[Federal Register: June 8, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 109)]
[Notices]
[Page 33453-33457]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08jn05-74]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers
Notice of Solicitation for Estuary Habitat Restoration Program
AGENCY: Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
ACTION: Notice of solicitation for project applications.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Congress has appropriated limited funds to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) to implement the Estuary Habitat Restoration
Program as authorized in Section 104 of the Estuary Restoration Act of
2000, Title I of the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 (Pub. L.
106-457) (accessible at http://restoration.nos.noaa.gov/pdfs/act_s835.pdf
). On behalf of the Estuary Habitat Restoration Council
(Council), the Corps is soliciting proposals for estuary habitat
restoration projects. This document describes project criteria and
evaluation criteria the Council will use to determine which projects to
recommend. Recommended projects must provide ecosystem benefits, have
scientific merit, be technically feasible, and be cost-effective.
Proposals selected for Estuary Habitat Restoration Program funding will
be implemented in accordance with a cost-share agreement with the
Corps. This is not a grants program.
DATES: Proposals must be received on or before July 25, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Proposal forms may be accessed at http://www.usace.army.mil/civilworks/cecwp/estuary_act/
or by contacting the individuals listed
in the following section. Project proposals may be submitted
electronically, by mail, or by courier. Electronic submissions are
preferred and will facilitate processing. Please follow the detailed
instructions provided in section IX. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ellen Cummings, Headquarters, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC 20314-1000, (202) 761-4750, e-
mail: Ellen.M.Cummings@usace.army.mil; or Ms. Cynthia Garman-Squier,
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works),
Washington, DC (703)
[[Page 33454]]
695-6791, e-mail: Cynthia.Garman-Squier@hqda.army.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
Under the Estuary Habitat Restoration Program, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) is authorized to carry out estuary habitat
restoration projects. However, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Council
(Council) is responsible for soliciting, reviewing and evaluating
project proposals. The Corps may only fund projects on the prioritized
list provided by the Council. The Estuary Habitat Restoration Strategy
prepared by the Council contains introductory information about the
program and provides the context in which projects will be evaluated
and the program will be conducted. The Strategy was published in the
Federal Register, 67 FR 71942, December 3, 2002. It is also accessible
at http://www.usace.army.mil/civilworks/cecwp/estuary_act/.
An emphasis will be placed on achieving cost-effective restoration
of ecosystems while promoting increased partnerships among agencies and
between public and private sectors. Projects funded under this program
will contribute to the Estuary Habitat Restoration Strategy goal of
restoring 1,000,000 acres of estuary habitat.
For purposes of this program, estuary is defined as ``a part of a
river or stream or other body of water that has an unimpaired
connection with the open sea and where the sea water is measurably
diluted with fresh water from land drainage.'' Estuary also includes
the ``* * * near coastal waters and wetlands of the Great Lakes that
are similar in form and function to estuaries * * *.'' For this
program, estuary is considered to extend from the head of tide to the
boundary with the open sea (to downstream terminus features or
structures such as barrier islands, reefs, sand bars, mud flats, or
headlands in close proximity to the connection with the open sea). In
the Great Lakes, riparian and nearshore areas will be considered to be
estuaries. Estuary habitat includes the estuary and its associated
ecosystems, such as: salt, brackish, and fresh water coastal marshes;
coastal forested wetlands and other coastal wetlands; maritime forests;
coastal grasslands; tidal flats; natural shoreline areas; shellfish
beds; sea grass meadows; kelp beds; river deltas; and river and stream
corridors under tidal influence.
II. Eligible Restoration Activities
Section 103 of the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (the Act)
defines the term estuary habitat restoration activity to mean ``an
activity that results in improving degraded estuaries or estuary
habitat or creating estuary habitat (including both physical and
functional restoration), with the goal of attaining a self-sustaining
system integrated into the surrounding landscape.'' Projects funded
under this program will be consistent with this definition.
Eligible habitat restoration activities include re-establishment of
chemical, physical, hydrologic, and biological features and components
associated with an estuary. Restoration may include, but is not limited
to, improvement of estuarine wetland tidal exchange or reestablishment
of historic hydrology; dam or berm removal; improvement or
reestablishment of fish passage; appropriate reef/substrate/habitat
creation; planting of native estuarine wetland and submerged aquatic
vegetation; reintroduction of native species; control of invasive
species; and establishment of riparian buffer zones in the estuary.
Cleanup of pollution for the benefit of estuary habitat may be
considered, as long as it does not meet the definition of excluded
activities under the Act (see section III, Excluded Activities, below).
In general, proposed projects should clearly demonstrate
anticipated benefits to habitats such as those habitats listed in the
Introduction. Although the Council recognizes that water quality and
land use issues may impact habitat restoration efforts and must be
considered in project planning, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Program
is intended to fund physical habitat restoration projects, not measures
such as storm water detention ponds, wastewater treatment plant
upgrades or combined sewer outfall improvements.
III. Excluded Activities
Estuary Habitat Restoration Program funds will not be used for any
activity that constitutes mitigation required under any Federal or
State law for the adverse effects of an activity regulated or otherwise
governed by Federal or State law, or that constitutes restoration for
natural resource damages required under any Federal or State law.
Estuary Habitat Restoration Program funds will not be used for
remediation of any hazardous substances regulated under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(42 U.S.C. 9601-9675). Additionally, Estuary Habitat Restoration
Program funds will not be used to carry out projects on Federal lands.
IV. Project Sponsor and Cost Sharing
The non-Federal sponsor may be a State, a political subdivision of
a State, a Tribe, or a regional or interstate agency. A nongovernmental
organization may serve as a non-Federal sponsor as determined by the
Secretary of the Army (Secretary) in consultation with appropriate
State and local governmental agencies and Tribes.
The Federal share of the cost of an estuary habitat restoration
project shall not exceed 65 percent except that the Federal share shall
be 85 percent of the incremental additional cost of pilot testing or
demonstration of an innovative technology having the potential for
improved cost-effectiveness. Innovative technology is defined as novel
processes, techniques and/or materials to restore habitat, or the use
of existing processes, techniques, and/or materials in a new
restoration application.
Prior to initiation of a project, the non-Federal sponsor must
enter into a written agreement with the Corps in which the non-Federal
sponsor agrees to provide its share of the project cost. The non-
Federal sponsor shall provide lands, easements, rights-of-way, and
relocations and may provide services and in-kind contributions for
credit toward its share of the project cost. Credit for the value of
in-kind contributions is subject to satisfactory compliance with
applicable Federal labor laws covering non-Federal construction,
including but not limited to the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a et
seq.), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327
et seq.), and the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (40 U.S.C. 276c). Credit
may be afforded for the value of required work undertaken by
volunteers, using the hourly value in common usage for grants program
but not to exceed the Federal estimate of the cost of activity. The
non-Federal sponsor shall also be responsible for all costs associated
with operating, maintaining, replacing, repairing, and rehabilitating
these projects as well as for the required post-construction
monitoring.
Other Federal funds, i.e., funds appropriated to agencies other
than the Corps, may not be used by the non-Federal sponsor to meet its
share of the project cost unless the other Federal agency verifies in
writing that expenditure of funds for such purpose is expressly
authorized by statute. Otherwise, other Federal funds may be used for
the proposed project if consistent with the other agency's authorities
and will count as part of the Federal share of the project cost. Any
[[Page 33455]]
non-Federal funds or contributions used as a match for these other
Federal funds or any other Federal program may be used toward the
project but will not be considered in determining the non-Federal share
in relation to the Corps' costs.
Credit will be provided only for work necessary for the specific
project being funded with Estuary Habitat Restoration Program funds.
For example, a non-Federal entity is engaged in the removal of ten
dams, has removed six dams, and now seeks assistance for the removal of
the remaining four dams as an Estuary Habitat Restoration Program
project. None of the costs associated with the removal of the six dams
is creditable as part of the non-Federal share of the project for
removal of four dams.
This is not a grants program. The Corps will not transfer funds to
the non-Federal sponsor. The Corps will implement (construct) some
portion of the proposed project. To the extent possible the Corps will
use the planning, evaluation, and design products provided by the
applicant. However, the Corps will be responsible for assuring
compliance with Federal environmental statutes, assuring the project is
designed to avoid adverse impacts on other properties and that the
project can reasonably be expected to provide the desired benefits, and
managing construction activities not performed by the non-Federal
sponsor as in-kind contribution. These Corps activities will be part of
the Federal cost of the project, and the non-Federal sponsor should
consider these costs in developing the project cost estimate.
V. Funding Availability
Limited funds have been appropriated for implementation of projects
under the Estuary Habitat Restoration Program. The Council will not
accept proposals that indicate an estimated Federal cost of less than
$25,000 or more than $1,000,000. There is no guarantee that sufficient
funds will be available to fund all eligible proposals. The number of
proposals funded as a result of this notice will depend on the number
of eligible proposals received, the estimated amount of funds required
for each selected project, and the merit and ranking of the proposals.
The exact amount of the Federal and non-Federal cost share for each
selected project will be specified in the written agreement discussed
in Project Cost Sharing, Section IV above. Projects selected for
funding must be capable of producing the ecosystem benefits described
in the proposal in the absence of Federal funding beyond that
established in the cost-share agreement.
VI. Proposal Review Process
Proposals will be screened as discussed in section VII. A. below to
determine eligibility. The staff of the agencies represented on the
Council will conduct a technical review of the eligible proposals in
accordance with the criteria described in section VII. B. below. Agency
scientists involved in estuarine research or the development and
application of innovative methods for restoring estuary habitats will
also review proposals that indicate the use of innovative technologies.
Each agency will score and rank the proposals; the staff of the five
agencies will use these rankings as the basis for a consolidated
recommendation. The Council will consider the staff recommendation, the
items discussed in sections VII. C. and D. below, and possibly other
factors when preparing its prioritized list of recommended projects for
the Secretary's use.
VII. Proposal Review Criteria
This section describes the criteria that will be used to review and
select projects to be recommended to the Secretary for funding under
the Act. It will benefit applicants to ensure that project proposals
clearly address the criteria set forth under the following four
subsections: Initial Screening of Project Proposals; Evaluation of
Project Proposals; Priority Elements; and Other Factors.
A. Initial Screening of Project Proposals
Proposals will be screened according to the requirements listed in
sections 104(b) and 104(c)(2) of the Act as described below. In
addition, proposed projects must not include excluded activities as
discussed in Section III above. Proposals that do not meet all of these
initial screening criteria will not be evaluated further. To be
accepted, the proposal must:
(1) Originate from a non-Federal sponsor (section 104(b));
(2) Address restoration needs identified in an estuary habitat
restoration plan (section 104 (c)(2)(A)). The Act defines ``estuary
habitat restoration plan'' as any Federal or State plan for restoration
of degraded estuary habitat that was developed with substantial
participation of the public. (section 103(6));
(3) Be consistent with the Estuary Habitat Restoration Strategy
(section 104(c)(2)(B)) by:
(a) Including eligible restoration activities that provide
ecosystem benefits;
(b) Addressing estuary habitat trends (including historic losses)
in the project region, and indicating how these were considered in
developing the project proposal;
(c) Involving a partnership approach, and
(d) Clearly describing the benefits expected to be realized by the
proposed project;
(4) Include a monitoring plan that is consistent with standards
developed by NOAA under section 104(c)(2)(C)) (available at: http://era.noaa.gov/htmls/era/era_monitoring.html
, or from the contacts
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above), and;
(5) Include satisfactory assurances that the non-Federal sponsor
has adequate authority and resources to carry out items of local
cooperation and properly maintain the project (section 104(c)(2)(D)).
B. Evaluation of Project Proposals
Proposals that meet the initial screening criteria in A. above will
be eligible for further review using the criteria listed below. The
following criteria are listed in order of relative importance with the
most important criteria first. The first four criteria are the most
important. If the reviewers find that a response to any of the first
four criteria is completely inadequate, the proposal will be rejected.
For each of the listed criteria, the focus will be on the factors
mentioned below but other factors may also be considered.
(1) Ecosystem Benefits--
Proposals will be evaluated based on the extent of proposed habitat
restoration activities and the type(s) of habitat(s) that will be
restored. Following are specific factors that reviewers will consider
as part of this criterion:
(a) Prevention or reversal of estuary habitat loss or degradation
in the project area and the nature and extent of the proposed project's
potential contribution to the long-term conservation of estuary habitat
function,
(b) Benefits for Federally listed endangered or threatened species,
species proposed for Federal listing, recently delisted species or
designated or proposed critical habitat in the project area,
(c) Extent to which the project will provide, restore, or improve
habitat important for estuary-dependent fish and/or migratory birds
(e.g. breeding, spawning, nursery, foraging, or staging habitat),
(d) Prevention or reduction of nonpoint source pollution or other
contaminants to estuary habitats or restoration of estuary habitats
that are already contaminated, and
[[Page 33456]]
(e) Benefits to nearby existing habitat areas, or contribution to
the creation of wildlife/ecological corridors connecting existing
habitat areas.
(2) Cost-Effectiveness--
Reviewers will evaluate the relationship between estimated project
costs, including the costs of remaining planning, design, construction,
required lands, and annual operation, maintenance, repair,
rehabilitation and replacement and monitoring cost, to the monetary and
non-monetary benefits described in the proposal. Clear quantitative and
qualitative descriptions of the proposed outputs will facilitate this
evaluation. Examples of units of measure include: Acres restored, flood
damage reduction levels, changes in water quality parameters, increases
in the productivity of various species, and presence and absence of
certain species. The estimated persistence of the proposed project
outputs will be considered. For example, will the area be maintained as
a wetland, or allowed to erode or become upland? Will the proposed
project produce additional benefits due to synergy between the proposed
project and other ongoing or proposed projects? Reviewers will consider
if the proposed project is a cost-effective way to achieve the proposed
benefits. In some instances the costs and benefits of proposed projects
may be compared to the costs and benefits of other similar projects in
the area. The significance of the proposed outputs is also a factor to
be considered as part of cost-effectiveness. The significance of
restoration outputs should be recognized in terms of institutional
(such as laws, adopted plans, or policy statements), public (such as
support for the project), or technical (such as addresses scarcity,
increases limiting habitat, or improves or increases biodiversity)
importance.
(3) Technical Feasibility--
Reviewers will evaluate the extent to which, given current and
projected environmental conditions of the restoration site--e.g.,
soils, flood regime, presence of invasive species, surrounding land
use--the proposed project is likely to be successfully implemented.
Consideration will also be given to:
(a) Potential success of restoration techniques, based on history
of successful implementation in field or pilot projects,
(b) Implementation schedule,
(c) Expected length of time before success can be demonstrated,
(d) Proposed corrective actions using monitoring information,
(e) Project management plans, and
(f) Experience and qualifications of project personnel.
(4) Scientific Merit--
Reviewers will evaluate the extent to which the project design is
based on sound ecological principles and is likely to meet project
goals. This may be indicated by the following factors:
(a) Goals of the project are reasonable considering the existing
and former habitat types present at the site and other local
influences,
(b) Conceptual approach demonstrates an understanding of habitat
function, and
(c) Specific methods proposed (if successfully implemented--see
criteria on technical feasibility) have a good chance of meeting
project goals and achieving long-term sustainability.
(5) Agency Coordination--
Reviewers will evaluate the degree to which the project will
encourage increased coordination and cooperation among Federal, State,
and local government agencies. Some of the indicators used to evaluate
coordination are:
(a) The State, Federal, and local agencies involved in developing
the project and their expected roles in implementation,
(b) The nature of agency coordination, e.g., joint funding,
periodic multi-agency review of the project, collaboration on adaptive
management decisions, joint monitoring, opportunities for future
collaboration, etc., and
(c) Whether a formal agreement, such as a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU), exists between/among agencies as part of the
project.
(6) Public/Private Partnerships--
One of the focuses of the Act is the encouragement of new public/
private partnerships. Reviewers will evaluate the degree to which the
project will foster public/private partnerships and uses Federal
resources to encourage increased private sector involvement. Indicators
of the success at meeting this criterion follow. How will the project
promote collaboration or create partnerships among public and private
entities, including potential for future new or expanded public/private
partnerships? What mechanisms are being used to establish the
partnership, e.g., joint funding, shared monitoring, joint decision-
making on adaptive management strategies? Is there a formal agreement,
such as an MOU, between/among the partners as part of the project? Also
important is the extent to which the project creates an opportunity for
long-term partnerships among public and private entities.
(7) Level of Contribution--
Reviewers will consider the level and type (cash or in-kind) of
non-Federal contribution. Providing more than the minimum 35-percent
share will be rated favorably.
(8) Monitoring Plan--
Reviewers will consider the following factors in evaluating the
quality of the monitoring plan:
(a) Linkage between the monitoring methods and the project goals,
including success criteria,
(b) How results will be evaluated (statistical comparison to
baseline or reference condition, trend analysis, or other quantitative
or qualitative approach),
(c) How baseline conditions will be established for the parameters
to be measured,
(d) If applicable, the use and selection of reference sites, where
they are located, how they were chosen, and whether they represent
target conditions for the habitat or conditions at the site without
restoration,
(e) The appropriateness of the nature, frequency, and timing of
measurements and which areas will be sampled,
(f) Provisions for adaptive management, and data reporting, and
(g) whether the length of the proposed monitoring plan is
appropriate for the project goals (should be at least five years).
(9) Multiple Benefits--
In addition to the ecosystem benefits discussed in criterion (1)
above, restored estuary habitats may provide additional benefits. Among
those the reviewers will consider are: flood damage reduction,
protection from storm surge, water quality and/or quantity for human
uses, recreational opportunities, and benefits to commercial fisheries.
(10) Dedicated Funding Source--
Reviewers will consider if the State in which the proposed project
will be located has a dedicated source of funding to acquire or restore
estuary habitat, natural areas, and open spaces for the benefit of
estuary habitat restoration or protection.
(11) Supports Regional Restoration Goals--
Reviewers will evaluate the extent to which the proposed project
contributes to meeting and/or strengthening the needs, goals,
objectives and restoration priorities contained in regional restoration
plans, and the means that will be used to measure such progress.
(12) Supports Federal Plan--
If the proposed project supports a Federal plan (examples of
Federal plans are listed in section 103(6)(B) of the Act), reviewers
will consider the extent to which the project would contribute to
meeting and/or strengthening the plan's
[[Page 33457]]
needs, goals, objectives and restoration priorities, and the means that
will be used to measure such progress.
C. Priority Elements
Section 104(c)(4) of the Act directs the Secretary to give priority
consideration to a project that merits selection based on the above
criteria if it:
(1) Occurs within a watershed where there is a program being
implemented that addresses sources of pollution and other activities
that otherwise would adversely affect the restored habitat; or
(2) Includes pilot testing or demonstration of an innovative
technology having the potential to achieve better restoration results
than other technologies in current practice, or comparable results at
lower cost in terms of energy, economics, or environmental impacts.
The Council will also consider these priority elements in ranking
proposals.
D. Other Factors
In addition to considering the composite ratings developed in the
evaluation process and the priority elements listed in C. above, the
Council will consider other factors when preparing its prioritized list
for the Secretary's use. These factors include (but may not be limited
to) the following:
(1) Readiness of the project for implementation. Among the factors
to be considered when evaluating readiness are the steps that must be
taken prior to project implementation, potential delays to project
implementation, and the status of real estate acquisition.
(2) Balance between large and small projects, as defined in the
Estuary Habitat Restoration Strategy.
(3) Geographic distribution of the projects.
VIII. Project Selection and Notification
The Secretary will select projects for funding from the Council's
prioritized list of recommended projects after considering the criteria
contained in section 104(c) of the Act, availability of funds and any
reasonable additional factors. It is expected that the Secretary will
select proposals for implementation approximately 100 days after the
close of this solicitation or 30 days after receiving the list from the
Council, whichever is later. The non-Federal sponsor of each proposal
will be notified of its status at the conclusion of the selection
process. Staff from the appropriate Corps Districts will work with the
non-Federal sponsor of each selected project to develop the cost-
sharing agreements and schedules for project implementation.
IX. Application Process
Proposal application forms are available at http://www.usace.army.mil/civilworks/cecwp/estuary_act/
or by contacting Ms.
Ellen Cummings, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington,
DC 20314-1000, (202) 761-4750, e-mail: Ellen.M.Cummings@usace.army.mil;
or Ms. Cynthia Garman-Squier, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works), Washington, DC (703) 695-6791, e-mail:
Cynthia.Garman-Squier@hqda.army.mil. The application form has been
approved by OMB in compliance with the Paper Work Reduction Act and is
OMB No. 0710-0014 with an expiration date of 04/30/2008. Electronic
submissions are preferred and should be sent to
estuary.restoration@usace.army.mil. Questions may also be sent to this
e-mail address. Hard copy submissions may be sent or delivered to
HQUSACE, ATTN: CECW-PC, 7701 Telegraph Road 3D72, Alexandria,
VA 22315-3860. The narrative portion of a nomination should be no more
than twelve double-spaced pages, using a 10 or 12-point font. Paper
copies should be printed on one side only of an 8.5 in. x 11 in. page
and not bound. A PC-compatible floppy disk or CD-ROM in either
Microsoft Word or WordPerfect format may accompany the paper copy.
Nominations for multiple projects submitted by the same applicant must
be submitted in separate e-mail messages and/or envelopes.
Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-11358 Filed 6-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-92-P