. 


--------------------
\8 The Panther Creek watershed represents about 37 miles of stream in
Blackbird, Bucktail, Big Deer, and Panther creeks. 


      SETTLEMENT WITH POTENTIALLY
      RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.2

In an April 1995 consent decree, one PRP agreed to a $250,000
settlement with the federal and state trustees for natural resource
damages associated with the Haynes Stellite Adit.  (An adit is an
opening to an underground tunnel.) In addition, in a September 1995
consent decree, other PRPs agreed to clean up the Blackbird site and
to reimburse the federal and state trustees for the damage assessment
costs ($4.7 million) and oversight costs ($1 million) associated with
implementing the biological restoration and compensation plan
included in the consent decree.  The PRPs also agreed to place $2.5
million in a federally insured bank to pay for the modification and
operation of a hatchery facility; the design, construction, and
operation of an adult fish trap; and the construction of two
acclimation ponds for juvenile salmon. 


      USES OF COLLECTED FUNDS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.3

As stated above, most of the natural resource damage collections are
to be used to reimburse the trustees for the costs of performing past
damage assessments.  The remaining money will be used by the trustees
to (1) oversee the work being performed by the PRPs to restore the
water quality to support all life stages of the salmon by the year
2002 and (2) restore salmon to the Panther Creek watershed to
supplement the PRPs' cleanup activity.  The PRPs will be responsible
for constructing the facilities called for under the biological
restoration plan, and the state of Idaho will reintroduce salmon, in
consultation with the other trustees, by establishing a fish
hatchery, adult fish trap, and juvenile acclimation ponds.  To
improve the survival of juvenile salmon, this restoration activity
involves measures such as fencing degraded stream channels to exclude
livestock and restore habitat, realigning a portion of the Panther
Creek channel to restore a natural zig-zag pattern, and developing
off-channel rearing habitat along Panther Creek. 


   ENVIROCHEM, NORTHSIDE SANITARY
   LANDFILL, AND GREAT LAKES
   ASPHALT SITES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3

Restoration at the Envirochem facility, Northside Sanitary Landfill,
and Great Lakes Asphalt facility is ongoing.  Because all three
sites, located in Boone County, Indiana, are within the Finley Creek
watershed--which is, in turn, part of the Eagle Creek Reservoir
watershed--the injuries to natural resources at all three sites are
being addressed under a single restoration plan.  Envirochem was
placed on the NPL in 1983.  The Northside Sanitary Landfill was
placed on the NPL in 1984.  The PRPs at the Great Lakes Asphalt site
entered into an administrative order on consent with EPA in 1992. 
The following discussion summarizes the activities at these sites. 


         ENVIROCHEM
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3.0.1

This 6.5-acre facility was used as a solvent-processing and
reclamation facility from 1977 to 1982.  Wastes such as resins, paint
sludges, waste oils, and flammable solvents were received and stored
in drums and bulk tanks.  Through the unauthorized discharge of
contaminated stormwater, unapproved burning of chlorinated
hydrocarbons and other solvents, and spills, both the groundwater and
the soil at Eagle Creek Reservoir and Finley Creek were contaminated. 


         NORTHSIDE SANITARY
         LANDFILL
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3.0.2

The Northside Sanitary Landfill operated as an open dump during the
1950s and 1960s.  In 1971, Indiana permitted this 70-acre site to
accept hazardous wastes.  However, the Indiana State Board of Health
ordered the site to cease operations when problems associated with
uncovered waste, surface and underground burning, and leachate
occurred during 1972 and 1973.  Sampling, both on and off the site,
revealed that groundwater, soils, surface water (Finley Creek and
Eagle Creek), and sediments were contaminated with pesticides, acids,
oils, and volatile organic chemicals (VOC) from the site. 

In 1979, this asphalt production facility began leasing several tanks
located on its property to the operators of the Envirochem site for
the storage of synthetic fuels.  In 1989, approximately 80,000
gallons of hazardous liquid, containing VOCs and metals, was
accidentally released from the leased tanks, contaminating soils, a
drainage system, and a waterway.  The released substances eventually
entered Eagle Creek. 


      INJURIES TO TRUST RESOURCES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:3.1

DOI performed a preliminary survey of the natural resources at the
Northside Sanitary Landfill in 1988, simultaneously updating its
findings for the Envirochem site.  The study found that migratory
birds using the wetland and river habitats near and downstream from
the sites would be exposed to elevated levels of contaminants through
the food chain.  These species include mallards, spotted sandpipers,
American coots, green-backed herons, northern orioles, and tree
swallows.  Moreover, the Eagle Creek reservoir was known to have
nesting Canada geese and was used by migratory waterfowl and osprey. 
The preliminary survey also concluded that, in DOI's opinion, the
off-site movement of contaminants could affect habitat in the range
of the endangered Indiana bat and bald eagle. 

With respect to the Great Lakes Asphalt facility, DOI determined that
trust resources, including migratory birds and endangered species and
their habitat, had been significantly affected by contamination at
the site. 


      SETTLEMENT WITH POTENTIALLY
      RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:3.2

In three 1990 and 1991 consent decrees, the PRPs agreed to pay DOI's
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) $55,000 to settle natural resource
damage claims at the Envirochem facility and the Northside Sanitary
Landfill.  In 1992 and 1994, EPA issued administrative orders on
consent to settle the federal government's claim for natural resource
damages at the Great Lakes Asphalt facility.  Under the
administrative orders, the PRPs agreed to pay FWS a total of $29,800. 
FWS also received $930 for a bankruptcy claim against a PRP at the
Great Lakes Asphalt facility. 


      USES OF COLLECTED FUNDS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:3.3

Because contamination from the Envirochem, Northside Sanitary
Landfill, and Great Lakes Asphalt sites injured the same resources
and the three sites are located close to each other, FWS developed a
single restoration plan for the three, which it issued in February
1996.  This plan provides for restoring and enhancing wetlands near
the contaminated sites--which provide habitat similar to that lost
through residual contamination at the three sites--by purchasing
easements from landowners or acquiring land.  Because several
landowners have expressed interest in selling easements or land, the
trustees hope to have specific properties identified by the end of
1996.  Of the $85,730 available to FWS, about $80,730 will be used to
purchase land or easements and/or restore wetlands, and the remaining
$5,000 will be used to cover administrative costs. 


   JOHN DAY RIVER
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4

Restoration at this site is ongoing.  On February 8, 1990, a tanker
truck skidded off Highway 395 down an embankment into the North Fork
of the John Day River in north central Oregon.  An estimated 3,500
gallons of hydrochloric acid was discharged into the river and flowed
downstream at an approximate rate of 1 mile per hour. 


      INJURIES TO TRUST RESOURCES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:4.1

According to the Final Joint Environmental Assessment and Restoration
Plan for the John Day River Acid Spill prepared by FWS, the state of
Oregon, and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation, the spill drastically changed the river's acidity,
injuring fish habitat and killing an estimated 98,000 to 145,000
fish, including 4,000 anadromous fish, 300 bull trout, and 9,500
Pacific lamprey.  Additionally, the spill killed an estimated 50
percent of the young chinook salmon in the river at that time. 
Aquatic mammals, waterfowl, and endangered species that use the John
Day River basin may also have been directly or indirectly damaged by
the spill.  According to an FWS official, the river's acidity
returned to normal approximately 2 weeks after the spill. 


      SETTLEMENT WITH POTENTIALLY
      RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:4.2

In 1992, FWS, the state of Oregon, and the Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation settled claims against the Thatcher
Trucking Company for $275,000.  The consent decree established a
trust fund to be used only for the restoration, replacement, or
acquisition of resources equal to those injured by the spill. 
Restoration activities are currently ongoing. 


      USES OF COLLECTED FUNDS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:4.3

A restoration committee, whose members represent each of the three
natural resource trustees, was established to solicit proposals for
natural resource restoration projects and to select from those
proposals restoration activities to be funded with moneys available
in the trust fund.  The trustees developed a list of potential
projects to be implemented on the North Fork, Middle Fork, and other
tributaries of the John Day River.  Projects were selected on the
basis of their potential to restore resources injured during the
spill, their applicability to the affected watershed, and their
potential for attracting matching funds. 

The final restoration plan identifies 12 potential restoration
projects.  The selected projects will improve spawning and rearing
habitat for both resident and anadromous fish.  The trustees sought
matching funds to help finance the projects.  According to one FWS
official, the restoration dollars collected from the settlement with
the trucking company will be increased fourfold with matching funds
from entities such as the Bonneville Power Administration, the Forest
Service, and the Nature Conservancy.  Two of the projects currently
under way include redistributing dredge tailings in the North Fork of
the John Day River and fencing 3 miles of Camas Creek.  Both of these
projects will improve spawning and rearing habitat for salmonids by
(1) reducing erosion and the buildup of sediment in the river; (2)
increasing streamside vegetation, thereby reducing water temperatures
and providing additional shelter; and (3) restoring the natural pond
and riffle characteristics of the streams. 


   KUMMER SANITARY LANDFILL
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:5

Restoration at the Kummer Sanitary Landfill is ongoing.  This 35-acre
site, located north of Bemidji, in north central Minnesota, accepted
municipal waste from 1971 to 1984.  EPA placed the site on the NPL in
1984 after hazardous substances (chlorinated organic compounds) were
identified in groundwater under the property and in nearby
residential wells. 


      INJURIES TO TRUST RESOURCES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:5.1

The injuries to natural resources at the site resulted primarily from
cleaning up the site.  The selected remedy required, among other
things, placing a low-permeability cap over the site.  To transport
the capping material to the landfill, a road was constructed through
a wetland to connect the landfill to the source of the capping
material.  FWS determined that a total of 6.7 acres of forested
wetland was lost as a result of constructing the road.  The affected
trust resources included the threatened bald eagle and gray wolf and
breeding habitat for the American woodcock, sharp-shinned hawk, and
numerous songbirds. 

According to FWS' restoration plan, dated February 23, 1995,

     "The injured (lost) habitat could not be restored, and because
     direct 'in-kind' replacement of this wetland was not possible, a
     multiplier of two was used to calculate the acreage necessary to
     replace the lost ecological functions.  The multiplier was
     determined to be appropriate and necessary because many years
     would elapse before the replacement habitat would match the
     functions of the lost habitat.  Thus, the final claim was based
     on the cost to replace 13.4 acres of wetland .  .  .  plus
     administrative expenses."


      SETTLEMENT WITH POTENTIALLY
      RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:5.2

A consent decree was entered into on March 1, 1994, under which the
PRPs agreed to reimburse the federal government $5,112,000 for the
direct and indirect costs it incurred or will incur in implementing
and overseeing remedial actions at the site.  In addition, the PRPs
agreed to pay FWS $22,000 for injuries to natural resources. 


      USES OF COLLECTED FUNDS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:5.3

FWS is currently searching for wetland similar to the wetland lost at
the Kummer Sanitary Landfill to benefit wildlife similar to that
formerly found at the site.  FWS plans to acquire easements on this
proposed property to ensure that it is permanently reserved as a
wildlife habitat.  In addition, existing easements over suitable
areas may be expanded. 


   FISHER-CALO CHEMICAL SUPERFUND
   SITE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:6

Restoration at this 250-acre site in LaPorte County, Indiana, is
ongoing.  The Fisher-Calo Chemical Company, along with the Solvents
Corporation, operated a solvents reclamation and waste storage
facility at the site from late 1972 through mid-1978.  The chemicals
produced, packaged, and disposed of on the property were sodium
hypochlorite, sulfur dioxide, chloride, ammonia, and various
solvents.  Cyanide, acids, and metal-plating wastes were also
accepted from other industries, stored in metal drums, and stockpiled
on the site or dumped on the ground.  In 1974 and again in 1978,
fires on the property destroyed drums containing chemical waste and
bulk storage tanks.  Because groundwater and soils were contaminated
at the site, EPA in 1983 placed the Fisher-Calo Chemical site on the
NPL. 


      INJURIES TO TRUST RESOURCES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:6.1

This site is a grass and prairie ecosystem with associated wetlands. 
The discharge of contaminated groundwater from the site has injured 8
acres of wetlands in the southwest portion of the site.  These
wetlands provide feeding, nesting, and resting areas for migratory
birds and federally designated endangered species.  In addition, the
trustees estimated that at least 150 acres of grassland and old-field
habitats were adversely affected by the contamination.  This acreage
provides the same kinds of benefits as the wetlands to migratory
birds (under both federal and state trusteeship) and to mammals,
amphibians, reptiles, and state-designated endangered species. 


      SETTLEMENT WITH POTENTIALLY
      RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:6.2

Under the February 27, 1992, consent decree, the PRPs agreed to pay
$200,000 to the state of Indiana for injuries to state and joint
federal/state natural resources at the site and $20,000 to DOI for
injuries to federal natural resources.  The state's claim was based
on injuries to the 150 acres of grasslands and old-field habitats. 
The federal claim included an estimated $16,000 for acquiring and/or
restoring 8 acres of wetlands (to replace the number of acres
injured), $2,500 for indirect costs, and $1,500 for past assessment
costs. 


      USES OF COLLECTED FUNDS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:6.3

According to FWS' restoration plan, dated February 1996, the wetlands
and grasslands at the site could not be restored because of the
land's significant alteration and the presence of residual
contamination.  Therefore, the plan calls for FWS and the state to
acquire--through easement or direct purchase--restorable habitat
similar to that lost at the site.  The restoration will be
implemented cooperatively by FWS and the Indiana Department of
Natural Resources.  Indiana has begun to acquire agricultural lands
for the use of wildlife and restorable wetlands.  FWS will use its
funds to enhance wetlands in the area.  The project is expected to be
completed by the end of 1996. 


   APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
   SITE (SHORE REALTY)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:7

The restoration plan for the Applied Environmental Services site is
complete.  This site, approximately 3.2 acres in size, is located in
Nassau County, New York, on part of a peninsula that is surrounded by
the waters of Motts Cove and Hempstead Harbor off Long Island Sound. 
At one time, the site was used primarily for storing petroleum
products.  During the 1970s and into the early 1980s, the site was
also used by various owners and operators to store and distribute
chemical solvents and to store hazardous waste.  Spills of organic
chemicals are reported to have occurred while the site was used to
store and distribute chemical solvents.  The site is included on the
NPL. 


      INJURIES TO TRUST RESOURCES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:7.1

The federal trustees--DOI and NOAA--determined that the release of
hazardous substances injured trust resources at and around the site. 
Contaminants from the site were detected in sediments sampled from
Hempstead Harbor and nearby Motts Cove.  The contamination harmed
marine life and wetlands and mudflats at the site.  These habitats
would normally support a variety of indigenous plants and be used for
spawning, feeding, and foraging by aquatic life and waterfowl.  The
trustees determined that the major problem was the continual leaching
of hazardous substances from the site onto the adjacent mudflats,
eliminating or significantly diminishing the natural functions and
the aesthetic and recreational uses of the area.  In addition, the
federal trustees believe that a wooden bulkhead at the site may be
contaminated with chemicals and that these chemicals may be released
to the adjacent mudflats.  They recommended that the bulkhead be
monitored to determine whether it poses a problem. 


      SETTLEMENT WITH POTENTIALLY
      RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:7.2

In 1984, the state of New York initiated a lawsuit against the owner
of the property at that time.  This action was later expanded to
include other entities, such as the site's previous owners and
customers who sent hazardous substances to the site for storage. 
While not initially a party to these actions, the federal natural
resource trustees, in response to requests from the PRPs for
covenants not to sue for natural resource damages, negotiated a
settlement for natural resource damages.  This settlement was
included in the consent decree, entered into on June 18, 1992, under
which the PRPs agreed to restore wetlands along the site's western
and southern shores.  The restoration will include preparing
specified locations for planting certain species of vegetation to
ensure that the planted areas will support marine life indigenous to
Hempstead Harbor and Motts Cove.  The PRPs had to provide a $25,000
contingency fund to cover the costs of replacing the plantings if
they fail within 5 years of the initial restoration.  In addition,
the PRPs agreed to place $50,000 in escrow for the federal trustees
to replant 2 acres of mudflats adjacent to the site if it is
determined that the appropriate time for replanting is after the
expiration of the PRPs' obligations. 

The PRPs were required to pay a total of $124,000 to the federal
trustees--$60,000 to NOAA for designing and implementing a
postplanting monitoring program to determine the functional success
of the wetlands restoration; $50,000 to DOI for past injuries to
wetlands adjacent to the site and for restoring, replacing, or
acquiring the equivalent of the affected natural resources; and
$14,000, to be split evenly between NOAA and DOI, for past costs
incurred in assessing the natural resource damages.  Finally, the
PRPs agreed to renovate, replace, or remove the bulkhead at the site,
as necessary, if it is determined during the life of the consent
decree that the bulkhead is a source for the release of hazardous
substances. 


      PLANNED USES OF COLLECTED
      FUNDS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:7.3

The consent decree includes a restoration plan that describes the
requirements governing the PRPs' performance of the restoration work. 
According to an attorney in the office of DOI's Solicitor, an
attachment to the consent decree maps out specific locations for
planting certain species of vegetation and the PRPs are expected to
start the planting in mid-1997.  FWS plans to use its $50,000 payment
to create and enhance wetlands in the Oyster Bay National Wildlife
Refuge or other appropriate wetlands in the region.  According to the
lead attorney representing the federal trustees, NOAA is still
formulating its plan for using the $60,000 designated for designing
and implementing a monitoring program. 


   ARMY CREEK LANDFILL
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:8

The restoration plan for the Army Creek Landfill, located in New
Castle County, Delaware, is complete.  During the 1960s, New Castle
County operated this sand and gravel pit as a landfill for municipal
and industrial wastes.  In 1971, contaminants from the landfill were
discovered in nearby private drinking water wells.  To prevent
further migration of the contaminants to public drinking water wells,
the county began to pump out the contaminated groundwater.  The
contaminated groundwater was, however, discharged without treatment
directly into Army Creek--a 3.9-mile-long tributary of the Delaware
River.  EPA placed the Army Creek Landfill on the NPL in 1983. 


      INJURIES TO TRUST RESOURCES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:8.1

According to the restoration plan for the Army Creek Landfill, the
natural resources of concern "include migratory and other bird
species; anadromous and other fish species; the upland, aquatic and
wetland habitats utilized by those species .  .  .  and groundwater."
The discharge of untreated groundwater into Army Creek resulted in
high concentrations of metals in the surface water and sediments of
the creek, which injured the habitat of fish and birds and restricted
the access of fish to valuable nursery habitat.  In addition,
approximately 60 acres of upland habitat was destroyed when a cap was
placed on the landfill as part of the site's cleanup. 


      SETTLEMENT WITH POTENTIALLY
      RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:8.2

On September 12, 1991, the natural resource trustees--NOAA, FWS, and
the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control--reached an $800,000 settlement with certain PRPs for
injuries caused to natural resources.  Of the $800,000, $266,000 went
to FWS, $266,000 went to NOAA, and $268,000 went to the state of
Delaware. 


      PLANNED USES OF COLLECTED
      FUNDS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:8.3

The natural resource trustees completed a restoration plan for the
Army Creek Landfill in February 1996.  Of the $800,000, $200,000 is
to be used solely by the state of Delaware to protect and restore the
groundwater.  Because the cap placed on the site prevents the
restoration of the injured wetlands, the plan outlines two projects
for enhancing off-site habitats. 


         WETLANDS RESTORATION
         PROJECT
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:8.3.1

This two-part project will improve the wetland habitats of Lower Army
Creek.  The water management part of the project will modify an
existing water control structure (at the confluence of Army Creek and
the Delaware River), adding automated tidegates to respond to various
water level cues from both Lower Army Creek and the Delaware River. 
This control structure will manage the flow between these bodies of
water to allow the movement of fish to the marsh for spawning and
feeding and to enhance the quality of the habitat.  The vegetation
management part of this plan will suppress unwanted vegetation and
increase the diversity of the marsh plants, thereby improving the
habitats of waterfowl, wading birds, shore birds, and aquatic
mammals. 


         UPLAND RESTORATION
         PROJECT
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:8.3.2

This project is designed to enhance ecological values, encourage use
by wildlife, and provide a buffer between developed upland areas and
Army Creek.  The trustees intend to acquire and rehabilitate
approximately 60 acres of upland habitat to compensate for the loss
of similar upland acreage caused by constructing an impermeable cap
on the Army Creek Landfill. 


   COKERS SANITATION SERVICE
   LANDFILLS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:9

The restoration plan for the Cokers Sanitation Service Landfills is
complete.  This site, which consists of two former landfills, is
located 1.3 miles northwest of Cheswold, Delaware.  The 10-acre
Cokers Landfill Number 1 was used as a disposal site for latex rubber
production wastes from 1962 to 1976, and the 15-acre Cokers Landfill
Number 2 was used as a disposal site for dewatered latex sludge from
1977 to 1980.  The contaminants found in leachates from the site
included acrolein, ethylbenzene, and zinc.  EPA and the natural
resource trustees found that contaminants could migrate off-site to
the Willis Branch, a tributary to the Leipsic River, which discharges
into the Delaware Bay at the Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge,
potentially injuring the natural resources using the wetland
habitats.  EPA placed the Cokers Landfills site on the NPL in 1987. 


      INJURIES TO TRUST RESOURCES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:9.1

A cap placed on the site during its cleanup (remediation) resulted in
the loss of 3 acres of wetland.  The cap, which was constructed to
encapsulate the waste, prevented the restoration of the wetlands at
the site.  These wetlands provided valuable habitat for waterfowl and
other wildlife and created an important buffer for the Leipsic River
watershed. 


      SETTLEMENT WITH POTENTIALLY
      RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:9.2

In April 1992, certain PRPs agreed to pay the federal trustees--DOI
and NOAA--$80,000 as full reimbursement for injuries to natural
resources at the site caused by past disposal or by any work
performed under the consent decree.  The trustees entered into a
memorandum of agreement that allocated the settlement as follows: 
(1) $71,350 to DOI for use on nearby FWS lands, (2) $7,500 to NOAA
for past costs and anticipated expenses at the site, and (3) $1,150
to the FWS' Annapolis field office for past assessment costs. 


      PLANNED USES OF COLLECTED
      FUNDS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:9.3

FWS finished preparing the restoration plan on May 8, 1996.  The
plan's stated goal is to enhance and provide for biodiversity in the
wetland habitats within the Leipsic River watershed.  These habitats
are similar to those destroyed at the Cokers site.  To accomplish
this goal, FWS intends to combine funds received under the Cokers
settlement with funds yet to be provided by Ducks Unlimited, a
nongovernmental conservation organization, to enhance the value of
the wetland habitat in Shearness Pool (a freshwater pond located
within the Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge).  According to the
restoration plan, this project will provide more than enough benefits
to replace the natural resources injured at the Cokers site. 

Under the first phase of the restoration project, FWS will repair an
existing water control structure so that the water level in the pool
can be adjusted and managed to promote the growth of the vegetation
that serves as food for waterfowl.  After completing this
improvement, FWS can begin to implement the second phase, which will
divide Shearness Pool into two separately controlled impoundments. 
This division will allow the manipulation of water levels to enhance
the habitats of waterfowl, wading birds, and fish.  The total cost of
the project is estimated to be $594,000. 


   MOBIL MINING AND MINERALS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:10

The restoration plan for this site is complete.  Mobil Mining and
Minerals Company, an operating division of Mobil Oil Corporation, is
located in Pasadena, Texas.  On April 6, 1992, a retaining wall
failed, releasing 45 million gallons of gypsum and acidic processing
water, considered hazardous because of its corrosivity.  The released
material flowed into flood control ditches, an open field, the Cotton
Patch Bayou, and eventually the Houston Ship Channel, covering large
areas of terrestrial and aquatic habitat. 


      INJURIES TO TRUST RESOURCES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:10.1

The release affected numerous natural resources.  Injuries occurred
to wildlife, fish, invertebrates, plants, and sediments, as well as
the food, shelter, and nursery values of the affected habitats in the
Houston Ship Channel.  The Cotton Patch Bayou--a habitat for birds,
terrestrial reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and invertebrates such as
crayfish--was severely degraded.  Important aquatic resources
affected by the release, especially in the Houston Ship Channel,
included commercially and recreationally important finfish and
shellfish, mollusks, invertebrates, and plankton. 


      SETTLEMENT WITH POTENTIALLY
      RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:10.2

Under a consent decree entered into on June 13, 1996, Mobil Mining
agreed to undertake a wetlands restoration project.  This project is
designed to replace the natural resources injured by the release by
providing for the creation of approximately 17 acres of intertidal
estuarine marsh and approximately 15 additional acres of freshwater
wetlands and enhanced upland habitat at Mobil Mining's Pasadena
facility.  Mobil Mining also agreed to (1) meet specific performance
standards and (2) provide a maximum of $100,000 in additional funds
to the state and federal trustees for rehabilitating the restoration
site if it is damaged by hurricanes, high water flows, or floods and
for maintaining the project for 3 years after its completion. 

In addition, the consent decree required that the state and federal
trustees be reimbursed for the costs of investigating the release and
the resulting injuries to natural resources.  The federal
trustees--NOAA and DOI--were to receive $73,140 and $3,761,
respectively.  Acting as the state trustees, the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission, and the Texas General Land Office were to be reimbursed
in the amounts of $15,892, $31,384, and $5,925, respectively. 
Finally, Mobil Mining agreed to reimburse the state of Texas and the
federal trustees for their future administrative costs and expenses
incurred to oversee the project's development, implementation, and
monitoring. 


      PLANNED USES OF COLLECTED
      FUNDS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:10.3

According to the Mobil Mining and Minerals Company's Wetland
Restoration Plan, dated September 10, 1995, the company will upgrade
a 33-acre tract of currently degraded land located south of the
Houston Ship Channel at Mobil Mining's plant site.  Specifically, the
company will construct approximately 17 acres of good quality,
tidally influenced wetlands that will provide brackish water to serve
as nursery habitat for finfish.  In addition, the plan calls for the
company to create another 16 acres of freshwater wetlands.  This
combined brackish/freshwater wetland project will include grading the
land and planting desirable, site-adapted vegetation, including
trees, scrub, and wetland plants.  According to an FWS official,
Mobil Mining has applied for permits, and the restoration was
expected to begin by October 1996. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE
========================================================== Appendix II



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix IV
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
========================================================== Appendix II



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

James F.  Donaghy, Assistant Director
Karen L.  Kemper, Evaluator-in-Charge
Edward E.  Young Jr., Senior Evaluator

BOSTON FIELD OFFICE

Maureen T.  Driscoll, Senior Evaluator


*** End of document. ***