University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Spatial narratives of struggle and activism in the Del Amo and Montrose Superfund cleanups: a community-engaged Web GIS story map

(USC Thesis Other)

Spatial narratives of struggle and activism in the Del Amo and Montrose Superfund cleanups: a community-engaged Web GIS story map

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

SPATIAL NARRATIVES OF STRUGGLE AND ACTIVISM IN THE DEL AMO AND MONTROSE
SUPERFUND CLEANUPS:

A COMMUNITY-ENGAGED WEB GIS STORY MAP

by

Mallory Elizabeth Graves

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF SCIENCE
(GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY)

August 2015

Copyright 2015 Mallory Elizabeth Graves
ii

DEDICATION
I dedicate this document to my loving, supportive husband, Ryan Garfat, to my family for their
encouragement throughout this journey, to Cynthia Babich, Florence Gharibian, Cynthia Medina,
Savannah Medina, Margaret Manning, and all others who contributed their hearts, time, and wisdom to
make this project possible, to the Del Amo/Montrose community, to the Del Amo Action Committee, and
to my committee chair Robert Vos, who believed in this project from the beginning and was instrumental
in guiding this research.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am forever indebted to Cynthia Babich, who is living proof that some people are given more than one
lifetime to pursue the work they are called to do. You have taught me that there are some things worth
fighting for even if there is no end in sight. You are a light, a guttural laugh, a lightning bolt, and a force
to be reckoned with. It has been an honor working alongside you.

iv

ABSTRACT
Long-term remedial action Superfund sites pose steep challenges for the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and stakeholders to remain actively engaged in cleanups that could go on essentially in
perpetuity. It is essential for communities impacted by Superfund cleanups to actively participate in the
cleanups so that they may be part of the decision-making process. Citizens directly affected by Superfund
cleanups have unique perspectives, information, and spatial knowledge to contribute, but opportunities for
participation in Superfund may be limited to the agendas, meeting spaces, and timelines of the EPA
(Laurian 2004). In the City of Los Angeles, the Del Amo and Montrose Superfund sites are located
adjacent to each other and directly north of an unincorporated neighborhood of approximately 300
households. Due to the extent of the commingled groundwater contamination originating from both sites,
it is understood by the community that the time frame for cleaning up the groundwater will span 3,000 to
5,000 years. The primary goal of this thesis was to understand and portray the cleanup through the
perspectives of local community members. Specifically, the objectives of this research were to: (1) use a
community-engaged research approach to develop a Web GIS Story Map which incorporated experiential
spatial narratives from the perspectives of local citizens affected by the Del Amo and Montrose cleanups;
(2) ensure that a critical evaluation of the Story Map was possible on behalf of participants throughout the
development of the tool; and (3) promote the Web GIS tool to stakeholder groups and other entities for
feedback and evaluation. The Web GIS Story Map combined interactive Web maps and mixed media to
communicate the history of the Del Amo and Montrose sites, as well as how the community has been
impacted by the cleanups and the contamination over the past two decades. This project demonstrates
how a community-engaged Web GIS Story Map can facilitate dialogue among various stakeholder groups
invested in the cleanups. In addition, this study recognizes the potential for regulator stakeholders to assist
in developing more robust geospatial visualizations of intended remedial objectives.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ...................................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................. iii
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. ix
ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 13
1.1 Online Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) for Environmental Issues .................................. 15
1.2 Community-Engaged Research .......................................................................................... 16
1.3 Motivation .......................................................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 19
2.1 Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) ....................................................................................... 19
2.2 Qualitative GIS within a Critical GIS Framework ............................................................. 23
2.3 Web GIS Story Maps .......................................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER 3: SUPERFUND OVERVIEW AND STUDY SITES .................................................... 28
3.1 The Superfund Cleanup Process ......................................................................................... 30
3.2 Site Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 32
3.3 Del Amo Superfund Site History and Overview ................................................................ 34
3.4 Montrose Superfund Site History and Overview ................................................................ 39
3.5 Dual-Site Groundwater Contamination .............................................................................. 43
3.5.1 The Technical Impracticability Zone for NAPL Containment .............................. 44

vi

CHAPTER 4: METHODS .................................................................................................................. 48
4.1 Phase One of DAAC Involvement and Project Definition ................................................. 49
4.1.1 Land Use Data Sources for Phase One of Web GIS Tool ..................................... 50
4.2 Engagement with the DAAC and the EPA in the Study Community ................................. 52
4.3 Establishment of Web GIS Story Map and Platform .......................................................... 54
4.4 Development of Web GIS Story Map Prototype in a Test Environment............................ 55
4.5 Feedback of Prototype from DAAC and Establishment of Major Narrative Threads ........ 57
4.6 Programming and Technology Workflow for GIS Components of Savannah’s Story ....... 59
4.7 Integration of Qualitative/Mixed Media Components ........................................................ 64
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 66
5.1 Savannah’s Community and the Del Amo and Montrose Sites .......................................... 66
5.2 Historic Structures and Pipelines at the Del Amo Site ....................................................... 68
5.3 Permanent Relocation of Residents and Buyout ................................................................. 69
5.4 Dual Site Groundwater Contamination and Treatment ...................................................... 73
5.5 The Future of Savannah’s Community ............................................................................... 77
5.6 Feedback from Story Map Reviewers ................................................................................ 78
5.6.1 Current Community Resident Feedback ............................................................... 78
5.6.2 DTSC Employee Feedback ................................................................................... 79
5.6.3 External Evaluator Feedback................................................................................. 80
5.7 Summary and Synthesis of Feedback ................................................................................. 81
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .......................................................................... 83
6.1 Considerations for Dynamic Web GIS Visualizations ....................................................... 83
6.2 Reassessment of Story Map Target Audience .................................................................... 85
6.3 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 86
vii

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 89
APPENDIX A: User Functionality Illustration of Operable Units in Story Map ............................... 97

viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Imagery Data Sources for Historical Components of Web GIS Story Map .................................. 52
Table 2 Narrative Categories and Content for Web GIS Story Map .......................................................... 58
Table 3 Map Content, Sources, and Methods for Story Map Development ............................................... 63

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Superfund Cleanup Process Workflow ......................................................................................... 31
Figure 2 Hydrostratigraphic Block Diagram .............................................................................................. 34
Figure 3 1937 WPA Land Use Map ............................................................................................................ 35
Figure 4 1946 Aerial Photo of the Del Amo Site ........................................................................................ 36
Figure 5 1956 Aerial Image of the Del Amo Site ....................................................................................... 38
Figure 6 Map of Del Amo Historical Structures and Pipelines .................................................................. 39
Figure 7 1953 Oblique Aerial Image of Montrose Site ............................................................................... 40
Figure 8 Montrose Site Operable Units ...................................................................................................... 42
Figure 9 Groundwater Plume Map of Contamination for Del Amo and Montrose .................................... 46
Figure 10 Community Engagement Methods Workflow ............................................................................ 48
Figure 11 Story Map Prototype Introduction Page ..................................................................................... 56
Figure 12 Web Map Integration in Story Map Prototype ........................................................................... 56
Figure 13 Programming Workflow for Story Map ..................................................................................... 60
Figure 14 Georeferenced TIFFS of Del Amo Historical Structures ........................................................... 61
Figure 15 Georeferenced and Digitized Structures for Montrose ............................................................... 61
Figure 16 Savannah’s Community and Superfund Boundaries Story Map Section ................................... 67
Figure 17 Result of Clicking on Action Link for Del Amo Site ................................................................. 67
Figure 18 Del Amo Site Historical Structures and Pipelines Web Map ..................................................... 69
Figure 19 Paper Map of Del Amo Community Buyout Homes .................................................................. 73
Figure 20 Groundwater Contamination Plume Web Map .......................................................................... 74
Figure 21 Groundwater Treatment Infrastructure Web Map ...................................................................... 76
Figure 22 Web map of Del Amo and Montrose Operable Units ................................................................ 97
Figure 23 Side panel with Action Links for Operable Units in Story Map ................................................ 98
Figure 24 Map Action for Montrose OU 2 ................................................................................................. 98
Figure 25 Map Action for Dominguez Channel and Torrance Lateral ....................................................... 99
x

Figure 26 Map Action for the Palos Verdes Shelf ...................................................................................... 99
Figure 27 Map Action for White’s Point Outfall ...................................................................................... 100
Figure 28 Map Action for the Historic Kenwood Ditch ........................................................................... 100
Figure 29 Map Action for Kenwood Drain and Historic Ditch Overlay .................................................. 101

xi

ABBREVIATIONS
ATDSR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
bgs below ground surface
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CIC Community Involvement Plan
COCs Contaminants of Concern
DAAC Del Amo Action Committee
DDT dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane
DNAPL Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
Dow Dow Chemical Corporation
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
gpm gallons per minute
ICs Institutional Controls
LBF Lower Bellflower Aquitard
LNAPL Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
MBFB Sand Middle Bellflower “B” Sand
MBFC Sand Middle Bellflower “C” Sand
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
Montrose Montrose Chemical Corporation
µg/L micrograms per liter
mg/kg/day milligrams per kilogram per day
mg/L milligrams per liter
NAPL Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
NCP National Contingency Plan
pCBSA para-Chlorobenzene sulfonic acid
xii

PCE Perchloroethylene
ppb Parts per billion
ppm Parts per million
PRP Potential Responsible Parties
RCRA Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act
RI Remedial Investigation
ROD Record of Decision
RPs Responsible Parties
RPM Remedial Project Manager
RWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
Shell Shell Oil Company
SVE Soil Vapor Extraction
SVI Soil Vapor Intrusion
TCE Trichloroethylene
TI Technical Impracticability
UBF Upper Bellflower
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds

13

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The EPA is responsible for handling the cleanups of nation’s most hazardous waste sites (Superfund sites)
that pose the greatest threat to human health and/or environmental media (soil, soil gas, groundwater, and
other water bodies). Once the contamination from a site has been cleaned up to protective standards, the
site may be returned to productive reuse. However, the Superfund cleanup process is complex, costly, and
may last for many years. In some cases, the nature and extent of the contamination are such that it is not
feasible to remediate all or some portions of the site within a reasonable time period. Nonetheless, it is
essential that stakeholder groups involved in long-term site cleanups communicate regularly with each
other, share data and information, and work collaboratively throughout the process.
A major component of Superfund is to ensure that communities are given adequate information
and opportunities for involvement in cleanup activities and decisions. For residents living in close
proximity to cleanup sites, it is critical to understand the details of the contamination, what the
contaminants are, what media are being affected, and the associated risks (Charnley and Engelbert 2005).
Also, communities should know what the EPA and other regulatory agencies are doing and/or have done
in the past to address the pollution.
In an effort to facilitate community involvement opportunities in Superfund cleanups, the EPA is
encouraged to develop Community Involvement Plans (CIPs) to connect to diverse community groups,
listen to their concerns, and consider their input and suggestions regarding cleanup site decisions (US
EPA 2012). Traditional channels for communicating information to citizens via the EPA include public
meetings, mailers and fliers, site document repositories at local settings such as libraries, as well as online
repositories (Charnley and Engelbert 2005). While these examples may be effective in some Superfund
cleanups, there are other ways in which communities may acquire information and become involved in
the cleanups. Obviously, communities may become highly concerned and thus motivated toward
participation when they are directly impacted by potential or immediate exposure to contamination. This
is what occurred in the residential community living directly south of the Del Amo and Montrose
Superfund sites, when DDT was discovered in backyard soils more than 20 years ago (EPA 2015b).
14

In 1994, a group of community residents concerned about the contamination from the nearby sites
formed the environmental activist organization, the Del Amo Action Committee (DAAC), and they
remain instrumental stakeholders in the ongoing cleanups. The perspectives, knowledge, and first-hand
experiences of the DAAC and other community members are valuable sources of information within the
scientific and engineering contexts of the Del Amo and Montrose Superfund cleanups. Yet these forms of
community representation are not accessible like Superfund site documents one would find online or in a
local repository. A potential avenue for representing community perspectives, local knowledge of place,
and historical events related to the cleanups is a participatory Web GIS tool where contributors provide
information in a dedicated online environment. The Web GIS tool could highlight the spatial and
experiential components of the Del Amo and Montrose site cleanups from the unique vantage point of the
local population.
This study proposed the following as guiding principles in the development of a participatory
Web GIS tool to represent community perspectives of the Del Amo and Montrose site cleanups: (1) A
value proposition for the development of a Web GIS tool should be established on the basis that
community members recognize a need for the tool, or there is a potential positive benefit for the
community as a result developing the tool; (2) Participants in the study should define the goals and
objectives of the Web GIS tool, including the software platform and functionality of the tool, as well as
how it will be used and/or promoted; (3) Participants should be critical evaluators of the tool as it is being
developed to ensure their goals and objectives are being reflected accordingly; (4) Ownership of the tool
should be transferred to the participants/community members after completion of research if the
participants feel that the Web GIS tool will continue to serve a positive purpose and/or be of value in the
future. In order to explain these goals further, participatory Web GIS and community-engaged research is
introduced, as well as the motivation for pursuing this research.

15

1.1 Online Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) for Environmental Issues
Environmental problems are inherently spatial, and the data and solutions involved in addressing an
environmental issue, whether broad (regional) or at a larger scales (the community), are also geographic
in nature (Bailey and Grossardt 2007). The emergence of Web GIS introduced new avenues for
communicating and engaging the public in environmental issues. A number of participatory Web GIS
tools are designed with the intention of bridging the spatial information gap between lay citizens and GIS
experts (Carver et al. 2000; Li, Ru, and Chang 2004; Kingston 2007). Distributed support systems for e-
governance, sustainable development, and land use planning have extended the reach of Web GIS
towards spatially-informed decision-making via online public participation GIS (Web PPGIS) (McColl
and Agget 2006). However, some critics argue that Web PPGIS may not guarantee citizen participation or
serve the internal goals of a community due to politically-driven agendas on behalf of the entities who
design, implement, and deliver PPGIS tools (Elwood and Leitner 1998; Talen 1999; Sutcliffe and Wilson
2011). This result would defeat the purpose of a community-engaged Web GIS built from the bottom-up,
where participants inform the process, goals, and content of the tool.
The field of Critical GIS established a framework for assessing the social impacts and long-term
implications of geospatial data and technologies as they were used and evaluated by a small group of GIS
professionals in the mid-90s. Scholars of Critical GIS argued that only those individuals capable of using
spatial data and technology were qualified to evaluate and assess them, and a new participatory
framework emerged as a means of extending spatial data and tools to the public realm. The participatory
models (such as Web PPGIS systems) still reflected a separation between lay users and GIS developers,
and Critical GIS scholars cautioned against the participatory movement as a truly democratic system.
Critical GIS is explored in this study as a mechanism for confronting the notion of power dynamics
between a GIS professional (the researcher) and non-GIS user participants, as well as a model for creating
the spaces for evaluating the Web GIS on behalf of contributors in situ with its development.
Another focus within Critical GIS is the idea that the analytical power of a GIS may not be
adequate in communicating the experiential, subjective complexities associated with citizens’
16

perspectives of space (Gordon, Schirra, and Hollander 2011). Stoll and Sumn (2005) argue for a new
conceptual framework in developing PPGIS that promotes meaningful community interaction and are
grounded in the unique local context and motivations of the citizens. Sutcliffe and Wilson (2011) suggest
a bottom-up GIS (BUGIS) approach to environmental planning which begins at the neighborhood level,
allowing residents rather than technical experts, to characterize their community. The two extensions of
Critical GIS used in this study (an evaluation mechanism or system of checks and balances throughout the
research process, as well as an awareness of how subjective or experiential spatial information might be
communicated in a participatory Web GIS) were situated directly within the research contexts they
occurred. Taking into consideration the value of representing local perspectives of space within a
participatory Web GIS environment, it is important to establish the principles of community-engaged
research most relevant to this study.
1.2 Community-Engaged Research
Community-engaged research is a collaborative process that involves working directly with groups of
people connected by way of common interests, spatial proximity, or other factors in order to address one
or more problems or issues that they care about (ATSDR and CDC 2011). This research differs from
community-based studies whereby the researcher initiates the research question and the study is
conducted in the community but with little to no direct involvement of the community members in
shaping the research (Wallerstein and Duran 2010). It should be noted that community-engaged research
methods are common to health-related studies and interventions, but are not confined to this area. Rather,
the guiding principles of community-engaged research apply to any study that insists on the direct
involvement and guidance of the community.
More specifically, this method ensures that community members and researchers share equally in
their contributions and are involved in all phases of the research process. In recognizing that a research
agenda may naturally take over if community participation is limited, it is the researcher’s obligation to
accommodate or encourage new spaces or opportunities for engagement. All aspects of a community-
17

engaged approach should embrace opportunities for trust building. While trust can take a long time to
establish, doing so can create lasting partnerships and future opportunities for the community and the
researcher and/or affiliated academic institutions (Horowitz, Robinson, and Seifer 2009). Members of an
environmental activist group, the Del Amo Action Committee (DAAC), served as the participants and
contributors to the Web GIS developed in this study. The relationship necessary to achieve this research
was bolstered through direct and regular meetings with the DAAC, through immersion in the local
community.
1.3 Motivation
Citizens invested in Superfund cleanups must interact with an array of other stakeholders such as the
EPA, local and state agencies, third-party consulting and engineering firms, technical experts, lawyers, as
well as the polluters responsible for creating or disposing of the pollution. Conflicting agendas and
priorities among groups over a substantial period of time can create perceptions of mistrust and poor
handling of critical information and data (Laurian 2004). Further, various obstacles may limit citizen
involvement. Culley and Hughey (2007) describe obstacles such as: “Control of resources, barriers to
participation, agenda setting, and shaping conceptions about what participation [opportunities are]
possible” (99). Community groups or local organizations provide avenues for participation (Laurian
2004), which are more effective than one individual to influence cleanup decisions and activities. This
research was initiated by an interest in exploring community involvement in the Del Amo and Montrose
Superfund sites in Los Angeles.
The Del Amo and Montrose Superfund sites are adjacent to each other in the City of Los Angeles,
and directly north of an unincorporated neighborhood in the County of Los Angeles, located between the
larger cities of Torrance and Carson. The EPA’s online Superfund site profiles include dozens of
documents, reports, fact sheets, and technical records spanning from the mid-1980s to the present, linking
the Del Amo and Montrose sites by way of comingled groundwater contamination. The contamination
from both sites contributed to three groundwater plumes occurring in different aquifers in the Los
18

Angeles Groundwater Basin. An EPA (2013c) map of the plumes occurring in water table units reveals an
area where all three plumes overlap under a block of residential homes. A brief examination of the site
summaries hints at a complex Superfund cleanup in direct proximity to a community and surrounded
elsewhere by predominantly light and heavy industrial and commercial land use.
In mid-November of 2014, the Montrose Superfund website featured a document under the
heading “Community Involvement” (EPA 2014d). The document contained transcribed minutes from a
November 8
th
public meeting held by the EPA about dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) under the
Montrose site. During the meeting, community members posed questions and comments about the
proposed remedies and other issues. One theme mentioned multiple times was the projected time span of
3,000-5,000 years for cleanup. Due to the extent of the groundwater contamination, the length of time to
feasibly return the groundwater to productive use may span thousands of years. A key motivation for this
research was to understand the factors that contributed to the cleanup timeline and perhaps more
importantly, what this means for the community living near the sites. The Del Amo and Montrose
cleanups point to a far more complex narrative, and one that may be understood from the community
members who have lived through them.
Based on preliminary research into the history, extent of the contamination, and the various
cleanup activities associated with the Montrose and Del Amo Superfund sites, the initial motivation for
this project was to design an interactive Web GIS tool for the purpose of educating the public about the
history of the Superfund sites and how they have affected the local community. After presenting this idea
to the DAAC, the committee contended that an online Web GIS Story Map would benefit the public and
the affected community, and expressed an interest in becoming involved in the development of the tool.
Representing the Del Amo Action Committee and the residents affected by the long-term Superfund
cleanups is the central motivation for this project.

19

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND
This section provides a background and overview of how public participation GIS (PPGIS) and other
participatory Web GIS emerged as important vehicles for engaging citizens in spatial problems. Using a
Critical GIS framework, this section also investigates how participatory Web tools and spatial
technologies in general should be assessed. This section underscores the importance of assessing how
spatial information and technologies may exclude non-GIS users, and draws on the work of Critical and
Qualitative GIS to support and represent human experiential knowledge and spatial narratives through a
Web GIS story map.
2.1 Public Participation GIS (PPGIS)
In the 1990s, GIScience came under scrutiny among social scientists, human geographers, and other
critics who recognized that the field was dominated by a small group of individuals with the ability to
manipulate and represent space, arguably the most contested (and contentious) scientific medium.
Gordon, Schirra, and Hollander (2011) cite the ‘rhetorical output’ of GIS and its appeal in influencing
policy within a wide range of power circles. Obermeyer (1998) suggests that the eye-catching maps and
graphics produced by GIS software were so compelling in presentation settings that the soundness of the
science was rarely questioned. Pickles (1995) is perhaps the most prolific contributor to the Critical GIS
debate, framing the complexities of the issue in his book Ground Truth: The social implications of
geographic information systems. Pickles (1995) suggests that a critical assessment of GIS is essential in
understanding its impact on societies in the midst of their (GIS) rapid development, high demand, and the
destabilizing nature of powerful technology in general. Yet, Pickles (1995) argues that these discussions
occurred either within the GIS field and concerned issues of method and technique, or among geographers
who were natural advocates of GIS. This suggests that the technology was accepted within the internal
community of users and supporters and that no formal or unbiased evaluation occurred at all.
If Pickles was correct in this assessment, this brings up important questions about whether (and
how) non-GIS users can meaningfully engage in a critical discussion about GIS, particularly if what they
20

are debating may naturally be the tools’ output (maps) rather than the tool itself. Nonetheless, the
argument for maintaining a critical dialogue about the ways in which spatial problems are represented
(and by whom) remains as relevant today as it was 20 years ago. In hazardous waste site cleanups, GIS
are authoritative tools for providing predictive modeling (such as how and where a contaminated
groundwater plume will migrate in the coming years), assessing levels of exposure associated with
location-specific sampling and monitoring of contaminants, and are invariably responsible for
establishing spatial boundaries of risk and non-risk. For this project, local knowledge of place among
non-GIS users (in this case, the DAAC and other former and current residents of the community) has
directly influenced the Del Amo and Montrose cleanups, has done so without EPA oversight, and without
the use of GIS. Certainly it is the goal of this project to tell the story of these accomplishments in an
online GIS environment, but it is equally important to establish a critical framework that considers the
extent to which these stories are honored or obscured in a GIS.
The Critical GIS debate questioned the effects of GIS on the participatory process, reaching its
peak in the mid-1990’s (Gordon, Schirra, and Hollander 2011). In response, the National Center for
Geographic Information Analysis was established in 1996, bringing supporters and critics of GIS together
to form the Initiative 19 report: “GIS and society: the social implications of how people, space and
environment are represented in GIS.” The report outlined a new path for the future of GIS, distinguishing
the present state of “GIS1,” which focused more on traditional science and cartography from the future
visioning of a “GIS2,” describing a more participatory GIS (Harris and Weiner 1996). This participatory
platform culminated in the concept of public participation GIS (PPGIS) as a means of addressing the
challenges associated with extending the technology for effective use among non-GIS users (Harris and
Weiner 1996). Additionally, the new vision was supported by GIS experts who recognized that doing so
would allow the public to have an influence on how space was represented (Gordon, Schirra, and
Hollander 2011).
While the concept of PPGIS was clear in its motivations to extend the reach of GIS to the public
and establish a more democratic system of access to spatial data and technology, there was no standard
21

model for how a PPGIS should be designed, implemented, and evaluated. Thus, the resulting Web PPGIS
approaches varied significantly in terms of interface design, functionality, and user capabilities, making it
difficult to capture the end-user experience of a typical model in early iterations (Carver et al. 2000).
However, one common thread of Web PPGIS noted by Gordon, Schirra, and Hollander (2011) included
some form of “challenge-based immersion” (511) on behalf of the user such as performing mapping tasks
and queries, identifying features, and customizing and exporting their own maps in various user
environments.
Many Web PPGIS developed by city and county government departments offered a dedicated
Web map with operational layers related to crime, the environment, education, public health, and other
information, which the user could display to create a custom map. Along the lines of Web PPGIS for
planning, Sani and Rinner (2011), introduced argumentation maps which allowed users to participate in
threaded discussions associated with a specific place within a collaborative web map environment,
thereby enabling place-based dialog and engagement. Carver et al. (2000) created a more distributed form
of planning-based Web PPGIS in which users could suggest areas for woodland expansion in a national
park. In this iteration, users were given the contextual data necessary for the planning task, allowing them
to weigh and choose which factors were most important in their site selection decision. For each user, a
custom decision map was created and then added to a final composite map showing all of the
community’s decisions. While each of these examples point to robust extensions of participatory Web
GIS, they also introduce a partition between users/contributors and web developers in the
conceptualization of the tool and the formalization of results.
Without the constraints of a standardized model, evaluation criteria, or even a formalized
definition of Web PPGIS within the GIScience community (Peng 2001), there is not an appropriate
framework for assessing these beyond the general goals of Initiative 19, which included a participatory,
democratic GIS (1996). Defining these terms within a decision-making framework does not reconcile the
concept of Web PPGIS. Gordon, Schirra, and Hollander (2011) point out that access may be a prohibitive
factor for users who may not have internet access or high-speed connections, but also suggest that access
22

may be limited due to user permissions set by administrators. In addition, the open-ended nature of many
Web PPGIS, or what Gordon, Schirra, and Hollander (2011) refer to as a “geographic sandbox” (513),
assumes that users will be able to define the parameters necessary for engaging the spatial data and tools
provided in the interface. On a more fundamental level, Sieber (2006) notes that participation in spatial
knowledge creation does not necessarily empower those who are involved in or impacted by decision-
making. Further, the word “participatory” implies an intercessory role within the broader decision-making
process, where top-down practices occur at institutional, academic, technological, or other levels of
influence (Sieber 2006).
It seems that in lieu of a standard PPGIS model or definition, the proxy for defining and
evaluating them must be context-driven. Also, PPGIS contributors should know how their responses are
being used. If a PPGIS is intended to merely showcase participant responses in a final map or report, it
should be very clear to the contributors that the information is not directly informing a policy decision,
but is rather a representation of the data. As such, a PPGIS that does seek to use citizen data in policy and
decision-making should be explicit in how participant information is weighed in decision-making and
how this is achieved programmatically via Web. Just as GIS came under scrutiny in the 1990s as an
exclusionary, technocratic science, the participatory models that emerged from these critiques have
arguably raised more questions about how citizen contributions are encoded and represented in a given
PPGIS. If we are to consider the output of a decision-based PPGIS in collecting and disseminating the
results of individually “mapped” responses in contrast to a paper ballot in a traditional poll setting, the
former method does not lend itself easily to a democratic system where the voter watches their ballot go
into a machine. A PPGIS contributor has no way of keeping a watchful eye on their response if it is
filtered through the Web, unless they are actively involved and are able to oversee the entire process.
Much like the PPGIS literature, community involvement in Superfund cleanups is heavily
stressed by the EPA as an instrumental component in remediation decisions. Yet, the extent to which
written public comments (the EPA’s formal method of gathering local input on site remediation)
influence the final decisions simply cannot be known. This research, in recognizing the limitations of
23

Superfund and the EPA to provide alternative outlets for citizen participation, is concerned primarily with
how community members might engage a participatory Web GIS in situ with the tool’s creation and
development. As such, the final Web GIS for this project insisted on a participatory process, but it is not
considered a “traditional” PPGIS where users are tasked with contributing spatial information in a formal
online environment within specific time constraints and/or settings. Rather, this research involved an
ongoing participatory process of reviewing and refining the Web GIS tool throughout its development,
based on regular feedback from a designated steering committee. Here again, Critical GIS may be a useful
lens to consider both the challenge and the potential value in representing spatial experiences and
narratives in a hazardous waste environment and the contested spaces it can create.
2.2 Qualitative GIS within a Critical GIS Framework
According to Schuurman (2006), Critical GIS is an approach that evaluates GIS technology and its
associated principles, drawing from social theory, science and technology research, and philosophy. As
explained in Section 2.1 above, Critical GIS is widely attributed to the participatory GIS movement and
later, PPGIS for citizen engagement in geospatial technology and applications, participatory planning, and
decision support systems. Yet Critical GIS as a science has since diminished in influence within the
GIScience community due to several reasons, and Schuurman (2006) attributes this chiefly to, “The
barrier between conceptualization and formalization” (726). This is to say that there is something
prohibitive within Critical GIS in its constitution of questioning (and at times, rejecting entirely) the very
science it engages. It is important to consider a reconciliation of the two schools of thought via a
reframing of how GIS technology can indeed provide a more qualitative, flexible rendering of human
spatial experiences and knowledge (Wilson 2009).
More specifically, Critical GIS recognizes considerable gaps in GIS technology to represent
multiple epistemologies (ways of knowing and acquiring knowledge) and ontologies (in the domain of
Critical GIS, ontologies may be best described as ways of conceptualizing space). The problem can be
best described as “lost in translation;” the case for Critical GIS must be communicated in the
24

computational language of code, and the solution must be accomplished within the coding parameters of
GIS programming capabilities. As such, the plight of Critical GIS to situate ontologies and
epistemologies within GIScience disciplines such as algorithms, spatial analysis, cartography and
visualization, and spatial cognition/reasoning (to name a few) has found little success. Only 11 papers on
ontologies and epistemologies were featured in GIS journals between 1994 and 2004 (Schuurman 2006).
The importance of these subject areas (and Critical GIS) has a number of implications for how the
data models embedded in GIS technology cannot reconcile what Chrisman (1978) states are cartographic
data structures within different concepts of space. Schuurman (2006) refers to a later work of Chrisman in
1993, which considers a GIS data model for spatial representations that connect to and are interpreted
within the social context of everyday life. Schuurman (2006) uses an example of land-use debates and
planning, citing the usefulness of maps “that explicitly represent different connotations of a particular
scenario” (730). Such is true for any shared space or geographic place; common geography does not
imply common interests or interpretations. Future land use scenarios are particularly relevant in
Superfund cleanups, where community members, the EPA, and other agencies and stakeholders may hold
very different opinions for how a site is used after cleanup is achieved.
Wilson’s (2009) contribution to Qualitative GIS in the chapter titled: “Towards a genealogy of
Qualitative GIS” speaks to the work surrounding the challenge of capturing and encoding the subjective
spatial contexts of human experience in the quantitative medium of GIS. Implicit in Wilson’s discussion
of a qualitative GIS is a new opportunity for and iteration of Critical GIS for reframing the
conceptualization problem posed by Schuurman (2006) within the competing subject areas of GIScience
scholarship. Wilson (2009) explains that the practice of qualitative GIS takes on a double critique, one
that questions knowledge-making processes and practices, but goes further to alter these in such a way
that affects change. The same practice can be translated into a general framework for communities
involved in environmental disputes; being critical about a poorly implemented system only goes so far
before it becomes necessary to transform the system or create an alternative one. Invariably, this process
25

involves some form of spatial interrogation, particularly since future land use (or site reuse) is factored
heavily into Superfund cleanup decisions.
The Del Amo/Montrose community and DAAC actively pursued creative avenues that directly
influenced the cleanup process. These examples of community activism are not represented within the
official Superfund site narratives provided by the EPA. These “hidden” narratives then, must instead be
told by the community members themselves. In recognizing that contested representations and valuations
of space exist between the local and scientific communities in the remediation of hazardous waste sites,
this research developed a Web GIS Story Map that seeks to engage a critical dialogue about these
contested spaces, and the areas of influence that have historically acted upon them. A key aspect of this
project involved the regular discussion and critique of the Web GIS tool in situ with its development on
behalf of the community. This method of evaluation reflects another aspect of Wilson’s (2009) case for a
Critical GIS, one that “is bolstered by an insistence on and relevancy through the technology” (17) rather
than a rejection of it.
The next section addresses the use of Web GIS narratives, or story maps, for the purpose of
effectively communicating the history of the Del Amo and Montrose Superfund sites from the perspective
of the DAAC and other residents from the community.
2.3 Web GIS Story Maps
The online story map concept emerged in the past three years as an innovative and immersive platform
for story-telling (Esri 2012). By introducing web maps in a narrative framework, users are oriented
geographically throughout the progression of the story, but maps need not be the sole focus. The
integration of mixed-media (e.g., photos, videos, documents, audio clips, interactive graphics, and
narrative text) addresses two important considerations for the end user and the storyteller. For the
storyteller, mixed-media integration makes room for the non-spatial components of a story. For the end
user, the mixture of media recognizes that users are more likely to engage in a story that sustains their
26

interest, so variety within a story map via text, maps, graphs, photos, and video or audio clips maximizes
its overall impact.
Additionally, the Story Map taps into a person’s natural inclination to skip through certain parts
as they would in any other story such as a book or a movie that does not grab their interest. Basically, the
user can customize their own experience in the choices they make as they use the tool. For instance, they
may choose to click on a list of links to read more about unfamiliar terms or ideas, or they may simply
skip over these and move to the next panel or section of the story. They may be more interested in the
visual arrangement in a Web map, rather than feel compelled to click on individual features in the map.
Regardless of how a user progresses through the tool, the components of a story map should be offered in
such a way that the user determines the extent to which they will engage in each narrative section.
The decision for using the Story Map platform for this study was based on a number of
considerations, primary among these was a recognition on behalf of the steering committee that the
community’s perspectives were best represented in a narrative framework. Specifically, the steering
committee explained that due to the long-term nature of the cleanups over a period of 23 years, a rich
community history emerged, and these histories could be illustrated via multi-media sources collected
during this time (e.g., photos, documents, videos, and hand-drawn maps). All of these components could
be supported within the flexibility of a Story Map platform, along with Web maps and imagery for
providing the spatial context for the narratives. Second, the development of the Story Map was conducive
to a community-engaged research approach, where the committee could participate in the process of
putting the Story Map together. This process also informed the content integration of the Story Map as it
developed, and the committee was able to continue contributing to the content and the narrative up to the
stage of deployment/publication of the Story Map. On a more fundamental level, the Story Map concept
engaged the idea of a qualitative GIS, or human, experiential renderings of space within a geospatial
platform, with flexibility to incorporate both (the geospatial as well as experiential) in one integrated
platform.
27

In addition, the decision to develop a Story Map considered the viability of the tool to exist
beyond this research, ideally as intellectual property that would be transferred to the DAAC if they
wanted to continue maintaining and/or adding to the tool. The development of the Story Map using
proprietary software (such as Esri) would require the DAAC to obtain an organizational ArcGIS account
to host the Story Map. While this is seen as one potential limitation (in a financial sense), it is also an
opportunity to promote and develop the tool beyond the scope of this study, maintain a relationship with
the DAAC, and develop a content migration strategy as well as tools (tutorials, how-to guides, etc.) to
assist the DAAC in long-term maintenance of the Story Map. This is discussed further in Chapter 6, but
overall, the Story Map is well-suited to the process of community-engaged research where a non-profit
organization may inherit and support the Web GIS tool beyond the study if it is of value to them.
For the purpose of the Web GIS story map for this project, a few different end user profiles were
considered in its creation. First, the DAAC and local community are the subject of the story and the
storytellers, so their role as evaluators of and contributors to the tool establish them as the primary
audience. Second, regulatory agencies such as the EPA and the Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) are considered as a secondary target audience, since they may naturally be interested in how
communities perceive and are affected by Superfund cleanups. Third, this tool considers users who may
not have any knowledge of Superfund cleanups or the Del Amo and Montrose sites. For the latter group,
the arrangement and presentation of information within the story map attempts to reach a wider audience
for the sake of breaking down the complexities of Superfund in general, using the Del Amo and Montrose
sites as case studies for learning about the cleanup process and the role of community leadership.

28

CHAPTER 3: SUPERFUND OVERVIEW AND STUDY SITES
This chapter provides an overview of Superfund legislation and the steps involved in Superfund cleanups,
and also introduces the Del Amo and Montrose site histories in more detail. Its purpose is to establish a
foundation and background of Superfund and the study site based on information and research materials
published by the EPA. This chapter does not include the perspectives of the community, as these are
reserved for the Methods and subsequent chapters.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980 was enacted by Congress to prioritize and clean up the nation’s most polluted sites. The passage of
CERCLA, commonly known as Superfund, is closely linked to the Love Canal disaster in the City of
Niagara Falls, New York, where toxic materials from numerous manufacturing companies were disposed
of in a partially constructed, unlined canal for a period of 25-30 years beginning in the 1920s. The waste
materials were buried and the site was covered by dirt in 1953 (Yablonsk, Young, and Morris 1998).
Reports of numerous health issues from residents in the 1970s kicked off a series of actions taken by city,
county, and state departments, yet environmental investigations of the site were not officially conducted
until 1978, when soil, air, and groundwater sampling identified the source and scope of the
contamination. In 1978, under the Carter Administration, Love Canal was declared a federal emergency,
and funds were appropriated to demolish homes and schools built on top of the site, as well as
remediation measures to contain the waste. In 1980, CERCLA statutes formed the baseline provisions for
handling the cleanups of what would amount to hundreds of newly discovered Superfund sites around the
country.
When CERCLA was first established, it was championed as an aggressive legislative effort to put
an end to “careless hazardous waste disposal” (Harris and Wrenn 1988, 36). Originally, the Superfund
was a $1.6 billion trust fund covering a five-year period and was set up to finance the investigation of
hazardous sites and determine the entities responsible for the pollution. In addition, Superfund financed
remedial site costs in cases where responsible parties could not be found or could not pay for the cleanup
(Hamilton and Viscusi 1999). In 1985, when CERCLA was about to expire, the Office of Technology
29

Assessment (OTA) issued a report, Superfund Strategy, which concluded that the scope and magnitude of
hazardous waste sites was far greater than originally anticipated (Harris and Wrenn 1988). The report
states: “The number of dump sites could mushroom to more than 10,000, requiring cleanup efforts over a
span of perhaps 50 years” (Harris and Wrenn 1988, 36). In addition, an estimated $100 billion in funds
would need to be allocated to cover the costs of the projected number of newly discovered sites.
CERCLA was also criticized for its underestimation of the resources necessary to adequately assess
environmental and public health risks as well as the number of professionals who were experienced in
designing and implementing cleanup remedies (Harris and Wrenn 1988).
In 1986, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) was passed by Congress
in an effort to improve upon the apparent weaknesses of CERCLA. Under SARA, stricter requirements
for finding permanent remedial solutions and technologies were stressed. New State and Federal
environmental laws and regulations were required as well as increased State involvement in cleanup
phases. A greater focus was placed on human health impacts of polluted sites, and the trust fund was
increased to $8.5 billion (US EPA 2014). While SARA established more rigorous standards for cleanup
requirements and put human health as the top priority, exorbitant costs and limitations of available
remedial technologies made these difficult to meet the standards at many sites (Harris and Wrenn 1988).
This was particularly apparent in SARA’s groundwater quality cleanup goals, intended to reflect the same
standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which established that water quality should be such that no
adverse health effects were present or anticipated (Harris and Wrenn 1988). The implication of SARA for
some long-term remedy Superfund sites, such as the Del Amo and Montrose sites where multiple
contaminants impact various environmental media, is to add more time and money to an already lengthy
cleanup.

30

3.1 The Superfund Cleanup Process
Under CERCLA, each remedial Superfund cleanup must undergo a series of regulatory steps defined in
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, or National Contingency Plan
(NCP). Figure 1 depicts the steps of the complex process based on the author’s analysis of EPA policy
documents. It is important to note that the Superfund cleanup process and the steps involved do not
necessarily address the entire site as a “one size fits all” remedy to cleanup. Rather, many sites are broken
up into individual operable units (OUs) to reflect the variability of the contamination, the affected media,
the geographic scope, and the characteristics of one OU relative to another. At sites with multiple OUs,
where one or more OU cannot be treated with the same remedy, each OU must step through the phases of
the Superfund process shown in Figure 2. For instance, at the Del Amo site, OU 1 (Soils and Non-
Aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) addresses only those soils and NAPL occurring within the Del Amo site
boundary. The Del Amo OU 2 (Waste Pits Area) addresses only the affected waste pits and surrounding
soils (EPA 2015a). Both OUs required their own Record of Decision (ROD) and Remedial Action (RA).
The OU 1 remedy involved excavating contaminated soils and containing them onsite (to name just one
component of the chosen remedies), while OU 2 required a more aggressive remedy involving the
construction of a concrete cap to seal the waste pits and an in-situ bioventing system to perform soil vapor
extraction (SVE) to treat soil gas (EPA 2011a). The sheer complexity of some Superfund sites may very
well mean that the cleanup process is applied in part or full to multiple components of contaminated
media.
31

Figure 1 Superfund Cleanup Process Workflow

32

3.2 Site Characteristics
The Del Amo and Montrose sites are located in the City of Los Angeles. The sites lie between the larger
cities of Torrance and Carson to the east and west, respectively. The residential community of
approximately 300 households directly south of the sites is in an unincorporated area (County of Los
Angeles). The immediate surroundings include light and heavy industrial as well as commercial land use.
The Exxon Mobil refinery is located about 1.5 miles west of the sites. The sites lie on the predominately
flat alluvial Torrance Plain, with deposits of sands, silts, and clays extending several hundred feet below
ground. The closest body of water to the site is the Dominguez Channel, which is now concrete-lined but
was originally a free-flowing stream in the Dominguez Channel Watershed. The Dominguez Channel
drains an area of about 133 square miles of densely populated and industrial land use through
southwestern Los Angeles (CRWQCB and EPA 2010). It is approximately 2,000 feet northeast of the
Del Amo and Montrose sites. The channel drains about 62% of the Dominguez Watershed into the Los
Angeles Harbor (West Basin Municipal Water District 2009). Two hydrologic subunits comprise the
Dominguez Channel Watershed via an extensive network of underground storm drains: the northern
subunit drains directly into the Dominguez Channel and the southern subunit empties into the Los
Angeles and Long Beach Harbors via the Consolidated Slip (CRWQCB and EPA 2010).
Because the Dominguez Channel runs through densely populated and industrial areas, it receives
various types of discharges and poses water quality issues that have been addressed by a number of water
agencies and regulatory boards (CRWQCB and EPA 2010). More than 50 facilities are permitted to
discharge directly into the channel, including 5 refineries, a generating station, the Terminal Island
Treatment Facility, and others (WBMWD 2009). The Torrance Lateral, a concrete channel created for
flood control, is located less than half of a mile south of the Del Amo and Montrose sites, and empties
into the Dominguez Channel at the junction of the 405 Interstate and Avalon Blvd.
The residential area south of the sites is bounded by 204
th
Street (north), Torrance Blvd (south),
Normandie Avenue (west) and New Hampshire Avenue (east). Two significant natural drainage ditches
(the Normandie Ditch and the historic Kenwood Ditch) located south of the Montrose and Del Amo sites
33

have been linked to accumulation of storm water and historic floods. The Kenwood Ditch ran along the
west perimeter of Kenwood Avenue driveway lines, extending down gradient from 204
th
Street to
Torrance Blvd. The “S” shape of Kenwood Avenue distinguishes it from all other straight-line residential
streets in the study community, and it has sometimes been referred to as the “river” by long-standing
residents of the area (US EPA 2001). Kenwood Avenue remains the lowest natural point in the local
terrain (US EPA 2001). In the late 1960’s and early 70’s, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District
replaced the Kenwood Ditch with the underground (now existing) Kenwood Drain, which is connected to
a larger underground storm drainage network (US EPA 2001). Extensive construction occurred during the
Kenwood Ditch removal, and subsequent drainage and construction projects have occurred in the
community since, including two large-scale soil excavations as well as realignment and matching of
streets and driveways.
There are 7 hydrostratigraphic units underlying the Del Amo and Montrose site (See Figure 2):
the Upper Bellflower (UBF), the Middle Bellflower “B” Sand (MBFB Sand), the Middle Bellflower “C”
Sand (MBFC Sand), the Lower Bellflower Aquitard (LBF), the Gage Aquifer, the Gage-Lynwood
Aquifer, and the Lynwood Aquifer (EPA 2011a). The shallow groundwater units (UBF, MBFB, MBFC,
LBF) are not sources of drinking water, but the Gage and Lynwood aquifers are of particular concern
because the Gage aquifer merges with the deeper Lynwood and Silverado drinking water aquifers just two
miles southwest of the site, near two municipal drinking water wells (ATSRD 2009). The implications of
the hydrostratigraphic composition under the sites is discussed in more detail in a later section, but in
general, the hydrologic characteristics of above-ground and underground drainage channels and networks
as well as the groundwater aquifers are of crucial importance in understanding the scope of the
groundwater contamination as well as contamination affecting the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors
as well as the Pacific Ocean (mainly the Palos Verdes Shelf).

34

Figure 2 Hydrostratigraphic Block Diagram (EPA 2011b)

3.3 Del Amo Superfund Site History and Overview
The Del Amo site is approximately 280 acres in area, and sits at the junction of the 405 and 110 freeways
(EPA 2015a). According to Works Progress Administration (WPA) land use maps from 1937, the former
Del Amo site was composed almost entirely of undeveloped cropland and pasture (See Figure 3). Aerial
imagery obtained from the 2007 Remedial Investigation (RI) for the Del Amo site shows that the area
remained undeveloped through the year 1941, and by 1946 was developed for industrial manufacturing
during World War II (See Figure 4). Specifically, the former Del Amo site operated as a synthetic rubber
manufacturing plant consisting of three separate processing plants: a styrene plant operated by Dow
Chemical Company, a copolymer plant operated by U.S. Rubber, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and
others, and a butadiene plant operated by Shell Oil Company (EPA 2007a).
35

Figure 3 1937 WPA Land Use Map (USC 2015)

Undeveloped
(cropland) Del
Amo site
Montrose site,
shown here in blue
(chemical
manufacturing)
land use
36

The United States government owned all three plants from 1942 until 1955, when it was sold to
Shell Oil (EPA 2015a). Shell continued to operate all three plants at the Del Amo site until 1971, and in
1972, all operations ceased and the plants were dismantled. Today, most of the former rubber
manufacturing site has been redeveloped as an industrial park (EPA 2015a). The site is still owned by
Shell and is surrounded by industrial and commercial development along the east and west boundaries,
the 405 freeway to the north, and residential areas directly south of the Del Amo site boundary.

Figure 4 1946 Aerial Photo of the Del Amo Site (EPA 2007b)

During rubber manufacturing operations at the three processing plants on the Del Amo site,
chemicals and waste products were released into the soil and groundwater beneath the site originating
37

from leaks in pipelines, storage tanks, and processing units (EPA 2011a). In addition, waste was
transferred to separator units, and settled sludge from the units was disposed of off-site or in a waste area
in the south-west portion of the Del Amo site property known as the Waste Pits Area, shown in Figure 5
in the red box (EPA 2015a). The Waste Pits Area covers approximately 4 acres and included four unlined
evaporation ponds and six unlined waste pits (EPA 2015a). The release and disposal of onsite waste
resulted in contaminated soil and groundwater underneath the plant (EPA 2011a). The chemicals used by
the plant include benzene, ethylbenzene, propane, butylene, styrene, and 1,3-butadiene and others (EPA
2011a). In 1972, by the time rubber manufacturing ceased and all three processing plants at the Del Amo
site were permanently closed, the unlined pits and ponds that were still open were covered in soil and
surrounded by a double chain-link fence (EPA 2015a). Most of the parcels on the former facility site have
been redeveloped as an industrial park (EPA 2015a). More than 200 businesses occupy the site including
a Holiday Inn, Coca Cola Bottling, University of Redlands (Torrance Campus), Herbalife International,
Aerotek, FedEx, and restaurants (Esri Business Analyst 2013).
38

Figure 5 1956 Aerial Image of the Del Amo Site (EPA 2007b)

The Del Amo site consists of 3 OUs: OU 1, Soil and non-aqueous phase liquid on and around the
Del Amo site boundary (but excluding the Waste Pits area), OU 2, the Waste Pits area and surrounding
soils, and OU 3G, the dual-site groundwater contamination, which is shared with the Montrose site as a
result of commingled contaminants originating from both facilities (EPA 2014b). (OU 3G is addressed in
section 3.5 of this chapter). The ROD for OU 1 of the Del Amo site was issued in 2011 and revised in
2013. The selected remedies stated in the revised ROD include Institutional Controls (ICs), concrete
capping of certain area on the site, engineering controls to regulate new construction projects which might
result in exposure to contaminated (disrupted) soils and soil gas, soil vapor extraction (SVE) in shallow
soils for indoor and outdoor source areas, and SVE for deeper source area soils (EPA 2011a). The ROD
39

for OU 2 (the Waste Pits area and surrounding impacted soils) was issued in 1997 and included a RCRA-
equivalent (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) cap covering over the Waste Pits area, an SVE
system underneath the Waste Pits to treat soil gas, and deed restrictions prohibiting future residential land
use (EPA 1997g).

Figure 6 Map of Del Amo Historical Structures and Pipelines (EPA 2011c)

3.4 Montrose Superfund Site History and Overview
The Montrose site is approximately 13 acres in area, and is situated directly adjacent (west) to the former
Del Amo facility. According to the WPA land use map from 1937 shown in Figure 3, the Montrose site
40

was already used for chemical manufacturing, while the adjacent Del Amo site was virtually untouched
cropland and pasture. EPA records do not specify any operations or land use at the Montrose site back in
1937, so it is unknown exactly what sort of chemical manufacturing took place during this time or which
company owned the site. This information would be extremely valuable in piecing together even earlier
activities at the site for historical purposes.
Montrose Chemical Corporation was one of the only companies in the US that manufactured the
pesticide DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane). DDT production at the site occurred from 1947 to
1982 (EPA 2015b). Operations at the plant included manufacturing, packaging, and exporting DDT. After
DDT was banned in the US in 1972, Montrose continued to manufacture and export the pesticide
internationally and operated the plant until 1982, at which time the company permanently closed and
dismantled (EPA 2015b). As a temporary measure to prevent DDT from surface soils to disperse via wind
or storm water, Montrose re-graded and paved the majority of the plant in 1985. Currently the Montrose
property is undeveloped and unoccupied (EPA 2015b). In 1984 the Montrose site was proposed for the
NPL and was listed in 1989 as a Superfund site.

Figure 7 1953 Oblique Aerial Image of Montrose Site (EPA 2013b)

41

According to the US EPA (2001), the Montrose plant operated continuously 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, manufacturing DDT for a total of 35 years. It is estimated that during this time, 1.6 billion
pounds of DDT were produced (US EPA 2001). Throughout Montrose site operations and at least up until
1953, releases of DDT in storm water runoff flowed into natural drainage paths originating at the
southeast corner of the property as a result of sewer line blockages from the Montrose site (US EPA
2001). Runoff material included acidic wastewater and by-products of DDT such as chlorobenzene and
chloral. Portions of the storm water pathway included the Jones Ditch and Normandie Avenue Ditch
(immediately south, downgradient to the site), as well as the unimproved Kenwood Ditch, which ran
along the western-most boundary of Kenwood Avenue (formerly Florence Avenue) beginning at 204
th

Street (formerly Maple Street) to the north, and ending at Torrance Blvd to the south (US EPA 2001).
Wastewater that entered the Kenwood Ditch ponded in various locations along the ditch since these were
the lowest-lying areas. US EPA (2001) estimates that approximately 156,000 to 233,000 gallons of waste
water were discharged per day in the storm water pathway during any occurrence of sewage blockages at
Montrose.
The contamination resulting from the Montrose Chemical Corporation DDT operations is
substantial, far more so than the Del Amo site operations alone. DDT and DDT by-products persist in
soil, do not dissolve easily in water, and accumulate in the fat cells of animals and humans. The scope of
the contamination from Montrose can be traced to the drainage outlets such as White’s Point outfall
(sanitary sewer) off the Palos Verdes Peninsula, on the Palos Verdes Shelf, along areas of the Torrance
Lateral (open channel), Dominguez Channel, and the Consolidated Slip, where the Dominguez Channel
empties into the Los Angeles Harbor (EPA 2015b).
In terms of remedial actions for Montrose, the site is divided into 8 OUs (See Figure 8). OU 5
(the Palos Verdes Shelf) is not managed by the EPA personnel that are in charge of the Del Amo or
Montrose sites. For the purposes of this research, the wide scope of contaminated OUs is perhaps better
illustrated in a Web GIS map, where a user can visualize the scale of DDT pollution by exploring each
OU interactively. This is one component of the Web GIS story map for this project, which seeks to
42

illustrate the spatial scope of a Superfund cleanup (to debunk the assumption that contamination is
necessarily “contained” within the administrative geographic boundaries of a cleanup site). It is also
beyond the scope of this research to discuss each Montrose OU and associated remedial action, but
Appendix B includes a visual workflow of how the operable unit Web map is intended to work with the
action link functions to create a dynamic user experience.
The next section addresses the dual-site groundwater contamination (OU 3G) which is coincident
with both the Montrose and Del Amo sites and encompasses the greatest challenge for the cleanup:
remediating the groundwater contamination to meet safe drinking water standards.

Figure 8 Montrose Site Operable Units (EPA 2014c)

43

3.5 Dual-Site Groundwater Contamination
In 1999, the ROD for the Dual Site Groundwater (OU 3G) was issued by the EPA to address the release
of benzene, trichloroethylene (TCE), perchloroethylene (PCE), and dichloroethylene (DCE) from both the
Montrose and Del Amo sites. The dual-site designation of an OU is rare in Superfund site cleanups, but
given the close proximity of the sites and the fact that both facilities released many of the same
contaminants, it would be a waste of resources and time to address the groundwater contamination
remedy separately, per site (EPA 1999a).
The EPA is primarily concerned with remediating three different groundwater plumes, the
chlorobenzene plume, the benzene plume, and the TCE plume. All three plumes behave differently due to
their chemical constituents and their occurrence within different hydrostratigraphic units (i.e.,
groundwater aquitards and aquifers) that exist in layers below the sites. Groundwater modeling with GIS
has been used extensively for understanding how the plumes will change and migrate under various
parameters and scenarios. For the purpose of conceptualizing and visualizing this complex aspect of the
cleanups in a Story Map, it is important to understand how boundaries are designated in Superfund
cleanups.
The nature of Superfund challenges the notion of well-established boundaries based on property
parcels (such as the boundaries of Del Amo and Montrose). Instead, the extent of the contamination
determines the area or location of a Superfund site rather than just the source area of the contamination.
The National Contingency Plan (NCP) defines “on-site” this way: “…The areal extent of contamination
and all suitable areas in very close proximity to the contamination necessary for implementation of the
response team” (EPA 1999a, 6-1). The EPA acknowledges that formal boundaries for the dual-site
groundwater OU ROD are not determined by the Montrose and Del Amo site boundaries, and in
accordance with the NCP, EPA writes: “each ‘site’ is neither congruent with nor confined by the
boundaries of any specific property with which the former Montrose Chemical plant or former Del Amo
plant were associated” (1999a, 6-1).
44

The idea that Superfund boundaries are defined by the spatial extent of the associated
contamination rather than the sites themselves is a critical component of this project. In recognizing that
the Del Amo and Montrose sites comprise multiple contaminated media, it is worth considering how a
Web GIS might address this. The EPA’s establishment of different OUs for the Del Amo and Montrose
sites divides each spatial “piece” of the sites into manageable segments, so the OUs offer an
organizational framework for their incorporation into the Story Maps. But there is an even more
intriguing caveat regarding the Montrose site OUs that challenges the NCP’s definition of “on site.” The
Montrose Superfund “boundaries” would logically include the extent of the groundwater contamination,
but due to the persistence of DDT along water pathways and soils, the OUs for the site include locations
far removed from the facility location and immediate surroundings. The Palos Verdes Shelf, the Pacific
Ocean floor, and the Los Angeles Harbor are all receptacles of Montrose DDT, even though a different
team of EPA personnel deals with these environmental media. Still, some might argue that these areas are
all part of the same Superfund site, which introduces an opportunity within the Story Map narrative to
confront these troubled boundaries in a visual and interactive platform.
Another important aspect to consider in the Story Map is how to address some of the spatial
barriers or challenges to achieving the groundwater cleanup. Again, many of these components are
inherently spatial, but are also mobile, biological processes occurring underground. According to the 1999
ROD, the greatest challenge associated with the dual-site groundwater remediation is the presence of non-
aqueous phase liquid (NAPL), which has resulted in the establishment of another contested boundary of
Superfund: an area so contaminated that is likely to remain so in perpetuity.

3.5.1 The Technical Impracticability Zone for NAPL Containment
Groundwater contamination usually occurs in one of three forms: 1) The dissolved phase (contamination
is dissolved in water); 2) The sorbed phase (contamination is absorbed to soil particles); or 3) The
residual phase, or NAPL phase (EPA 2011a). NAPL is the presence of a pure, undissolved state of a
45

chemical (EPA 1998). Remedial actions for NAPL in groundwater are challenging due to the fact that
while NAPL dissolves quickly in water, complete dissolution of NAPL contamination takes a very long
time and is not removed easily from an aquifer (EPA 1999a). NAPL can remain in soils indefinitely,
where it may continue to dissolve either directly into the groundwater, or indirectly via soil moisture
percolation (EPA 1999a). Based on NAPL sources from Montrose and Del Amo and other areas of
dissolved phase groundwater contamination, EPA determined that it is “technically impracticable” to
remove enough NAPL to reduce the contamination to drinking water standards (EPA 1999b), so a
Technical Impracticality (TI) waiver zone was established in the 1999 ROD to designate this areal extent.
This zone is also coincident with the containment zone.
The establishment of the TI Waiver zone, or containment area, poses a number of issues to the
cleanup process, chief among these is the possibility that this area may never be cleaned up according to
protective standards for human health and the environment. This zone is the same area that citizens
referred to as having a 3,000-5,000 year cleanup during the November 8
th
2015 public meeting held by
the EPA (see Figure 9). As above, there is the idea of “contested boundaries” in Superfund cleanups. The
TI Waiver/containment zone represents a boundary of dispute between the community living in and
around an area of persistent contamination and the EPA’s protective measure to prevent the
contamination from spreading to drinking water aquifers. The inclusion of the groundwater contamination
plumes and the TI waiver zone in a Story Map may present a more interactive and immersive
environment to consider the complexity of this issue.
46

Figure 9 Groundwater Plume Map of Contamination for Del Amo and Montrose (EPA 2013c)

The map in Figure 9 shows one of many representations of the groundwater contamination. EPA
technical documents and reports show numerous iterations based on various groundwater modelling
techniques, variability of the sizes of the plumes, their occurrence in different hydrostratigraphic units,
and the contaminant concentration contours. Another map provided by the EPA shows the extent of the
Chlorobenzene plume as defined by the scope of the groundwater treatment remedy infrastructure (EPA
2014a), which is comprised of a network of underground pipes, injection wells, and extraction wells
running underneath the extent of the community. With so many ways to conceptualize the dual-site
groundwater OU (the most complex aspect of the cleanup), a key component of this research was to enlist
the input of the DAAC for direction on how the Story Map would best communicate the groundwater
contamination, as well as other spatial aspects of the cleanup.
47

In recognizing that the DAAC have been active the cleanups activities for nearly 23 years, their
role in guiding the Story Map content and narrative threads was instrumental to this project. The
following chapter explains the methods involved in establishing a research partnership with the DAAC,
how this partnership evolved in a collaborative visioning of the project, and the goals and objectives of
the Story Map defined by the DAAC steering committee. This chapter also explains the technical and
programming components of the Story Map application, the data sources and methods involved in
developing the Web maps, and how the mixed-media components were integrated to the Story Map to
reflect the goals defined and narrative components defined by the steering committee.

48

CHAPTER 4: METHODS
To guide in the creation of the Story Map, a steering committee of three members of the Del Amo Action
Committee (DAAC) was formed to help shape the narrative of the Del Amo and Montrose Superfund
sites and engage the wider community for feedback. Regular meetings were held in focus group settings
near the Del Amo and Montrose sites throughout the duration of this project, using a community-engaged
research approach to establish the conceptual themes, map content, and mixed media materials to
integrate into the Story Map. This research process was essentially a participant-observer method where I
worked side by side with the DAAC and members of the wider community to create the Story Map. An
Institutional Review Board (IRB) exemption was obtained for this approach.

Figure 10 Community Engagement Methods Workflow

This chapter describes how my participation unfolded and shaped the choices of Web GIS
technology and the narrative. In general, the focus group sessions reflected an iterative process of refining
the research goals of this project during the development of the Web GIS tool from inception to
deployment and evaluation. I revised the map according to the steering committee’s feedback upon
reviewing the story map tool in phases, rather than presenting the committee with a final version of the
49

Web GIS at the very end of the project. Regular interactions with the committee and immersion in the
study community informed the final Web GIS story map and content. In this chapter, the programming
and technology required to meet the committee’s expectations in building the Web GIS components of
this project are discussed, as well as the data and sources used to create the tool.

4.1 Phase One of DAAC Involvement and Project Definition
Prior to this project, there were no existing ties or relationships between myself and the Del Amo Action
Committee (DAAC), nor was I connected to the organization via academic partnerships. As such, this
research involved independent outreach efforts to connect with the DAAC and figure out if they were
interested in participating in a mapping project for the Del Amo and Montrose sites. Initial attempts to get
in touch via email with Cynthia Babich, the Director of the DAAC, were unsuccessful. In early January of
2015, I sent Ms. Babich an email with a direct proposition for a research project and received an
immediate reply stating that she was interested. The first meeting for this project included Ms. Babich,
Florence Gharibian, DAAC Board Chair, and myself. Both were very familiar with GIS and told me that
at least three community mapping projects had been started for the Del Amo and Montrose sites, but none
of these projects were finished.
Ms. Babich explained that she had created a number of hand-drawn maps throughout the
duration of the cleanup. One map showed exposure pathways, drainage areas, and other patterns she noted
in her community which she hand-drew and then overlayed with an aerial photo of the site. She indicated
that her drawings matched the features on the aerial image, but that this map had been loaned to someone
and was missing. Ms. Gharibian, a former analyst at the Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC), brought some of the maps created by the EPA, including a map (the same shown in Figure 7) of
the groundwater contamination plumes underneath Montrose and Del Amo and the surrounding area. She
explained that many of the maps used by the EPA were difficult to understand, even for people who were
familiar with the cleanup sites and contamination. She also indicated that there was a lack of
understanding in general about the history of the Del Amo and Montrose sites, particularly how the land
50

use in the area underwent rapid industrial development during World War II. She said that land use maps
and aerial images of the sites could be a rich visual way of communicating the historical changes that
occurred at the sites.
Overall, Ms. Babich and Ms. Gharibian were open to guiding a GIS project about the Del
Amo/Montrose sites, and based on the points they brought up during the meeting, an initial value
proposition for this project was established: An online GIS tool would be useful to educate the public
about the history of the Del Amo/Montrose Superfund sites. This proposition was used to form the initial
research question for this project: Was it possible to develop a Web GIS to effectively communicate the
history of the Del Amo/Montrose sites, under the oversight of the DAAC and possibly other members
from the committee and/or community members?

4.1.1 Land Use Data Sources for Phase One of Web GIS Tool
The first iteration of this research indicated that the DAAC was interested in using land use maps and
aerial images of the Del Amo and Montrose sites that showed historical changes in the sites prior to
World War II to the present. Ms. Babich and Ms. Gharibian explained that aerial images of the sites had
been used by the DAAC in the past for their own research, and that these maps were not digitized. It was
unclear whether these maps could be feasibly obtained and digitized in a reasonable time frame, so other
immediate options were assessed. The technical documents in the EPA websites for the Del Amo and
Montrose Superfund sites were reviewed in detail to determine if aerial images were available. Remedial
Investigation (RI) documents for the Del Amo Soil and NAPL operable unit (OU 1) included a PDF of
aerial images of the 280-acre Del Amo site. The PDF included a series of 9 aerial images covering the
entire extent of the site in 1928, 1941, 1946, 1956, 1967, 1971, 1979, 1992, and 2004. EPA (2007b)
provided the document containing the imagery, but the direct source of the aerial images was not
indicated in the document.
51

Because all documents provided by the EPA are in the public domain, it was decided that for the
time being, image details derived from the URS-sourced document were sufficient for examining visual
land use change at Del Amo prior to World War II through 2004. I took screenshots of the RI document
and cropped each aerial image to the same dimensions. These were later used in the Web GIS tool as
primary sources of imagery.
Additional sources of historical land use maps were considered due to their potential in providing
a more complete and/or detailed record of land use and possible property ownership details. The
following land use map sources were used in this project: Works Progress Administration (WPA) land
use maps, Los Angeles County survey and tract maps, and 7.5 minute quadrangle topographic maps from
the United States Geological Survey (USGS). WPA maps are useful in visualizing pre-World War II
historic land uses, dating as early as 1935. These maps include color-coded land use categories for
reference. Land surveys and tract maps provided by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
are useful in determining ownership and general site details of a property parcel or tract. USGS
topographic maps are more useful in assessing physical properties of an area such as elevation contours,
hydrography, transportation, and historic place names.

52

Table 1 Imagery Data Sources for Historical Components of Web GIS Story Map
Data Type Source Description Terms of
Use
Project
Integration/Purpose
Aerial imagery EPA 2007b 9 aerial images of Del
Amo boundary extent
from year 1928-2004
Public
record;
Use
limitations
unspecified
Images clearly show
industrial development of
the site; Suitable for use in
web visualization
Work Progress
Administration
Land Use
Maps
The
Huntington
Library
(Primary
owner); USC
Special
Collections
(2015)
2 sheets, one dated 1937
and the other 1953;
Shows early
undeveloped Del Amo
property and Montrose
(chemical
manufacturing) in 1937;
Shows the property
owners for both sites in
1953 map
By
permission
Detailed land use types
shown for both areas in two
different time periods;
Provide different visual of
land use development and
industrialization of the area
between both maps
Topographic
Map
United States
Geological
Survey
3 maps of the Torrance
7.5 Minute quadrangle
from 1924, 1951 and
1964
Public
record
Overview land features
over time (transportation
lines, hydrography,
industrial development)

4.2 Engagement with the DAAC and the EPA in the Study Community
A key aspect of this research included direct interaction with the DAAC, community members, and,
incidentally, the EPA Community Involvement team and site manager for the Del Amo and Montrose
Superfund sites in the study community. It was clear that meaningful correspondence and engagement
with the DAAC was not ideal over email, so in late January 2015, I expressed interest in visiting the
community to Ms. Babich, and was invited to attend a community outreach planning meeting with DAAC
members and three employees from the EPA.
The meeting was in regards to a soil vapor intrusion study in which the EPA requested permission
from residents in two community areas south of the Del Amo and Montrose sites (approximately 300
residences) to install temporary air sampling devices in the homes to test for TCE (Trichloroethylene)
levels and other Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (EPA 2014e). Based on recent groundwater
53

monitoring results in a sampling well located near the corner of Kenwood Avenue and 204
th
Street
(directly south of the Del Amo and Montrose site boundaries), the EPA and the DAAC were concerned
about higher than usual TCE levels found at that well. TCE (also a type of VOC) exposure in humans can
occur through direct ingestion of contaminated food or water, inhalation of TCE in the air, and dermal
(skin) contact (US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2009). TCE is used in
hydroflurocarbon production, as a degreaser for metal parts, in both rubber production (as a solvent) and
in chemical manufacturing of fungicides and pesticides, and is listed as a reasonably anticipated human
carcinogen (HHS 2009).
According to Ms. Babich, the DAAC had been trying to get the EPA to perform indoor air
sampling in the community for approximately four years, and the green light was given in January of
2015 for the EPA to begin the sampling. The purpose of the meeting between DAAC and the EPA at that
time was to coordinate outreach efforts and touch base about permission requirements (sampling
permission must be given by property owners), as well as how the sampling process worked. The EPA’s
primary outreach for the sampling was via mailers with information packets and permission forms to the
owners of the properties within the sampling boundaries. According to the DAAC, the EPA did not target
outreach mailers to residents (rather than property owners) in the community, many of whom rent their
properties. This ultimately posed a problem because many residents were not informed about the
sampling, which took place in late February and early March.
It appeared that the EPA and the DAAC worked together for mutual benefit; perhaps both groups
recognized that they needed each other to make the sampling process successful. The DAAC, having
direct ties to the residents as the main community group, could assist the EPA by explaining for example,
where Spanish-speaking residents lived, which homes were built on concrete slabs, which residents were
likely to be cooperative (and those that might not), etc. The importance of local expert knowledge on
behalf of the DAAC was clear in this situation, particularly during the door-to-door outreach efforts that
followed. In late February, I was allowed to walk around the neighborhood with Ms. Babich and EPA
employees. We approached homes that had not yet agreed to the sampling, needed to make appointments
54

for installing the sampling devices, or needed to provide signatures from the property owners for
permission.
All of these experiences were invaluable to the process because they allowed me to observe the
activities of the EPA and the DAAC, get a sense of the dynamic between these groups, and provided first-
hand perspective and sense of the community as a researcher. Perhaps equally important was the context
in which these interactions occurred. Over two decades after contamination from the Del Amo and
Montrose sites was recognized with the discovery of DDT in soils in yards on 204
th
Street, the possible
threat of exposure to an entirely different contaminant was being addressed along this same residential
street.
4.3 Establishment of Web GIS Story Map and Platform
While engaging in outreach activities in the study community with the DAAC and the EPA, Ms. Babich
introduced me to Cynthia Medina, a core member of the DAAC and a current resident in the community.
It is important to note that many community members, like Ms. Babich and Ms. Gharibian remain active
in the cleanups even though they no longer live in the neighborhood. A brief but productive discussion
between Ms. Medina, Ms. Babich, and myself resulted in the definition of the Web GIS tool based on
what I offered to them as options for either a Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) in which community
members contribute to map content in an online environment, or a Web GIS Story Map, which could be a
platform to communicate the story of the Del Amo and Montrose sites using web maps and mixed media.
A PPGIS was ruled out immediately by both Ms. Babich and Ms. Medina, who explained that a similar
project had been attempted years ago but never finished, and that ultimately a real-time PPGIS was not
something that the community was likely to engage in. Ms. Medina noted that most of the people who
remained in the community for the duration of the cleanups were older residents whose perspectives
might be better captured in interviews. Something that had not been done, Ms. Babich noted, was a
community history project. So, a Story Map that could explain the history of the Superfund cleanups
55

using maps, images, videos, and oral histories or testimonies from current community residents would be
a much better fit.
Based on this direction, a review of existing online story map platforms narrowed down two
potential options: Esri’s Story Maps (2015), available with an ArcGIS Online license and StoryMap JS
(2015), an open source option geared towards journalists. These were the two options considered because
they are the two leading platforms dedicated to the integration of web map content and multimedia for the
development of presentation-style map narratives. The StoryMap JS platform is the open source
alternative to Esri’s proprietary Story Maps, and while the cost associated with future ownership of the
Web GIS story map by the DAAC was certainly a factor to consider, the StoryMap JS was too limited in
its capacity as an interactive GIS since it relies on either map images, or geotagged photos which are
incorporated as map markers in the story map. By contrast, Esri’s Story Maps product is far more flexible
in terms of web map services integration, customization, user interaction, and the ability to create “map
actions,” which allow users to click on an action link within a section of text causing the map can zoom to
a certain extent, popup, or reveal a new layer. Overall, better functionality, customization, and user
interactivity were considered in the decision to use Esri’s Story Maps.

4.4 Development of Web GIS Story Map Prototype in a Test Environment
For the purpose of showing the DAAC a working example of the Web GIS story map and to collect
feedback from them, a basic prototype was created which incorporated a simple web map showing the
boundaries of the Montrose and Del Amo Superfund sites, the aerial images of the Del Amo site, a WPA
land use map from 1937 showing the two sites, a YouTube video created by the EPA about the Del Amo
site cleanup, and a web map showing a sample groundwater plume. In this early stage in the development,
the map content was based on the Superfund site boundaries and was created within ArcGIS Online using
the Map Notes function to draw general polygons representing the sites and general plume shape. This
was because the GIS/map components had not yet been established for the tool, so a simple preview of
web map capabilities was offered in the first prototype to show the DAAC that map features and user
56

interaction was possible within the story platform. The images were saved to a Picasa album and shared
publicly as uniform record locators (URLs) to source within the application. The YouTube video was
simply added to the application by referencing the video’s URL.

Figure 11 Story Map Prototype Introduction Page

Figure 12 Web Map Integration in Story Map Prototype
The web story map prototype was developed in an organizational ArcGIS Online account but was
not shared publicly. This was done to protect the prototype from incidental viewing prior to its
deployment, and also in order to encourage opportunities for the DAAC to provide feedback and reactions
57

in person. (In other words, keeping the application private ensured that reviewing of the tool would be
done in a focus-group setting, rather than through informal, email/virtual exchange.)
4.5 Feedback of Prototype from DAAC and Establishment of Major Narrative Threads
The feedback from the DAAC based on the story map prototype resulted in a number of decisions and
helped to push the project forward significantly. First, the official steering committee for the project was
confirmed to include Ms. Babich, Ms. Gharibian, and Ms. Medina. Second, the major narrative
components were discussed and outlined (See Table 2). Third, Ms. Medina’s granddaughter, Savannah,
who lives in the study community and was present at the planning meeting, agreed to collect interviews
from residents which could be videotaped or recorded, and then added to the story map. The steering
committee believed it was important to represent the community youth in the story, and Savannah’s
involvement in gathering the testimonies placed her in a participatory role in the project. To this end, the
steering committee decided that the story map should be called “Savannah’s Story,” in order to refocus
the intent of the tool as an envisioning of the young generation that has grown up next to the Superfund
sites. Fourth, arrangements were made for me to visit Ms. Babich’s home and gather materials, maps,
images, and other components, which I would incorporate into the story map.

58

Table 2 Narrative Categories and Content for Web GIS Story Map
Story Categories Description Associated Content
Introduction Introduce Savannah’s Story, the two Superfund
sites, legacy of pollution, purpose of the story
map
Image or collage representing the
community
Background Information Background of Superfund, description of the
Del Amo and Montrose sites,
-Steps of Superfund cleanup
process (links, text, or image)
-Overview map of the Del Amo
and Montrose sites
Historical Information Del Amo and Montrose site histories, Activities
and manufacturing at the sites, Industrial
development of the area during World War II
-Web maps of historic site
structures during operation of Del
Amo and Montrose plants
-Aerial imagery of Del Amo
before and after the war
-WPA land use map
-Newspaper clips from 1943
edition of Torrance Herald
Contamination Description of contaminants, Exposure
pathways, Discovery of contamination, EPA
involvement and site studies, investigations, etc.
-Web map showing where
contamination was first found by
residents
-Hand drawn maps (images) of
contamination and suspected fill
material areas
-Web map showing operable units
Relocation Relocation story resulting in buyout and
demolition of 53 homes south of the Del Amo
Waste Pits
-Aerial imagery before and after
demolition
-Hand drawn map of homes in
relocation zone
-Park plans for future land use of
demolished area
Kenwood Removal EPA removal action of DDT in yards along
historic drainage area along Kenwood Avenue
-Web map showing removal area
with photo popups historical
drains, creeks
Community
Involvement (Recurring
Narrative)
Perspective of community -Resident testimonies (written,
audio, video)
-Images of community activities
and demonstrations
-Community rally (video)
Del Amo Action
Committee
(Recurring Narrative)
Perspective of DAAC -DAAC testimonies

59

4.6 Programming and Technology Workflow for GIS Components of Savannah’s Story
The development of the GIS components of this project occurred in tandem with conceptual development
of the qualitative (mixed media) pieces of the story map, as well as immersive research of documents
provided by the DAAC. This section deals specifically with the programming and technology workflow
included in the development of the GIS components used to create and publish the web maps incorporated
into the tool, as well as the data and sources.
ArcGIS Online was the primary platform used to develop the web components of the Story map,
which included the story map web application itself, web map services developed in ArcMap 10.2 and
published to ArcGIS Online, customized web map applications, and other web maps created directly in
ArcGIS Online. Due to full integration of ArcGIS Online publication services within the ArcMap 10.2
software platform, all web services were deployed without the use of an additional hosting server. This
eliminated the need for backend development of web content on a remote server, which in turn saved a
great deal of time by speeding up the process of analyzing and publishing services locally. It was also
beneficial in the organization, management, and customization of web GIS content since all of it was
accessed directly in ArcGIS Online (through a browser). It should be noted however that other content
(images, videos, documents, etc.) had to be hosted separately, and there was not an immediate solution to
this during the development of the tool. A discussion of how the mixed method components were
managed and hosted is discussed in the qualitative content workflow section of this chapter.

60

Figure 13 Programming Workflow for Story Map

Nearly all content published to ArcGIS Online from ArcMap was created by georeferencing map
images collected from technical documents found in the EPA websites for the Del Amo and Montrose
Superfund sites, or from a small collection of map images submitted from the DAAC, and then digitizing
features and adding attribute data. A file geodatabase structure with feature classes was used to reflect the
(spatial) categorical threads of the narratives (shown in Table 2 as communicated by the steering
committee). For instance, a file geodatabase was created for historical pipelines and buildings at the Del
Amo site, pipelines and buildings were created as feature classes and digitized from the georeferenced
61

images. An imagery or topographic basemap from Esri was primarily used as the reference image while
georeferencing EPA maps. The source maps often included existing building structures; thus, building
outlines were used most often for placement of control points.

Figure 14 Georeferenced TIFFS of Del Amo Historical Structures (EPA 2007d)

Figure 15 Georeferenced and Digitized Structures for Montrose (EPA 1999c)

The Del Amo and Montrose site boundaries were established by georeferencing EPA site maps,
and these boundaries were further validated by using a shapefile of Los Angeles County building outlines
62

provided by LA County Enterprise GIS (LAR-IAC 2012). Other GIS content for the Del Amo and
Montrose sites was created in ArcMap 10.2 by georeferencing and digitizing EPA maps.
The Story Map includes a map showing current Superfund sites in California to put the Del Amo
and Montrose sites into a broader context. The data source for this map included the EPA Region IX
Superfund site website to verify the names of the Superfund sites, the date each site was listed on the
NPL, and whether these sites were still active (meaning that site remediation was still ongoing). After the
sites were checked, the DTSC’s EnviroStor hazardous cleanup sites database (2007) was used to project
the general location of each California Superfund site based on latitude and longitude fields provided for
each site. The metadata did not include information regarding how these coordinates were derived. Sites
such as facilities (like the Del Amo and Montrose sites) were projected and displayed within their
boundaries. The San Fernando Valley Area 1 site (5,254 acres in area) was projected in a residential
neighborhood between North Hollywood and Sun Valley. It is acknowledged that coordinate pairs are
crude representations of the actual spatial extents of cleanup sites, but for general reference purposes
these data are sufficient in an overview map. All of the GIS maps and their associated content/layers, data
sources, and methods are listed in the sequence they appear in the Story Map tool in Table 3, below.

63

Table 3 Map Content, Sources, and Methods for Story Map Development
Map Associated Content/Layers Source(s) Methods
Superfund Sites in
California
Point features of site locations
with name and NPL date
listing
EPA Region IX
Superfund website; DTSC
EnviroStor database
(2007) (CSV file)
Data compiled and
formatted in Excel,
projected points from
lat/long in ArcMap
Overview
Map/Savannah’s
Community
Polygon features for the Del
Amo, Montrose sites, and
Savannah’s community (study
area)
EPA site maps (TIFF
images); Los Angeles
County Enterprise GIS
building footprints
shapefile (2012); Esri
Streets basemap
Georeferenced and
digitized Superfund
boundaries in geodatabase;
Used street information to
create community boundary
feature class
Del Amo Site
Historic Structures
and Pipelines
Polygon features of historic
structures
Line features of historic
pipelines
EPA (2007c) site maps of
historic structures (TIFF
images)
Georeferenced, digitized,
and added attribute
information in geodatabase
feature classes
Montrose Site
Historic Structures
Polygon features of historic
structures
Line features of rail lines,
open drainage lines, and
pipelines
EPA (1999c) site map of
historic structures (TIFF
images)
Georeferenced, digitized,
and added attribute
information in geodatabase
feature classes
Contamination
Plume Map
Polygon features of plumes,
Del Amo, Montrose, and
community boundaries
EPA (2013c) schematic
plume map of TCE,
benzene, and
chlorobenzene plumes
occurring in the water
table unit (TIFF image)
Georeferenced, digitized,
and added attribute
information in geodatabase
feature classes
Groundwater
Remedy
Infrastructure Map
Point features of injection and
extraction wells; Line features
for underground remedy
pipelines; Polygon features of
Del Amo and Montrose
boundaries
EPA (2013a) groundwater
remedy infrastructure map
(TIFF image)
Georeferenced and
digitized features in
geodatabase

The process of integrating each of the maps and content created in ArcMap 10.2 to ArcGIS
Online included sharing the maps as web services directly from the software interface, configuring each
for feature access and cache building, adding metadata (descriptions, data sources, keywords, and access
use constraints), and analyzing the map for errors. These maps were then published to an ArcGIS Online
organizational account after which they were formatted, published within the organization as either web
64

maps or web applications, and incorporated into the Story Map application. The Story Map, titled
“Savannah’s Story: Learning from the Past, Working Towards a Clean Future” was published after all
content (web maps, images, videos, and audio clips) was integrated and shared in the public domain, and
a web survey was created and embedded within the tool for users to review and evaluate the tool.
4.7 Integration of Qualitative/Mixed Media Components
The qualitative/mixed media components of the Story Map included images (aerial site photos, land use
maps, hand drawn maps from the community, photos from the community, and photos from the web),
videos (two YouTube videos from DAAC, transferred from VHS tapes), audio clips (2 interviews
uploaded to Sound Cloud) and external links to documents and websites. All of the images (with the
exception of those referenced from external URLs) were uploaded to a Picasa web album and shared as
public images. A dedicated Gmail account was created called (DAACwebcontent@gmail.com) where the
Picasa image folder was saved and a YouTube channel was created. This was done so that in the future,
the mixed media content could be accessed by the DAAC if needed. Images in the Picasa album were also
shared directly to Ms. Babich via Dropbox.
The process involved in incorporating the mixed media components was based on the same
iterative process used for the GIS/map components, which relied on the regular feedback from the DAAC
on what materials they wanted to add to the story map during its development in the test environment.
The DAAC contributed a large amount of content directly. Most of the photos, the hand drawn maps, a
few aerial wall maps that were photographed, some documents, and the video and audio content were
given to me to scan, digitize, and/or transfer to the web as needed.
Most of these materials were integrated into the story map towards the end of the
development/test phase. At this point, a great deal of development and customization of the web maps and
story (text) content had been done on my end, but the tool needed to be closely reviewed and verified by
the DAAC. Ultimately, Ms. Babich and I spent about six hours carefully looking through each piece of
the story map. During this process, Ms. Babich edited many of the text/narration panels, and contributed
65

all of the information in the “Contamination Discovered” story section. We determined that an additional
video and some documents needed to be included, as well as more photos of the community members and
youth. Ms. Babich shared a Dropbox folder with over 100 photos, mainly focusing on the youth activities
and community events that occurred since 2000. These photos were instrumental in capturing the youth
narrative of the Story Map, as well as a community park visioning ceremony. All of this new content was
then added to the Web GIS story map and sections were arranged accordingly. The story map was
published and shared publicly in late April of 2015. Ms. Babich circulated the Story Map to a handful of
individuals, including an employee at the DTSC who provided detailed feedback used for the evaluation
component of this project. This feedback (and other feedback from a current resident of the community
and an individual who had no prior knowledge of the Del Amo and Montrose sites) is reviewed in
Chapter 5 below.

66

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS
This chapter describes the structure of the Web GIS story map to provide an overview of how the web
maps and mixed media were incorporated into the application. In addition, this section presents a few of
the key story sections in the tool, a brief summary of the narrative thread associated with each, and a
discussion of the associated user functionalities/interactive components. Lastly, this chapter presents the
feedback gathered from individuals who reviewed the Web GIS story map. The feedback was provided by
individuals with three unique perspectives: 1) A current resident in the study community; 2) An employee
at the DTSC; and 3) An adult individual who was not familiar with the Del Amo and Montrose cleanups
prior to reviewing the story map.
The next five sections present a few of the significant story panel sections included in the Story
Map, their associated narratives, and the user functions and interactive capabilities available for each
panel. Six panels (are shown in these sections, but the remaining sections can be viewed in the Appendix
portion of this document.

5.1 Savannah’s Community and the Del Amo and Montrose Sites
As seen in Figure 16, the third section panel in the story map introduces the Del Amo and Montrose
Superfund sites in reference to Savannah’s community, all three areas shown by their relative boundaries
and proximity to each other. This section is intended to put all three areas into a geographic context in
order for users to consider two important aspects of the story overall. First, this map clearly shows that
the two Superfund sites are directly adjacent to each other, and second, that a residential community
(Savannah’s community) is located immediately south of the sites. A description of the community is
provided in the side panel, along with an image of a fenced Superfund site (the Iron Horse Park site in
Massachusetts). Below the image are four blue “action links” in bullet point form. When the user clicks
on one of these, the map extent, location, and pop-up information adjusts according to the action
configuration created for the link. So, when the user clicks the first link, “Click to zoom to the Del Amo
Superfund site,” the map zooms in closer to the Del Amo boundary, and a pop-up is revealed with some
67

basic information about the site, and a photo of the site (see Figure 17). The remaining action links take
the user to the Montrose site, Savannah’s community, and Exxon Mobil refinery. The purpose of
including the Exxon site was to show its proximity (just 1.5 miles west) to the Del Amo and Montrose
sites, and Savannah’s community.

Figure 16 Savannah’s Community and Superfund Boundaries Story Map Section

Figure 17 Result of Clicking on Action Link for Del Amo Site
68

5.2 Historic Structures and Pipelines at the Del Amo Site
As part of the history of the Del Amo and Montrose sites, the EPA published site documents containing
detailed maps showing former building outlines that existed at Del Amo and Montrose sites during the
time they were in operation. The former structures and pipelines from both sites have either been removed
or demolished (EPA 2011a), but they remain significant sources of data because they informed much of
the soil sampling locations based on contamination that may have resulted from site processes associated
with certain structures. For instance, hexavalent chromium was used as an anti-corrosive agent in cooling
processes, so soils around the former cooling tower locations on the Del Amo site were tested specifically
for this chemical (US EPA 2001). Historical building information has also been used heavily in site
investigations, particularly for modeling potential exposure source areas in preliminary site assessments
as well as providing an overall blueprint for how the sites operated (in terms of their processing and
manufacturing flows, treatment and storage, and modes of disposing waste).
Figure 18 shows the Del Amo site historical structures and pipelines, as they were digitized from
one of the EPA maps. The subtle light grey canvas basemap was chosen to highlight the structures, but
the existing building outlines are still clearly visible. (It should be noted again, that almost all of the Del
Amo site has been redeveloped as an industrial park, consisting of approximately 250 businesses, so the
contrast of historic structures overlayed with existing businesses was an intentional framing of the
location of the former rubber plant buildings in reference to the existing buildings on the site.) The
structures themselves are color coded according to whether they were part of the styrene, butadiene or
copolymer plants, or the Waste Pits area. The action links in the side panel direct the user to the each
portion of the plant, and they can click on any of the structures to reveal a popup window showing the
name of the former structure (such as Cooling Tower 3, Sump Tank, Blowdown Pit, etc.). A photo from
the Torrance Herald in 1944 of the rubber manufacturing process was incorporated in the side panel
between two sections of text, and shows the various factories, their location, and what materials were
piped to the Del Amo facility.
69

Figure 18 Del Amo Site Historical Structures and Pipelines Web Map

5.3 Permanent Relocation of Residents and Buyout
In 1994 the EPA conducted soil samples in residential homes directly south of the Del Amo waste pits as
part of an ongoing Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Results of 1994 soil studies on two
residential backyards on the north side of West 204
th
Street did not show any contaminants related to the
Del Amo site (such as benzene, styrene, naphthalene, ethylene, and others). However, bowling-ball sized
chunks of 100 % technical grade DDT were discovered in these yards, (Peterson 1998) including that of
Ms. Babich, who lived at 1055 West 204
th
Street (this address and home no longer exist). According to
Ms. Babich, the 1994 discovery of DDT in her backyard and the home next to hers triggered community-
wide concerns that the DDT contamination was not isolated to those two yards, and that backyard soil
sampling was needed for many more homes. The DDT discovery in the first two backyards (adjacent to
the waste pits) could not be attributed to the Del Amo site since Del Amo did not manufacture DDT at
any time during its operations, nor could its presence in the soils be linked directly to disposal of the
pesticide from Montrose. According to ATSDR (2004), the contaminated soil was thought to have been
taken from the Montrose site and subsequently used as fill material during construction of the homes.
70

Upon the discovery of DDT in Ms. Babich’s yard and her neighbor’s yard, the EPA conducted
the first DDT excavation in 1994 and included only Ms. Babich and her neighbor’s soil (ATSDR 2004).
Ms. Babich was present during the excavation and watched the soil being removed from her yard.
Subsequent sampling of other backyards along West 204
th
Street determined that DDT was present in
varying concentrations in these soils. Also in 1994, the EPA determined that a large-scale DDT removal
action for approximately 30 residential yards on West 204
th
Street was necessary, at which point the
families were temporarily relocated while EPA excavated the soils. Temporary relocation is not
uncommon in circumstances where removal activities could expose residents to contaminants released
during the removal actions. In general, temporary relocation of residents lasts for the duration of the
removal action, and responsible parties or the EPA fund the relocation costs incurred during this time. If
EPA funds the relocation (which was the case for the 204
th
Street removal in lieu of a responsible party),
it helps to complete removal actions within a reasonable time frame of about 2-3 weeks (US EPA 2001).
However, in this case the temporary relocation of the families lasted four years, from 1994 to 1997
(Peterson 1998).
During the start of the temporary relocation period in 1994, the Del Amo Action Committee
(DAAC) was formed primarily to address community health issues in the neighborhood, but also to serve
as a representative body for the residents of the community. The DAAC, led by Ms. Babich as executive
director and several other residents from the community, lobbied for support from the EPA, DTSC,
ATSDR, and Department of Health Services. The DAAC also engaged news outlets and reporters,
toxicologists, universities, and political figures to address health concerns, the contamination, and plans
for the permanent relocation of the residents in the relocation zone. Congresswoman Jane Harmon (D-
Torrance) and Elliot Laws, Assistant Administrator of the EPA for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
in Washington, D.C., met with the DAAC in July of 1994 to discuss the community’s concerns in person
and take a walking tour of the neighborhood. Part of the Story Map includes video footage from this
meeting, and the walking tour. Residents of the community placed signs on their fences and garage doors
that read: “I bought the American Dream: Pure DDT,” “How much proof do you need??” and “I do not
71

want my children to become part of your statistics.” The footage was taken in the relocation area (which
is now a 10-acre, fenced plot of patchy grass) and also shows the waste pits, which were visible at that
time through a chain link fence.
Ultimately, the four-year temporary relocation of the 30 residents was prolonged due to a number
of factors, but chief among these was the push for permanent relocation of these residents and a buyout of
their homes within the relocation zone. In 1996, during the time of the relocation negotiations (which
occurred between various stakeholders including Shell and Dow, EPA, DAAC, private consultants,
property appraisers, the Army Corps. Of Engineers, and others), the EPA had only conducted 14
permanent relocations in the history of Superfund (US EPA 1996). Relocation tactics were not considered
viable remedial actions per Superfund practices, but in 1996 the EPA recognized that permanent
relocation may be necessary in extreme cases where human health could not be protected, or where
engineering issues made structures unsafe for people to live in (US EPA 1996). In May of 1996, a
Superfund Relocation Roundtable Meeting was held in Pensacola, Florida at the request of the EPA to
gather stakeholders, community members, and other representatives to discuss the issue of permanent
relocation in Superfund and how communities and the EPA might work together to shape an interim
policy addressing a complex and costly process. Ms. Babich spoke of the current state of the Del Amo
community, on behalf of the relocated families living for 2 years in hotels waiting to be told where to go,
and the residents that remained in the community.
The Roundtable Session in Pensacola did not solve the problems for the Del Amo community.
However, it did spark a dialogue about an issue of vital importance for communities seeking fair
alternatives to living and raising children in an area that could pose health risks, or may be uninhabitable.
The Del Amo permanent relocation was ultimately achieved via a convening of EPA, community
stakeholders, Shell, Dow, DAAC, and others to compile a private buyout package. The package included
the demolition of homes in the relocation zone, buyout of properties by Shell, and a robust permanent
relocation plan to assist and support the relocated residents in finding a new (permanent) place to live.
Shell, although they were not responsible for the DDT contamination that kicked off the whole series of
72

events, funded the buyout and demolition of the homes (Peterson 1998). According to Peterson (1998),
the buyout program was considered as a potential model for other communities to adopt in hazardous
waste conflicts around the U.S. The demolition was completed in 1997, and under the buyout agreement,
Shell and Dow were given the rights to decide on the ultimate land use for the buyout area, but a
community advisory panel was appointed to guide in the decision (Peterson 1998). In May, 2015, 18
years after the demolition, the 10-acre plot is undeveloped, covered with soil and grass, and surrounded
by chain link fence.
Figure 19 shows a map of the community with the homes included in the buyout colored in red.
This map was used in addition to aerial color images of the buyout zone before and after the homes were
demolished. In terms of communicating the impact of relocation in this community, the aerial before and
after photos offer compelling visualizations of the transformed land, but the hand-made map in Figure 19
(contributed by Ms. Babich) speaks more to the fabric of the community. The colored-in footprints are
records of homes included in the buyout, (like an inventory) but they are also the footprints of families,
foundations, and memories. Overall, the relocation component of the Story Map affords multiple spatial
renderings and considerations of an event that included not only the transformation of the built
environment (the homes as well as the contaminated land underneath them), but also the transformation of
relocated residents and those that remained in the neighborhood. In addition, the future land use of the
empty plot of land remains in question.
73

Figure 19 Paper Map of Del Amo Community Buyout Homes

5.4 Dual Site Groundwater Contamination and Treatment
The Del Amo and Montrose dual-site groundwater contamination section of the story map was included
to allow users to visualize the spatial extent of the TCE, chlorobenzene, benzene, and Technical
Impracticability (TI) waiver zone (also coincident with the containment zone). A description of the
contaminants (and which facility or area they are believed to have originated from), their general
characteristics and uses, and any cancer/health risks associated with them is described in the side panel
section. It was also important to note in the side panel text that this map only represents the extent of
these plumes as they occur in the shallower Upper Bellflower Aquitard (water table zone). The deeper
groundwater plumes are actually much larger than those shown in Figure 20, which were digitized from
an EPA map (EPA 2013c). The shallow groundwater plumes in the Upper Bellflower unit are a concern
for soil vapor intrusion (TCE and other VOCs entering indoor residential air via small openings and/or
cracks in the home’s foundation).
74

Figure 20 Groundwater Contamination Plume Web Map

A disclaimer was added to this section due to the limitations of this map to show the entire scope
of the groundwater contamination plumes as they exist as different spatial extents within one or more
hydrostratigraphic units. The disclaimer acknowledged that additional input and feedback from the
community, the EPA, and other agencies such as the DTSC and RWQCB are needed in order to best
represent the groundwater contamination such that data are not oversimplified. This is important to
address because the groundwater remedy treatment system, which was constructed to pump, treat, and
reinject treated groundwater back into the containment zone, is an ongoing topic of controversy. There are
concerns from the community that para-Chlorobenzene sulfonic acid (pCBSA), a byproduct of DDT
manufacturing (OEHHA 2015) and a present contaminant in the groundwater, will be reinjected back into
the groundwater based on drinking water standards that may not be protective of human health.
According to a recent report on pCBSA, a new baseline reinjection standard of 3 parts per million (ppm)
for pCBSA in drinking water is recommended, which is much less than the 25 ppm standard established
15 years ago (OEHHA 2015). It is possible that pCBSA will be reinjected at 25 ppm, as established in the
75

1999 ROD, rather than the new 3 ppm standard. Specifically, there is concern that untreated pCBSA
could migrate to the deeper drinking water aquifers if the less conservative reinjection standard is used.
This issue is not easily fixed. The remedial action plans established in the ROD (Record of
Decision) are to be honored according to Superfund law and the NCP, which means that regardless of
when the remedy was finalized and how much time has passed in the interim construction period, the
objectives of the ROD must be followed. So, even if there are significant improvements in remedial
technologies since the ROD was published, the original remedy plan and design will be used.
Additionally, in light of new data and/or understanding of contaminants (such as the new reinjection
standard for pCBSA), a remedy is still expected to operate within the terms and reinjection standards of
the ROD. What this means in terms of the groundwater remedy treatment system is that if turned on, it is
possible that pCBSA will be reinjected at the 25 ppm standard specified in the 1999 ROD, potentially
affecting the protectiveness of the remedy. More specifically, a former community member posed a
question during a November 8
th
, 2014 public meeting with the EPA. Ms. Gharibian asked, “[…] will
[pCBSA] be removed sufficiently? Because the water that’s treated in that groundwater treatment unit
will ultimately go into the clean portion of our groundwater basin, and I see this as something we need to
be very careful about” (EPA 2014d).

76

Figure 21 Groundwater Treatment Infrastructure Web Map

In February 2015, Montrose issued a Notice of Dispute to the United States and DTSC over the
fact that the EPA has not allowed the groundwater treatment system to be turned on based on concerns
raised by a citizen regarding the pCBSA reinjection standard (United States v. Montrose Chemical
Corporation 2015). Montrose argues that by not allowing the system to be turned on, the EPA is in
violation of the agreements laid out in the 1999 ROD (United States v. Montrose Chemical Corporation
2015). Specifically, Montrose states that:
Under the Construction Partial Consent Decree, EPA’s authority to modify the Statement
of Work Plan or Work Plan (which includes the Test Plan) is limited to “ensur[ing] that
the treatment system for the Chlorobenzene Plume as constructed will effectively
implement the relevant elements of the remedy set forth in the ROD.” Because EPA’s
proposed modification of the Test Plan does not seek to implement the remedy specified
in the ROD, and instead seeks to determine whether the treatment system could achieve a
pCBSA reinjection standard that differs from the ROD standard, the proposed
modification conflicts with the ROD and the Construction Partial Consent Decree, and
therefore is impermissible. (United States v. Montrose Chemical Corporation 2015, 1)
This is perhaps one of the most compelling aspects of the groundwater dispute and citizen
influence in general (according to Montrose). To the extent that Montrose is accurate in attributing the
Test Plan modification (and ultimately EPA’s prohibiting the system from being turned on) to one citizen
77

is not as important as what this might mean in the broader context of citizen involvement in Superfund.
Environmental activists like the Del Amo Action Committee (and other organizations that are invested in
representing communities impacted by hazardous site contamination) are often portrayed as action-
oriented or even militant. But looking at the Del Amo/Montrose story in the long-view, much of what the
DAAC and other community members have done might be best described as “community-informed
inaction.” In other words, next steps might include stepping back and making a careful assessment of the
implications of the remedy’s implementation if the pCBSA reinjection issue is not adequately addressed.
For the Story Map, the groundwater treatment system infrastructure is shown as built in a Web map so
that users can visualize the intricate, $20 million, 15-year construction project. The accompanying text in
the side panel explains how the EPA and the community have prohibited Montrose from turning on the
system, establishing the current quandary in the cleanup process.
5.5 The Future of Savannah’s Community
The concluding panel of the Story Map focuses on the youth living in the community as a way of
impressing the overall narrative takeaway when the viewer reaches the end of the story. Focusing on
Savannah’s generation of 17 to 18-year olds who were born in the community, this section is comprised
of pictures of youth from the community, and an embedded interview sound clip where Savannah
interviews one her friends, Elizabeth, about what she thinks of her community and how she envisions the
future. Youth in Savannah’s generation face a crossroads in their lives revolving around whether they will
go to college, move away, get jobs outside the community after completing high school, or return to the
community to continue the struggle, The interview highlights the role of the cleanup effort in such
critical decisions. The interview is brief but leaves a bleak impression of the state of the community.
Elizabeth describes a community that doesn’t care, people who have been unkind during door-to-door
outreach efforts, and an environment that is unsafe and polluted. Her concluding statement is that people
should leave the community because it is unsafe for them and their families.

78

5.6 Feedback from Story Map Reviewers
For the purpose of evaluating the Story Map, feedback was gathered from a small group of individuals
who represent unique perspectives that may be useful in understanding different user experiences and
takeaways. This method of evaluation is based on a reputational approach, whereby individuals were
chosen based on criteria that distinguishes them from each other, and that also defines them within a
broader user cohort. First, a current resident of the community evaluated the Story Map to provide an
assessment of the tool from an insider perspective. This resident was aware of and involved in the
Superfund cleanups, but was not part of the project’s steering committee. Second, an employee from the
DTSC was asked to evaluate the Story Map because of their perspective as a government representative
involved in the cleanup sites. The DTSC participant may also provide specific feedback regarding the
accuracy of the GIS components of the story as well as how the scientific information was represented
(and the extent to which this information was also accurate). Third, a person was approached who does
not live in California and had no knowledge of the cleanup sites prior to viewing the map. This participant
could potentially offer a unique perspective regarding the story’s effectiveness in explaining the story and
engaging an outsider who has no stake in the community.

5.6.1 Current Community Resident Feedback
The feedback received from the current resident of the community, Scott Hookey (2015) included a short
list of bullet points in response to some mechanical (spelling) errors, with two points that specifically
spoke to the story map content. First, Hookey (2015) suggested that more depth be given to the
epidemiological facts regarding the toxins mentioned in the story map. He wrote, “If you had more space,
you could briefly explain the epidemiology of some of the toxins. (E.g., TCE is linked to birth defects in a
woman’s third trimester). As it validates why this is a topic of importance. I would look at page 122 of
the 2004 ATSDR report. It is on the Del Amo EPA site […]” (Hookey 2015). Second, Hookey (2015)
made note of the Superfund site map of California in the second panel, but suggested adding more
79

information in the popup content: “I really like the interactive map of the Superfund sites in California on
the NPL. For me, it would be cool to see their contamination site score, as it provides something to
compare the scope of contamination. Just an idea.” Overall, the takeaways from the current resident
perspective was that more specific health-related outcomes associated with exposure to toxins or COCs
from the sites might better justify their inclusion in the story map, or at least attribute more information as
to why these toxins are concerning. Similarly with the Superfund site map, Hookey (2015) indicated that
the hazard ranking score would be a useful way of understanding the relative risks of one site in
comparison to another.
5.6.2 DTSC Employee Feedback
Lee (2015) referred to her general impressions of the Story Map, then provided more specific suggestions
for representing the groundwater contamination plumes and how the groundwater remedy treatment
system is intended to work to reduce the contamination. Lee (2015) also addressed the issue of pCBSA
(this was noted in the story map as a contaminant that is not included in the groundwater plume
visualization/map because more feedback from the community, EPA, and other agencies was necessary to
adequately represent this component).
Lee (2015) called the tool “effective […] for helping people who aren’t involved in the cleanup
understand what happened and what is happening. I also thought it could provide a better understanding
of the experience of nearby residents for regulators, especially for those who haven’t been involved since
[the] beginning. The tone makes it approachable.”
Next, she went into a more focused discussion about the limitations of (and potential for)
visualizing how the groundwater remedy is intended to interact with and treat the contamination plumes,
as well as how pCBSA might be represented in the Story Map platform. Lee (2015) explained, “I think
the tool would be more helpful if the graphical interface allowed for a better representation of what the
remedy is and how it’s supposed to work (showing plume migration and the way the pumping is intended
to counteract that and move the constituents).” She addressed the pCBSA with a similar recommendation:
80

“The discussion of [the] pCBSA issue could be enhanced by graphically showing the re-injection, the rate
at which the volume of pCBSA would be reinjected, and the expected rate of migration of the pCBSA
after reinjection” (Lee 2015). She concluded with a suggestion to represent the case for turning on the
system, rather than representing only the perspective of those in the community who believe it will do
more harm than good. Specifically, she wrote. “…It would be helpful to mention that others believe the
remedy is needed to reduce the potential harm from the other constituents in the groundwater; and it
might help people to understand that we (“we” meant broadly here) are trying to find a way to address
both needs as quickly as we can” (Lee 2015).

5.6.3 External Evaluator Feedback
Two separate feedback responses were provided by the adult respondent with no knowledge of the Del
Amo or Montrose cleanups. The first feedback response included a list of mechanical errors (spelling and
syntax) within the story map text, as well as a few navigation issues and user-end experience problems.
Among these, Friend (2015) mentioned display issues as she was not able to view all of the content in the
Story Map side panel due to overflow. She also noted that the back button option in the main stage did not
appear in some of the story panels when action links were clicked. Friend (2015) also referred to
Savannah’s presence: “I can see that Savannah is a real person […] I don’t know why Savannah is
significant – did she get sick?”
In Friend’s (2015) second wave of feedback, specific questions were raised that spoke
specifically to the “so what?” question appropriate for any research project. She asked:
How can [this tool] help me, as an outsider, connect my heart to these strangers? What makes
them different from any angry mob that I see on TV? How are they not just looking for a reason
to get someone else to pay for them to get out of their poverty- stricken neighborhood?
(Questions possibly asked by calloused, cynical Americans who are tired of ambulance-chasing
attorneys)...Is there a way to somehow connect the dots between the horrible facts of how the
land was greatly contaminated, and the fact that these are real people who are suffering real
consequences as a result of someone else’s negligence and apathy? (Friend 2015)

81

5.7 Summary and Synthesis of Feedback
The mechanical and syntax errors in the text portions of the Story Map were mentioned by two
respondents and were the easiest to correct. The feedback from the current resident respondent included
adding more information to the contaminant section for clarification of toxin exposure effects. A more
comprehensive revisiting of how contamination risk for COCs should be approached is worth another
conversation with the DAAC, particularly because a great deal of exposure information is disputed. This
component of the Story Map should be carefully considered for accuracy of content, consistency of the
type of information provided, and a more formal review of the authoritative sources to pool this
information from, given that health agencies (and the EPA) have different risk and exposure thresholds
(even carcinogen classification) associated with chemicals.
The addition of the hazard ranking score (HRS) is a viable change that can be made to the
Superfund site feature layer in ArcGIS. At first consideration of this change/addition to the Superfund site
feature class popup, it was assumed that the new field could only be created in ArcMap and then
republished as a new map service. But there is a way to edit attribute tables directly in ArcGIS Online for
a feature layer, so this component would not involve having to edit and republish the feature class from
ArcMap.
Lee (2015) from the DTSC engaged the most challenging (as previously acknowledged) aspects
and possible limitations of the Story Map as it was published as a GIS visualization tool. She spoke to a
number of components that specifically engage the representations (Web maps) that are key in
understanding the complexity of the groundwater cleanup. These issues are addressed in more detail in
the following chapter, as they are better suited within a discussion for future work.
Friend (2015) (the individual with no knowledge of the Del Amo and Montrose cleanups) made
note of a number of end-user issues, some of which may be improved on the development side, but others
that appear to be user-specific. That some of the content was not visible in more than one browser is
concerning, and this could be investigated by testing the tool on multiple computers to determine if some
formatting can be done to prevent content overflow/display issues. The back button issue appears to be an
82

internal application setting that might not be easily fixed without working within a customizable template.
Friend’s (2015) note about Savannah, although this was mentioned in the end-user experience context,
brought up questions about whether Savannah truly has a meaningful presence in the Story Map. This
aspect is being revisited in discussions with the DAAC and Savannah with regard to how her role can be
better distinguished, or if an alternative title/focus should replace the theme entirely. Friend’s (2015) last
few comments which questioned the extent to which the Story Map was able to connect the contamination
with a real community of people is discussed in the following chapter, as this feedback specifically
addresses one of the major goals of this project, which was to engage users in an issue they may not be
familiar with but could connect to.

83

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In light of the feedback provided by the three participants, it was concluded that a reassessment of the
Story Map’s overall goals and target audience was necessary to guide the further revision and refinement
of the tool. Moving forward, the Story Map may be more useful in encouraging a dialogue among the
diverse group of stakeholders who are involved in the Del Amo and Montrose cleanups. Specifically, this
chapter reflects on three key considerations for revising the Story Map: 1) Relevancy of the
technology/tool to provide meaningful visualizations; 2) Effectiveness of the technology/tool within a
Critical GIS framework to be understood, evaluated, and discussed by non-users and users of GIS alike;
and 3) The extent to which the Story Map may better serve an internal audience of stakeholders, and how
this may direct the development of the groundwater treatment Web GIS component of the tool to facilitate
a dialogue about the most pressing issues facing the Del Amo and Montrose cleanups to date.
6.1 Considerations for Dynamic Web GIS Visualizations
The information provided by Lee (2015) spoke to the larger theme engaged earlier in this research, which
cited the value of Critical GIS scholarship (Schuurman 2006; Kwan and Ding 2008; Wilson 2015) in
insisting that geospatial technologies be more robust in their ability to be translated and understood by a
wider audience, ultimately offering an equal playing field which can affect change (Wilson 2015). Lee
(2015) recognized the potential value of the Story Map for regulators to understand the community’s
perspective, but also cited the potential for the tool to engage the GIS components in a more meaningful
way. Specifically, she suggested the tool might better illustrate how the groundwater treatment system is
intended to work in reducing the plumes and how this might play out in a visual graphic depicting flow
direction, plume movement, reduction of different contaminants, etc. She imagines an animated model of
how the remedy is intended to interact with and treat the different plumes.
This form of visualization, while first requiring a much better understanding of how the system is
intended to operate, plume concentrations and their occurrence in hydrostratigraphic units, etc., deserves
careful consideration of the programming and technology options. It might also require visual
84

representation of uncertainty given the complexity of the groundwater resource and unknown
effectiveness of the technologies. Further development of this component of the Story Map may provide a
more active visualization tool for non-experts and experts alike, something to replace the static
PowerPoint diagrams and plume maps shown in a dimly lit presentation room, as an interactive
representation of a system that has been debated primarily in theoretical terms.
Two potential concepts were considered for developing a dynamic groundwater treatment
visualization. The first concept considers whether a more robust Web application designed to work with
the action link function in the story map could achieve this visualization (in terms of depicting movement,
direction, and volume). One major limitation of this concept is that it doesn’t address the visualization of
the hydrostratigraphic units, which may be better served as a 3-D rendering. Another issue is that this
visualization would depend on the user’s engagement of the action links; it could not exist as a tool that
might automatically “play” like a video. The second concept for this visualization considers a 3-D model
of the groundwater plumes, the remedy infrastructure, and a cross section of hydrostratigraphic units
created in a cube structure in ArcScene. The interaction of all three components could be captured as a
video, with voice-over narration. Two anticipated limitations of the 3-D model-to-video rendering is
whether it is robust enough to depict movement and direction, and that there does not seem to be much
user engagement or interaction.
Overall, the evaluator’s comments regarding the limitations of the Web GIS visualizations as they
were presented in the Story Map may actually point to a potential within the tool to refocus the geospatial
components. One major limitation of the project was the lack of raw spatial datasets to incorporate in the
Web maps, as most of the data were digitized from existing EPA maps. The evaluator’s response speaks
to two potential qualities of the Story Map: its capacity to exist beyond this research, as well as its
potential to make the geospatial elements more relevant to the cleanups. Interestingly, this potential
outcome of the Story Map brings up even more notions of what constitutes the “participatory” in
participatory Web or PPGIS. If there is an interest on behalf of regulators to contribute data and inform
the Web maps in the tool, this opens up a new channel for participation, one that invites contributions
85

from different groups to capture and communicate a very complex issue. What distinguishes the Story
Map (in general) from other forms of Web PPGIS systems intended to capture, encode, and represent
spatial scenarios or aggregate results of a consensus mapping project is that the Story Map is open-ended,
or unfinished. Just like any story, the ones who are qualified to tell it are also the ones likely to share in its
retelling; in this case, the Story Map is not a closed forum, but a staging ground for further discussions
and future versions.
6.2 Reassessment of Story Map Target Audience
Friend (2015) questioned the tool’s ability to connect the contamination to a real community of people.
She posed an important question that other “detached” viewers or users of the tool might ask, which
essentially speaks to the “So what, or why should I care?” question of any research. In this case, Friend
(2015) recognized that this story may be redundant, echoing other examples of disenfranchised
communities living near toxic waste sites. But to return to her actual question regarding the efficacy of the
story overall, it seems that if the intention of the tool was to actively draw together the history of the
contamination and its living legacy within a community of real people, the respondent is questioning a
fundamental objective of the Story Map. In recognizing that there may be a flaw in the conceptual design
of the Story Map such that users who are not familiar with the cleanups must stretch to connect the
contamination, personally and emotionally, perhaps, with a group of real people. This may be an
indication that the tool would be more useful for those who are familiar with or invested in the Del Amo
and Montrose cleanups.
Friend’s (2015) question about Savannah’s purpose is understood as a limitation within the
narrative framework to define her presence and role in a consistent manner throughout the Story Map,
particularly if Savannah is the central mechanism for engaging an otherwise detached audience.
Savannah’s inconsistent presence in the Story Map also speaks to the broader narrative objective of the
project posed by the steering committee, which was to stress the importance of the local neighborhood
youth as the natural heirs to the DAA legacy of community activism, as well as the inheritors of the
remaining contamination and decades of cleanup ahead. But if Savannah and Elizabeth (the only youth
86

included in the Story Map) intend to carry the DAAC commitment forward, this is not communicated in
the narrative. That said, the extent to which the tool promotes a lasting impression of the value of
community activism, it does not do so through Savannah, Elizabeth, or the youth overall. This is not to
discount the impact of Elizabeth’s interview at the end of the Story Map in its candid and honest
reflection of her community and the future. But community advocacy and youth empowerment are not
gleaned from the concluding story panel.
That said, the Story Map was recognized by Lee (2015) as being a potential resource for
regulators to understand the community and the DAAC, particularly if they are all sitting around the same
table at stakeholder meetings. This supports the idea that a community Story Map has inherent value to
regulators who care about the role of communities in site cleanups. Ms. Babich expressed a few times
during this project that she feels she has to retell the community’s story every time to any new personnel,
analyst, consultant, or EPA employee who joins the Del Amo/Montrose cleanup team. Referring new
stakeholders to the Story Map may be a way to avoid a lengthy explanation and introduction the
community history and perspective. So, the Story Map’s value as a community tool may be targeted to
individuals who are newcomers to the project and should know the important role of the DAAC in the
cleanups.
6.3 Conclusion
The feasibility of remediating the Del Amo and Montrose contamination within a reasonable time frame
might seem like an insurmountable feat. To imagine achieving such a goal means recognizing that
Superfund, as robust as it may be for enforcing cleanup standards and securing CERCLA provisions
under Federal law, is not a cure-all for environmental hazards and disputes. Instead it is bolstered by
creative solutions and strategies posed by unique minds around a meeting table. The Story Map may be an
alternative setting that encourages dialogue among different groups who are invested in the same
problem. It may also be a starting point for developing multiple scenarios and spatial visualizations of the
87

intended goals of a cleanup activity or remedy, as well as a brainstorming tool for figuring out how to
represent contested boundaries in Superfund cleanups.
For Del Amo and Montrose, these might include the boundaries of the groundwater plumes at all
hydrostratigraphic levels, the future land use of the 10-acre buyout zone (now a fenced plot of patchy
grass that sits like a question mark in the community), and the groundwater treatment system and its
intended process if it was turned on. They might also include the storm water pathway from Montrose to
the former Kenwood Ditch, and the DDT in the bodies of white croaker fish, along the Palos Verdes
Shelf, and on the Pacific Ocean floor. Such are the troubled boundaries and spatial scales of
contamination from Del Amo and Montrose, and the narratives that necessarily shaped them.
The EPA (under the agency’s strongly publicized Community Involvement initiative) must create
the spaces and opportunities for communication, participation, and knowledge- sharing for citizens
affected by Superfund cleanups. Such spaces and opportunities may be particular critical in situations
where a lack of community involvement is impeding the cleanup process. But overall, and particularly for
the Del Amo/Montrose, communities will become involved and more informed because of their direct
experiences living in a contaminated area. As such, their de facto involvement in the cleanup process
defines their role as stakeholders, not as lay citizens situated among scientific professionals. All
stakeholders have unique perspectives, skill sets, information, and ways of approaching problems and
envisioning solutions. These contributions are of great value, but not so much if one group insists on
facilitating and defining the spaces where participation and involvement are meaningful. Again, to return
to the role of GIS, the map may function as a natural facilitator of discussion. Therefore, a community-
engaged Story Map might be a conceptual vehicle to balance power in stakeholder discussions. Assuming
that each stakeholder has a valuable perspective to share, the story maps might resemble chapters of a
much larger book that include the technical and authoritative maps drawn by consultants and the EPA
itself, rather than competing narratives.
To shift to a recent work of Critical GIS by Wilson (2015) on the opportunities for GIS, or simply
“mapping,” to inform the drawing of boundary lines, he states: “Across many of these developments has
88

been a particular theory of action – which might also be called practice – wherein a difference is made
and the world is intervened.” (2). This may also be another form of spatial interrogation, and whether it is
done in a GIS, in the field, with a pencil and paper, in an online environment, or a conference room, the
act of grappling with and composing new and innovative ways of representing space and imagining future
spaces is not just a job for GIS professionals, but for everyone. Web GIS technologies have been
underutilized in Superfund site cleanups, and the Story Map in this project is presented as a historical
record, a community mouthpiece, and a mechanism for tapping the potential to engage a dialogue
between multiple stakeholders and create a staging area for developing more meaningful representations
of spatial information, environmental processes, and visualizations of future scenarios and intended
cleanup outcomes. This project demonstrates the effectiveness of spatial narratives for bringing relevancy
to the current state of long-term Superfund cleanups through an understanding of the past. The role of
Critical GIS in creating relevant avenues for critique was instrumental to the process of developing the
tool on behalf of the community, as well as establishing long-term functional goals for the tool beyond
the scope of this study.
What began as a community-engaged research project ended in the same context, it just became a
much larger community. What this research process has shown is that those who are truly invested in an
issue are necessarily part of a solution community. It is in no one’s best interest to remain fixated on the
dynamics between groups that set them apart, such as pitting citizen knowledge and expert knowledge
against each other (Carver et al. 2000). Formidable knowledge gaps recognized in the Superfund cleanups
and any other complex problem are opportunities to build bridges, and this is the kind of practice that
must affect change. As seen in the case study of a complex Superfund site clean up in this study, the
Story Map technology may well play a critical role in such social processes in the future.

89

REFERENCES
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2009. “Preliminary Public Health
Assessment, Del Amo Facility.” Last modified October 1, 2009. Accessed March 5, 2015.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/PHA.asp?docid=17&pg=0.
–––. 2004. “Public Health Assessment for Del Amo Superfund Site.” 1-114. Accessed March 5, 2015.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/DelAmo072904/DelAmo072904PHA.pdf.
ATSDR and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2011. “Principles of Community
Engagement.” 1-189. Accessed April 26, 2015.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/communityengagement/pdf/PCE_Report_508_FINAL.pdf.
Agget, Graeme and Chris McColl. 2006. “Evaluating Decision Support Systems for PPGIS
Applications.” Cartography and Geographic Information Science 33, no. 1: 77-92. Accessed
March 25, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1559/152304006777323163.
Bailey, Keiron and Ted H. Grossardt. 2007. “Culture, Justice and the Arnstein Gap: The Impact of
Structured Public Involvement on U.S. Transportation Infrastructure Planning and Design.”
Kentucky Transportation Center. 289-90. Accessed March 16, 2015.
http://uknowledge.uky.edu/ktc_facpub/5.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) and US Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX (EPA). 2010. “Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors
Water Toxic Pollutants Total Maximum Daily Loads.” 10-129. Accessed April 28, 2015.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/board_decisions/basin_plan_amendments/technical_d
ocuments/66_New/10_1217/05%20Draft%20Staff%20Report.pdf.
Carver, Steve, Andy Evans, Richard Kingston, and Ian Turton. 2000. “Accessing Geographical
Information Systems over the World Wide Web: Improving Public Participation in
Environmental Decision-Making.” Information Infrastructure and Policy 6: 157-70.
Charnley, Susan and Bruce Engelbert. 2005. “Evaluating Public Participation in Environmental Decision-
Making: EPA’s Superfund Community Involvement Program.” Journal of Environmental
Management 77: 165-82.
Chrisman, Nicholas R. 1978. “Concepts of Space as a Guide to Cartographic Data Structures.” Harvard
Papers of Geographic Information Systems 5: 1-19.
Culley, Marci R. and Joseph Hughey. 2007. “Power and Public Participation in a Hazardous Waste
Dispute: A Community Case Study.” American Journal of Community Psychology 41: 99-114.
Accessed January 8, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9157-5.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2007. EnviroStor Database. EnviroStor Cleanup Sites.
Accessed March 26, 2015. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/data_download.asp.

90

Elwood, Sarah and Helga Leitner. 1998. “GIS and Community-based Planning: Exploring the Diversity
of Neighborhood Perspectives and Needs.” Cartography and Geographic Information Systems,
25, no. 2: 77-88. Accessed February 19, 2015.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1559/152304098782594553.
Esri Business Analyst. 2013. Businesses Layer. Accessed April 20, 2015.
Esri, 2015. “Story Maps.” Accessed January 15, 2015. http://storymaps.arcgis.com/en/.
Esri, 2012. “Using Web Maps to Tell Your Story.” ArcNews. Summer. Accessed March 20, 2015.
http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/summer12articles/using-web-maps-to-tell-your-story.html.
Friend, Kristin. 2015. Story Map evaluator. May 19, 2015.
Gordon, Eric, Steven Schirra, and Justin Hollander. 2011. “Immersive Planning: A New Conceptual
Model for Designing Public Participation with New Technologies.” Environmental and Planning
B: Planning and Design 38: 505-19. Accessed March 23, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/b37013.
Hamilton, James T. and W. Kip Viscusi. 1999. “How Costly is Clean? An Analysis of the Benefits and
Costs of Superfund Site Remediations.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18, no. 1: 2-
27. Accessed March 17, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3326070.
Harris, Robert H. and Grover C. Wrenn. 1988. “Making Superfund Work.” Issues in Science and
Technology 4, no. 3: 54-8.
Harris, Trevor M. and Daniel Weiner. 1996. “GIS and Society: The Social Implications of How People,
Space, and Environment are Represented in GIS.” Scientific Report for NCGIA Initiative #19
Specialist Meeting, University of Santa Barbara, November.
Hookey, Scott. 2015. Story Map evaluator. May 8, 2015.
Horowitz, Carol R., Mimsie Robinson, and Sarena Seifer. 2009. “Community-Based Participatory
Research From the Margin to the Mainstream: Are Researchers Prepared?” Accessed March 25,
2015. http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/119/19/2633.long.
Kingston, Richard. 2007. “Public Participation in Local Policy Decision-Making: The Role of Web-based
Mapping.” The Cartographic Journal 44, no. 2: 138-144. Accessed April 29, 2015.
http://www.ppgis.manchester.ac.uk/downloads/caj_paper.pdf.
Kwan, Mei-Po and Guoxiang Ding. 2008. “Geo-Narrative: Extending Geographic Information Systems
for Narrative Analysis in Qualitative and Mixed-Method Research.” The Professional
Geographer 60, no. 4: 443-65. Accessed March 7, 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00330120802211752.
Laurian, Lucie. 2004. “Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making: Findings from
Communities Facing Toxic Waste Cleanup.” Journal of the American Planning Association 70,
no. 1: 53-65. Accessed March 11, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360408976338.
Lee, Barbara. 2015. Story Map evaluator. May 1, 2015.
91

Li, S., Y. Ru, and Z. Chang. “Enhancing Online Public Notices using GIS to Facilitate Public
Participation in Municipal Developments.” Proceeding for the XX ISPRS Annual Congress,
35(B2): 269-274, July 12-23, 2004. Accessed May 7, 2015.
http://www.isprs.org/proceedings/XXXV/congress/comm2/papers/136.pdf.
Los Angeles Region Imagery Acquisition Consortium (LAR-IAC) Program, 2012. Countywide Building
Outlines. Accessed February 25, 2015.
http://egis3.lacounty.gov/dataportal/2011/04/28/countywide-building-outlines/.
Obermeyer, N.J. 1998. “The Evolution of Public Participation GIS.” Cartography and Geographic
Information Systems 25, no. 2: 65-66.
Peng, Zhong-Ren. 2001. “Internet GIS for Public Participation.” Environment and Planning B: Planning
and Design 28: 889-905. Accessed April 29, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/b2750t.
Peterson, Lee. 1998. Dead End. Daily Breeze. March 8.
Pickles, John. 1995. Ground Truth: The Social Implications of Geographic Information Systems.
London: Guilford Press.
Sani, Aaron P. and Claus Rinner. 2011. “A Scalable GeoWeb Tool for Argumentation Mapping.”
Geomatica 62, no. 2: 145-56. Accessed April 20, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.5623/cig2011-023.
Schuurman, Nadine. 2006. “Formalization Matters: Critical GIS and Ontology Research.” Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 96, no. 4 (January): 726-39. Accessed April 10, 2015.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00513.x/abstract.
Sieber, Renee. 2006. “Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: A Literature Review and
Framework.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96, no. 3 (January): 491-507.
Accessed April 21, 2015. http://dusk.geo.orst.edu/virtual/2007/sieber2006.pdf.
State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Public Health
Protective Concentration: para-Chlorobenzene Sulfonic Acid in Drinking Water. Sutherland-
Ashley, Katherine. 1-21. Accessed April 28, 2015.
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/reports/pCBSAPublicHealthCon.pdf.
Stoll, Jennifer and Michelle Sumn. 2005. “Don’t Shoot the Messenger: PPGIS and Community
Empowerment.” Paper presented at the Public Participation GIS Annual Conference, Urban and
Regional Systems Association (URISA), Cleveland, OH, July 31 – August 2. Accessed February
17, 2015. http://downloads2.esri.com/campus/uploads/library/pdfs/55436.pdf.
StoryMap JS. 2015. Accessed January 15, 2015. http://storymap.knightlab.com/.
Sutcliffe, Carmel and Lou Wilson. 2011. “Bottom Up GIS for Mapping the Networks of Disadvantaged
Young Adults in the Peachy Belt, Adelaide.” University of South Australia. Accessed April 29,
2015. https://www.tasa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Sutcliffe-Carmel_-Wilson-Lou.pdf.
92

Talen, Emily.1999. “Constructing Neighborhoods from the Bottom up: The Case for Resident-Generated
GIS.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 26: 533-54.
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1996. “Superfund Relocation Roundtable Meeting.”
Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Meeting proceedings from May 2-4, Pensacola, FL. 1-42.
Accessed April 25, 2015. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/community/relocation/proceed.pdf.
–––. 2001. Action Memorandum, Request for Removal for Kenwood Drainage Pathway from Jeff Dhont,
Regional Project Manager EPA Region IX to Keith Takata, Superfund Division Region IX.. 1-41.
Superfund Record ID: 0639-07547.
–––. 2005. Superfund Community Involvement Handbook. 1-143. Accessed January 20, 2015.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/community/cag/pdfs/ci_handbook.pdf.
–––. 2011. “SARA Overview.” Last modified December 12, 2011. Accessed April 13, 2015.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/sara.htm.
–––. 2012. “Superfund Community Involvement.” Superfund. Last modified July 27, 2012. Accessed
January 7, 2015. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/community/index.htm.
–––. 2014. “Vapor Intrusion Study at the Del Amo and Montrose Superfund Sites.” Technical Assistance
Services for Communities. 1-4.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region IX. 1953. “Industrial Waste Treatment and
Disposal…At the Government Synthetic Rubber Plants, Los Angeles, Calif.” Authorship: Martin,
Arthur E. and Royale E. Rostenbach, Shell Oil Corp. & Reconstruction Finance Corp, resp.
Superfund Record ID: 2165733. Originally published in Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
45, no. 12. 2680-86. Accessed April 8, 2015.
http://delamoactioncommittee.org/DEL_OU1_AR_2010/2165733.pdf.
–––. 1992. Administrative Order on Consent for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study and Focused
Feasibility Study. US EPA Docket No. 92-13. In the Matter of Del Amo Plant Site: Shell Oil
Company, The Dow Chemical Company. Superfund Record ID: 88041065. Accessed May 11,
2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/b5bfdb5c3
bab4acd882579910065a235/$FILE/Del%20Amo%20-%20UAO%20CD%20-%205-7-92.pdf.
–––. 1998. Final Groundwater Remedial Investigation Report, Volume 1. Prepared by Dames & Moore.
3-1 – 3-12. Accessed March 9, 2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/8d30b851f
8d4f11888257a5c007389b7/$FILE/Del%20Amo%20-
%20GW%20RI%20Sec%201%20to%205.pdf.
–––. 1999a. Record of Decision. Dual Site Groundwater Operable Unit, Montrose and Del Amo
Superfund Sites. Summary of Site Characteristics. Montrose Chemical Corp. and Del Amo. 1999.
7-1 – 7-16. Accessed March 18, 2015.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0999035.pdf.
93

–––. 1999b. Ibid. Technical Impracticability Waiver and Containment Zone. 10-1 – 10.2. Accessed April
25, 2015.
–––. 1999c. Final Remedial Investigation Report for the Montrose Superfund Site. Volume 1. Originally
prepared by Montrose Chemical Corporation of California, Revised by US EPA Region IX 1998.
1-1 – 6-41. Accessed February 20, 2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/362a770857df41ba88257a55005afc64/d8dac223dc
86924a88257464005893ff/$FILE/Montrose%20%20Final%20Remedial%20Investigation%20Re
port%20Volume%20I.pdf.
–––. 2004. Technical Memorandum. To Dante Rodriguez/EPA from Randy Kellerman/CH2M HILL. Del
Amo Study Site History Document Comparison. 1-5. Superfund Record ID: 2165734.
–––. 2005a. First Five Year Review Report for Del Amo Waste Pits Operable Unit. Approved by
Elizabeth J. Adams. Remedial Actions. 4-1 – 4-11. Accessed April 25, 2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/89c4202df
7f27ca6882579a500743629/$FILE/Pg%201-84%20finalDelAmo5YR092105.pdf.
–––. 2005b. Ibid. Appendix A. Land-use Covenants and Title Report. Superfund Record ID: 00-1521450.
2-17. Accessed April 25, 2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/89c4202df
7f27ca6882579a500743629/$FILE/Pg%2085-165%20finalDelAmo5YR092105.pdf.
–––. 2006. Combined Water Level and Isoconcentration Contour Maps for the Dual Site – 2006 Data.
Prepared by CHM2HILL. Accessed April 20, 2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/c6ec76728
02a0fc58825746400579ec1/$FILE/Combined%202006%20Water%20Level%20and%20Isoconc
entration%20Contours%20-%20Dual%20Site.pdf.
–––. 2007a. Remedial Investigation Report. Soil and NAPL Operable Unit. Del Amo Superfund Site. 1-
135. Accessed April 5, 2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/a43f999ec
9af83c2882573700058b9a3/$FILE/RI%20report%20text.pdf.
–––. 2007b. Ibid. Figures 1-24, Pages 9-10 from Figures. Accessed January 13, 2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/4806b0914
7592690882573fc00754764/$FILE/Pages%209-10%20from%20Figures.pdf.
–––. 2007c. Ibid. Figures 1-24, Pages 11-20 from Figures. Accessed January 13, 2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/4806b0914
7592690882573fc00754764/$FILE/Pages%2011-20%20from%20Figures.pdf.
–––. 2007d. Ibid. Figures 1-24, Pages 21-24 from Figures. Accessed January 13, 2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/4806b0914
7592690882573fc00754764/$FILE/Pages%2021-24%20from%20Figures.pdf.
–––. 2007e. Ibid. Historical Development and Land Use, Aerial Photos. 1-2. Accessed March 5, 2015.
94

–––. 2007f. Ibid. Appendix D. “Parcel-by-Parcel Data Summary.” Accessed March 10, 2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/5aa00ca6d
aaa46cd882573d1000c24bb!OpenDocument.
–––. 2007g. Record of Decision for Del Amo Waste Pits Operable Unit. 2-49. Accessed March 10, 2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/b6fd1a193
48a8d1d8825799100641ca5/$FILE/Del%20Amo%20ROD%20-%20Waste%20Pits%209_97.pdf.
–––. 2010. Second Five-Year Review for Del Amo Superfund Site Waste Pits Operable Unit. Approved
by Michael Montgomery. Technical Assessment. 7-1 – 7-5. Accessed April 25, 2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/7534ed296
928bd47882577ac007d3e08/$FILE/DA%20Waste%20Pits%20-%202nd%205YR%2009_10.pdf.
–––. 2011a. Record of Decision. Del Amo and Montrose Superfund Site Soil and NAPL Operable Unit.
13-152. Accessed March 2, 2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/1d918e6ac
19f0b9588257920007a0857/$FILE/Del%20Amo%20ROD%202011%20rev2013.pdf.
–––. 2011b. Ibid. Site Characteristics. Figure 5-8: Hydrostratigraphic Block Diagram. Accessed April 25,
2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/1d918e6ac
19f0b9588257920007a0857/$FILE/Del%20Amo%20ROD%202011%20rev2013.pdf.
–––. 2011c. Ibid. Site Characteristics. Figure 5-10: Investigation Elements. Accessed April 25, 2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/1d918e6ac
19f0b9588257920007a0857/$FILE/Del%20Amo%20ROD%202011%20rev2013.pdf.
–––. 2012. Groundwater Monitoring Report, Montrose Superfund Site. Prepared by AECOM. ES-1 – 18.
Accessed March 18, 2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/d61610933
bdb111588257ab7007109ec/$FILE/2012%20GW%20Monitoring%20Report.pdf.
–––. 2013a. Groundwater Cleanup Project at the Montrose and Del Amo Superfund Site in Los Angeles
County, CA. Public Fact Sheet. Accessed April 20, 2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/9ab6f66df1
c4da7788257b2f006963e2/$FILE/DA-Montrose%20GW%20Update%202_28_13.pdf.
–––. 2013b. Montrose Groundwater Meeting Presentation PowerPoint. Presentation by Kevin Mayer and
Dana Barton, EPA. Slide 2, Montrose Chemical Plant ca. 1952. Accessed April 20, 2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/20af53217
77b0f6e88257b2f0064da2c/$FILE/ATTTS86D.pdf/Montrose%20GW%20Meeting%20Presentio
n%20-%20EPA%202_13.pdf.

95

–––. 2013c. Groundwater Data Evaluation to Support Vapor Intrusion Assessment Montrose and Del
Amo Superfund Sites. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. Figure 14, 2012 Chlorobenzene, Benzene,
and TCE Plumes in Groundwater Upper Bellflower Aquitard (Water Table Zone). 44. Accessed
March 17, 2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/ffbec497e4
c4426888257c280008ccb9/$FILE/Phase%201%20VI%20Evaluation%20-
%20Mon_DA%209_13.pdf.
–––. 2014a. Del Amo and Montrose Superfund Sites Map. Accessed January 25, 2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/877f2e5635100457882574260073ba68/02991b9d3
a95ec1a88257db2007a5085/$FILE/Montrose-Del%20Amo%20Site%20Map%2012_14.pdf.
–––. 2014b. Del Amo Superfund Site OUs. Accessed April 20, 2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/0e8dfde31
3aa85d2882577b2006b0993/$FILE/Del%20Amo%20Superfund%20Site%20OUs%202014.pdf.
–––. 2014c. Montrose Superfund Site OUs. Accessed April 20, 2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/369a2483b
ec3de8c882577b2006ae87d/$FILE/Montrose%20Superfund%20Site%20OUs%202014.pdf.
–––. 2014d. EPA Public Meeting Transcript, Montrose Superfund Site, DNAPL Operable Unit. Accessed
December 10, 2014.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/f6e1ce7f61
2d6a7988257da100639675/$FILE/Montrose%20-
%20DNAPL%20PP%20Meeting%20Transcript%2011_8_14.pdf.
–––. 2014e. Phase 2 VI Evaluation. Vapor Intrusion Studies 2012-14: Montrose and Del Amo Superfund
Sites. Accessed April 25, 2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/ffbec497e4
c4426888257c280008ccb9/$FILE/Phase%202%20VI%20Evaluation%20-
%20Mon_DA%204_14.pdf.
–––. 2015a. “Del Amo Facility.” Superfund Site Overviews. Last modified April 29, 2015. Accessed May
10, 2015. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/ViewByEPAID/CAD029544731.
–––. 2015b. “Montrose Chemical Corp.” Superfund Site Overviews. Last modified April 20, 2015.
Accessed May 10, 2015.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dec8ba3252368428825742600743733/b7db9903
773ec74188257007005e93ed.
United States of America et al. v. Montrose Chemical Corporation of California. 2015. United States
District Court Central District of California Western Division. Notice of Dispute. Case No. CV
90 3122-R.

96

University of Southern California (USC). 2015. USC Digital Library Special Collections. WPA Land Use
survey map for the City of Los Angeles, Book 10 (Shoestring Addition to San Pedro District),
Sheet 10. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://cdm15799.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p15799coll120/id/1516/rec/
30.
West Basin Municipal Water District (WBMWD). 2009. “Opportunities and Constraints Analysis of the
Dominguez Channel Inland Water Supply.” 1-48. Accessed April 25, 2015.
http://www.westbasin.org/files/general-pdfs/Dominguez-Channel-Opptys-and-Constraints-
Analysis.pdf.
Wallerstein, Nina and Bonnie Duran. 2010. “Community-Based Participatory Research Contributions to
Intervention Research: The Intersection of Science and Practice to Improve Health Equity.”
American Journal of Public Health 100, no. 1 (April): 40-6. Accessed March 20, 2015.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2837458/pdf/S40.pdf.
Wilson, Matthew W. 2009. “Towards a Genealogy of Qualitative GIS,” in Qualitative GIS, edited by
Meghan Cope, 156-71. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
–––. 2014. “On the Criticality of Mapping Practices: Geodesign as Critical GIS?” Landscape and Urban
Planning, 1-9. Accessed March 7, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.12.017.
–––. 2015. “New Lines? Enacting a Social History of GIS.” The Canadian Geographer, 59, no. 1: 29-34.
Accessed April 28, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cag.12118.
Yablonsk, Steven K., Anthony L. Young, and Cynthia J. Morris. 1998. “Defense of CERCLA and Toxic
Tort Hazardous-Waste Site Claims: Love Canal, Revisited.” Current Case Developments,
Environmental Claims Journal 10, no. 4: 151-72. Accessed March 15, 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10406029809379328.

97

APPENDIX A: User Functionality Illustration of Operable Units in Story Map
The graphics and annotations provided in this appendix are intended to illustrate some of the dynamic
aspects of the Story Map which allow the user to explore the Web map application content using the
interactive action link function. The Del Amo and Montrose Operable Units Web map was incorporated
into the Story Map after the original version was published. The purpose of this section is to show how
the action links transform the map content, extent, and popup configurations in a workflow that enables
the user to visualize and interact with the operable units included in the Del Amo and Montrose sites.

Figure 22 Web map of Del Amo and Montrose Operable Units
98

Figure 23 Side panel with Action Links for Operable Units in Story Map

User clicks on “OU 2:
Existing Stormwater
Pathways action link,
map extent changes to
show the Torrance
Lateral and a popup
window with more
information
Figure 24 Map Action for Montrose OU 2
The side panel (left graphic) consists
of a short introduction to the
operable units, and the blue links are
action links which engage the web
map content, spatial extent, and
popup configuration for each OU
link. Prior to clicking the links, the
user sees an overview map, shown
below.
99

User clicks on action
sub-link, Dominguez
Channel and map
extent zooms out to
show where the
Torrance Lateral and
Dominguez Channel
meet, with popup
content showing more
information and linked
photo of Los Angeles
Watershed Map
Figure 25 Map Action for Dominguez Channel and Torrance Lateral

User clicks on OU 5, Palos
Verdes Shelf action link,
map extent changes to
show general area of
contamination in Pacific
Ocean, with a link to The
Fish Contamination
Education Collaborative
and a map image from the
EPA showing DDT
concentration along the
Palos Verdes Shelf
Figure 26 Map Action for the Palos Verdes Shelf
100

User clicks on action link
for White’s Point to see
where the DDT storm
waters entered the ocean
via the sanitary sewer
outfall
Figure 27 Map Action for White’s Point Outfall

User clicks OU 4: Historical
Storm water pathway north,
and the map extent shifts to
the community to reveal the
approximate boundary of the
historic Kenwood Ditch. A
popup window explains the
significance of the Kenwood
Ditch, which received DDT
waste waters from the
Montrose facility. An image
from the EPA is show of a
yard on being excavated on
Kenwood.
Figure 28 Map Action for the Historic Kenwood Ditch
101

When the user clicks the sub-
link under OU 4, the
Kenwood Drain layer is
shown. The Kenwood Drain
was built in the 1950s to
replace the Kenwood Ditch.
An image of storm drain
construction plans for
Kenwood Avenue is provided
in the popup window, from
the Los Angeles County Flood
Control District, 1968.
Figure 29 Map Action for Kenwood Drain and Historic Ditch Overlay

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Long-term remedial action Superfund sites pose steep challenges for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and stakeholders to remain actively engaged in cleanups that could go on essentially in perpetuity. It is essential for communities impacted by Superfund cleanups to actively participate in the cleanups so that they can be a part of the decision-making process. Citizens directly affected by Superfund cleanups have unique perspectives, information, and spatial knowledge to contribute, but opportunities for participation in Superfund may be limited to the agendas, meeting spaces, and timelines of the EPA (Laurian 2004). In the City of Los Angeles, the Del Amo and Montrose Superfund sites are located adjacent to each other and directly north of an unincorporated neighborhood of approximately 300 households. Due to the extent of the commingled groundwater contamination originating from both sites, it is understood by the community that the time frame for cleaning up the groundwater will span 3,000 to 5,000 years. The primary goal of this thesis was to understand and portray the cleanup through the perspectives of local community members. Specifically, the objectives of this research were to: (1) use a community-engaged research approach to develop a Web GIS Story Map which incorporated experiential spatial narratives from the perspectives of local citizens affected by the Del Amo and Montrose cleanups

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Building a spatial database of biochar research and practice with Web-GIS

PDF

A spatiotemporal analysis of racial disparity in the distribution of superfund sites within Santa Clara County, California

PDF

Integration of topographic and bathymetric digital elevation model using ArcGIS interpolation methods: a case study of the Klamath River Estuary

PDF

Evaluating spatial changes in the rate of insurgency‐violence in Central Africa: the Lord's Resistance Army 2008-2012

Asset Metadata

Creator Graves, Mallory Elizabeth (author)

Core Title Spatial narratives of struggle and activism in the Del Amo and Montrose Superfund cleanups: a community-engaged Web GIS story map

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Science

Degree Program Geographic Information Science and Technology

Publication Date 07/17/2015

Defense Date 05/26/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag ArcGIS,ArcGIS Online,CERCLA,cleanups,community based research,contamination,critical GIS,Del Amo,environmental justice,Environmental Protection Agency,GIS,historical GIS,Los Angeles,mixed media,Montrose,narrative,OAI-PMH Harvest,operable units,participation,remedial action,spatial,stakeholders,story map,Superfund

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Vos, Robert O. (committee chair), Swift, Jennifer N. (committee member), Warshawsky, Daniel N. (committee member)

Creator Email mgraves@usc.edu,poofbgone@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-597488

Unique identifier UC11299790

Identifier etd-GravesMall-3632.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-597488 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GravesMall-3632.pdf

Dmrecord 597488

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Graves, Mallory Elizabeth

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA