[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2517-2522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-681]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers
Notice of Solicitation for Estuary Habitat Restoration Program
AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. 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) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) for implementation of 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://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/ERA/Pages/home.aspx). On behalf of the Estuary Habitat Restoration
Council (Council) the Corps is soliciting proposals for estuary habitat
restoration projects. The Council requests that all proposals address
the potential effects of sea level change and other impacts related to
climate change on the viability of the proposed restoration. This may
take the form of considering climate change in the planning, design,
siting, and construction of the project, or in testing new restoration
technologies that may help to alleviate effects of climate change. 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 may be implemented in accordance with a
cost-share agreement with the Corps; or a cooperative agreement with
the Corps or NOAA, subject to availability of funds.
In addition to this solicitation and the application form, a
Supplemental Guide for Prospective Applicants is available at: http://
www.usace.army.mil/CECW/
[[Page 2518]]
ERA/Pages/pps.aspx and http://era.noaa.gov/.
DATES: Proposals must be received on or before March 16, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Ms. Jenni Wallace, NOAA Restoration Center, SSMC3 F/HC3 Room
14730, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jenni Wallace, (301) 713-0174
x183, e-mail: [email protected] or Ms. Ellen Cummings, (202) 761-
4750, e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
Under the Estuary Habitat Restoration Program, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps), Department of the Interior (acting through the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of
Agriculture are authorized to carry out estuary habitat restoration
projects. The Estuary Habitat Restoration Council (Council) is
responsible for soliciting, reviewing and evaluating project proposals.
The agencies 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 administered. The Strategy was published in the Federal
Register (67 FR 71942) on December 3, 2002. It is also accessible at
http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/ERA/Pages/home.aspx in PDF format.
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,
an 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 adjacent to the mouths of
creek or rivers entering the Great Lakes 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 and should
include consideration of potential changes in future conditions due to
climate change.
Eligible habitat restoration activities include reestablishment 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 by altering conditions so they are less conducive to the
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).
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.
The Council recognizes that water quality issues can impact estuary
habitat restoration efforts. However, this solicitation is intended to
fund on-the-ground habitat restoration projects that will have
significant and tangible ecological impacts. Projects dealing only with
water quality improvement measures are not eligible. Ineligible
projects include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment plant
upgrades, combined sewer outfalls, and non-point source pollution
projects such as replacement of failing septic systems, implementation
of farm waste management plans, and stormwater management projects.
Other examples of activities that would not qualify would be
restoration of an oyster bed with significant areas open to commercial
harvest or a fish hatchery. Educational facilities such as classrooms,
botanical gardens, or recreational facilities such as trails or boat
ramps would also not qualify for cost sharing under this program
although they may be included in the project if they do not conflict
with the environmental benefits expected from project implementation.
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 non-
governmental 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. For
purposes of this act the term ``non-governmental organization'' does
not include for profit enterprises. The Non-Federal Sponsor must be
able to provide the real estate interests necessary for implementation,
operation,
[[Page 2519]]
maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and replacement of the project. In
most cases this means the Non-Federal Sponsor must have fee title to
the lands necessary for the project although in some cases an easement
may be sufficient.
The Federal share of the cost of an estuary habitat restoration
project shall not exceed 65 percent in most cases. The exception to
this is when the project deals with pilot testing or demonstrating an
innovative technology or approach. In the latter case, the Federal
share shall be 85 percent of the incremental additional cost of pilot
testing or demonstration of an innovative technology or approach having
the potential for improved cost-effectiveness. Innovative technology or
approach are 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. Applicants must justify in
the proposal why a particular project is innovative. In addition, the
Council has final say as to whether a proposed project is innovative.
The difference in the cost of the project related to the use of the
innovative technique or approach must be clearly described. Please
refer to the Supplemental Guidance for Prospective Applicants for an
example of how to calculate the cost share for an innovative
technology/approach application.
Prior to initiation of a project, the Non-Federal Sponsor must
enter into an agreement with the funding agency in which the Non-
Federal Sponsor agrees to provide its share of the project cost;
including necessary lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations
and long-term maintenance. The value of the required real estate
interests will be credited towards the Non-Federal Sponsor's share of
the project cost. The Non-Federal Sponsor may also receive credit for
services and in-kind contributions toward its share of the project
cost, including cost shared monitoring. Adaptive management will be a
non-Federal responsibility; it will not be cost shared. 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 programs
but not to exceed the Federal estimate of the cost of activity. The
Non-Federal Sponsor shall also have a long-term responsibility for all
costs associated with operating, maintaining, replacing, repairing, and
rehabilitating these projects. The cost of these activities will not be
included in the total project cost and will not count toward the Non-
Federal Sponsor's minimum 35 percent share of the project cost.
Other Federal funds, i.e., funds appropriated to agencies other
than the agency signing the cost-share agreement or cooperative
agreement, 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 non-Federal
funds or contributions used as a match for those other Federal funds
may be used toward the project but will not be considered in
determining the non-Federal share in relation to any Federal Estuary
Habitat Restoration Program funds.
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 prior six
dams is creditable as part of the non-Federal share of the project for
removal of the remaining four dams.
If a Corps cost-share agreement is required, funds will not be
transferred to the Non-Federal Sponsor. Instead, the Corps will use the
funds to implement (construct) some portion of the proposed project as
well as cover its management responsibilities. If the project meets the
Corps conditions for implementation under a cooperative agreement or if
NOAA funds a project, funds will be transferred to the Non-Federal
Sponsor under a cooperative agreement. In all cases the funding
agencies will use the planning, evaluation, and design products
provided by the applicant to the extent possible. The Federal funding
agency 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. Corps activities related
to implementation of projects under this authority 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. The Non-
Federal Sponsor should coordinate with the appropriate Corps district
office during preparation of the proposal to obtain an estimate of the
funds required and other available information which may improve the
proposal. Information on district locations and boundaries may be found
at http://www.usace.army.mil/about/Pages/Locations.aspx. If additional
assistance regarding the Corps process or contacts is required please
contact Ms. Cummings (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
V. Funding Availability
Limited funds have been appropriated for implementation of projects
under the Estuary Habitat Restoration Program. The Council will only
accept proposals that request at least $100,000 and no more than
$1,000,000 from this program. Projects will be funded subject to the
availability of funds. 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 agreement (See PROJECT SPONSOR AND COST SHARING, Section IV).
Projects selected for funding must be capable of producing the
ecosystem benefits described in the proposal in the absence of Federal
funding beyond that provided in the cost-share or cooperative
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. Each
agency will score and rank the proposals; the five agencies will use
these rankings as the basis for a consolidated recommendation to the
Council. The recommendation will include indications as to which agency
should fund a project, NOAA or the Corps. The Council will consider the
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.
[[Page 2520]]
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. Project proposals should clearly address the criteria set
forth under the following four subsections: Initial Screening of
Project Proposals (VII.A.); Evaluation of Project Proposals (VII.B.);
Priority Elements (VII.C.); and Other Factors (VII.D.).
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. Proposed
projects must not include excluded activities as discussed in Section
III above. Additionally, the letter of assurance must indicate that the
primary property owner and the party responsible for long-term
maintenance have reviewed and support the proposal. 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, State, or regional 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 post-construction monitoring plan that is consistent
with standards developed by NOAA under section 104(c)(2)(C). The
standards are available at: http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/ERA/Pages/monitor_db.aspx and http://era.noaa.gov/htmls/era/era_monitoring.html, or from the contacts listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Minimum monitoring requirements include
monitoring over a period of five years post-construction and tracking
of at least one structural and one functional element. Examples of
structural and functional elements are contained in the monitoring
document cited 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.
Reviewers will assign scores to applications ranging from 0 to 100
points based on the evaluation criteria and respective weights
specified below. Applications that best address these criteria will be
the most competitive. The following criteria are listed in order of
relative importance with the assigned points used in evaluation. If the
reviewers find that a response to any of the first four criteria is not
included in the proposal, or not adequate, 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 (15 points)--
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 and adaptation to climate change,
(b) Benefits for Federally listed threatened or endangered 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
(e) Benefits to nearby existing habitat areas, or contribution to
the creation of wildlife/ecological corridors connecting existing
habitat areas.
(2) Cost-Effectiveness (15 points)--
Reviewers will evaluate the relationship between estimated project
costs, including the costs of remaining planning, design, construction,
required lands, and monitoring, 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, stream miles
opened to fish passage, 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 through time will be considered. For
example, will the area be maintained as a wetland, or allowed to erode
or become upland? Is the project designed to adapt to climate change
and potential changes in sea level? 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 project goals.
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 if it addresses
scarcity, increases limiting habitat, or improves or increases
biodiversity) importance.
(3) Technical Feasibility (15 points)--
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 succeed. Consideration will also
be given to:
(a) Potential success of restoration techniques, based on a history
of successful implementation in field or pilot projects, and ability to
adapt to climate change and potential changes in sea level,
(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.
[[Page 2521]]
(4) Scientific Merit (15 points)--
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) The proposed restoration methodology demonstrates an
understanding of habitat function, and has a good chance of meeting
project goals and achieving long-term sustainability.
(5) Agency Coordination (10 points)--
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 (10 points)--
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 a Memorandum of Understanding, 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) Monitoring Plan (10 points)--
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 accomplishment targets,
(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) Frequency and timing of measurements, and location to be
sampled (at a minimum, one functional and one structural parameter must
be measured),
(f) Provisions for adaptive management, and data reporting, and
(g) Whether the length of the proposed monitoring plan is
appropriate for the project goals. The minimum required monitoring
period is five years post-construction.
(8) Level of Contribution (5 points)--
Reviewers will consider the level and type (cash or in-kind) of
Non-Federal Sponsor's contribution. Providing more than the minimum 35-
percent share will be rated favorably. It must be clear how much of the
total project cost the Estuary Habitat Restoration Program is expected
to provide, how much is coming from other Federal sources, how much is
coming directly from the sponsor, and how much is available or expected
to be provided by other sources (either cash or in-kind). Preference
may be given to projects with the majority of the funding confirmed.
(9) Multiple Benefits (3 points)--
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, adaptation to climate change, water
quality and/or quantity for human uses, recreational opportunities, and
benefits to commercial fisheries.
(10) Supports Regional Restoration Goals (1 point)--
Describe the project's regional/local priority based on specific
recovery planning goals or on publicly vetted restoration plans,
watershed assessments, or other priority setting planning documents.
(11) Part of a Federal or State Plan (1 point)--
If the proposed project is part of a Federal or state plan,
describe how the project would contribute to meeting and/or
strengthening the plan's needs, goals, objectives and restoration
priorities.
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 or approach having the potential to achieve better
restoration results than conventional technologies, 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, for example is the project a
concept, a detailed plan, or completed design; potential delays to
project implementation; and the status of real estate acquisition.
Proposed projects that have completed more of the pre-construction
activities will generally receive more favorable consideration.
(2) Balance between large and small projects, to the extent
possible given the program funding constraints.
(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
[[Page 2522]]
receiving the list from the Council, whichever is later. The Secretary
will also recommend the lead Federal agency for each project to be
funded. The Non-Federal Sponsor of each proposal will be notified of
its status at the conclusion of the selection process. Staff from the
appropriate Federal agency will work with the Non-Federal Sponsor of
each selected project to develop the cost-sharing agreements and
schedules for project implementation.
IX. Structure and Content of Application Submission
Each application should include:
------ PART I questions completed (see Project Application)
------ Project description organized according to the Project
Application, including descriptions of:
------ how regional habitat trends were considered in developing
the project proposal
------ expected ecosystem benefits, their significance/importance,
when the benefits will be realized, and the project's expected lifetime
------ the roles and contributions of project partners
------ how the long-term operation and maintenance of the project
will be handled
------ Monitoring plan specifying at least one structural and one
functional parameter to be measured and that monitoring will occur for
five years post-construction
------ Name and link to Federal or State restoration plan the
project will address
------ Detailed budget broken out by object class (see Supplemental
Guidance for Prospective Applicants for more detail on creating a
budget, including a budget table template and example narrative)
------ Justification for an innovative project. If an applicant
feels their project could be considered innovative, they should develop
two budgets--one considering it innovative and one considering it as a
standard project
------ Map showing the project site and key features
------ Description of compliance activities (e.g., NEPA) if any are
completed
------ Brief resumes of key staff (no more than one page per
person, not more than 5 individuals)
------ Letter of assurance stating adequate personnel, funding, and
authority to conduct the project
------ Signed certification form (see Project Application) that the
project is not an excluded activity (for a list of excluded activities
see section III EXCLUDED ACTIVITIES)
A complete application package should be submitted in accordance
with the guidelines in this solicitation.
X. Application Process
Proposal application forms, including Supplemental Guidance for
Prospective Applicants, are available at http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/ERA/Pages/pps.aspx and http://era.noaa.gov or by contacting Ms.
Jenni Wallace (see ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
sections). Project proposals may be submitted electronically, by mail,
or by courier. Electronic submissions are preferred. 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
November 30, 2011. Send electronic submissions to
[email protected]. Questions may also be sent to the same e-mail
address. If it is not feasible to provide an electronic submission,
hard copy submissions may be sent or delivered to Ms. Jenni Wallace,
NOAA Restoration Center, SSMC3 F/HC3 Room 14730, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The part of the proposal prepared to
address the ``proposal elements'' portion of the application should be
no more than twelve double-spaced pages, using a 10 or 12-point font.
Paper copies should be printed on 8.5 in. x 11 in. paper and may be
double sided but must not be bound as multiple copies will be necessary
for review. Only one hard copy is required. A PC-compatible CD-ROM in
either Microsoft Word or PDF 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. 2010-681 Filed 1-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720-58-P