[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 193 (Thursday, October 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52164-52169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-24786]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[Docket No. 950925237-5237-01; I.D. 100295C]
RIN 0648-XX28
New Bedford Harbor Trustee Council
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; request for restoration ideas for New Bedford Harbor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS, acting as Administrative Trustee, announces the
intention of the New Bedford Harbor Trustee Council (Council) to
request ideas for projects to restore natural resources that have been
injured by the release of hazardous substances, including
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), in the New Bedford Harbor, MA,
environment. Of particular interest to the Council are those projects
that can be conducted prior to remediation or cleanup of the harbor
environment. The ideas will be reviewed against criteria established by
the Council and for legal and technical applicability. If accepted, it
is possible that project ideas could form the basis for a later Council
request for proposals to conduct specific restoration projects.
DATES: The Council will accept project ideas through November 20, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Project ideas will be accepted at the following location:
New Bedford Harbor Trustee Council, c/o National Marine Fisheries
Service, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, or New Bedford Harbor
Trustee Council, 37 N. Second Street, New Bedford, MA 02740.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Terrill, Coordinator, 508-281-
9136.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
New Bedford Harbor is located in Southeastern Massachusetts at the
mouth of the Acushnet River on Buzzards Bay. Adjacent to the harbor are
the communities of Acushnet, Dartmouth, Fairhaven, and New Bedford. It
is an active port frequented by both commercial and recreational
fishing vessels, as well as merchant vessels delivering produce for
distribution throughout the Northeast.
[[Page 52165]]
New Bedford Harbor is contaminated with high levels of hazardous
materials, including PCBs, and as a consequence is on the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund National Priorities
List as well as being identified as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts'
priority Superfund site. Hazardous materials containing PCBs were
discharged directly into the Acushnet River estuary and Buzzards Bay
and indirectly via the municipal wastewater treatment system into the
same bodies of water. The sources of these discharges were electronics
manufacturers who were major users of PCBs from the time their
operations commenced in the late 1940's until 1977, when EPA banned the
use and manufacture of PCBs.
PCBs are considered to be human carcinogens that can be introduced
to humans through the eating of contaminated fish and shellfish. PCBs
can also have adverse effects on natural resources such as shellfish,
birds, and higher mammals. Birds exposed to PCBs have exhibited
reproductive failure and birth defects. Some shellfish species will die
after exposure to even small concentrations of PCBs. Some fish species
exhibit adverse reproductive effects when exposed to PCBs and pose a
danger when eaten by other natural resources such as birds.
Executive Order 12580 and the National Contingency Plan, which is
the implementing regulation for the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), designate(s) the
Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and Interior to
be Federal Trustees for natural resources. Federal Trustees are
designated because of their statutory responsibilities for protection
and/or management of natural resources, or management of federally
owned land. In addition, the governors of each state are required to
designate a state Trustee.
For New Bedford, there are three natural resource trustees on the
Council. They represent the Department of Commerce, the Department of
the Interior, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Secretary of
Commerce has delegated trustee responsibility to NOAA, with NMFS having
responsibility for restoration. The Secretary of the Interior has
delegated trustee responsibility to the Regional Office of
Environmental Policy and Compliance. The Governor of Massachusetts has
delegated trustee responsibility to the Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs. Trustee responsibilities include assessing
damages from the release of hazardous substances, pursuing recoveries
of both damages and costs, and using the sums to restore, replace, or
acquire the equivalent of the resources that were injured by the
release.
In 1983, the Federal and state Trustees filed complaints in Federal
District Court in Boston alleging causes of action under CERCLA against
the electronic manufacturers for injuries to natural resources under
their trusteeship that had resulted from releases of hazardous
substances, including PCBs. The eventual outcome of the complaints was
monetary settlement agreements with the defendants for: (1) EPA to fund
the cleanup of the harbor; (2) the Trustees to restore the natural
resources; and (3) the government to be reimbursed for funds expended.
The Council was created as a result of the settlement agreements.
The Trustees are required to develop a restoration plan before
settlement money can be spent on restoration projects. Such a plan will
include a range of projects including near-term and long-term
restoration efforts. Projects must restore, replace or acquire
equivalent natural resources for those resources that were injured.
``Restore or restoration'' is the actions taken to return injured
natural resources and/or services to their baseline or comparable
condition. ``Replacement'' is the substitution of an injured resource
with a resource that provides the same or substantially similar
services. ``Acquisition of the equivalent'' means obtaining natural
resources the trustees determine are comparable to the injured
resource. The Trustees' primary task is to determine how best to
restore the injured natural resources and they are seeking the
assistance of the public in this process.
The geographic scope of the Council's actions is the ``New Bedford
Harbor environment'' (Figure 1). The Council defines the New Bedford
Harbor environment as the area encompassed by the Acushnet River
watershed which extends west into Dartmouth, east into Acushnet and
Fairhaven, and from the north extending south to include the New
Bedford Reservoir and the City of New Bedford into Buzzards Bay
extending out to the area designated as Fishing Area III. The watershed
is defined as the entire surface drainage area that contributes water
to the Acushnet River.
CERCLA defines natural resources as including land, fish, wildlife,
biota, air, water, groundwater, drinking water supplies or other
resources under the control or management of the United States or any
state. Natural resources within the New Bedford Harbor environment
having a high probability of injury include fish, shellfish, other
marine organisms, birds, marine sediment and the water column. The fish
species include winter flounder, tautog, scup, mackerel, silverside,
mummichog and American eels and herring. Shellfish injured through the
release of PCBs include mussels, clams, quahogs, oysters, various
species of crabs and lobster. Other organisms such as amphipods,
diatoms and copepods that contribute to the food chain have been
impacted and can serve as a means for further transmission of PCBs.
Federal restoration actions require adherence to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires the development of an
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement (EIS) that
analyzes the effects of the proposed Federal action(s) on the
environment. In a document published in the Federal Register (60 FR
10835, February 28, 1995), the Council announced its intention to
prepare an EIS and its initiation of a public process to determine the
scope of issues under consideration.
The Council has completed a series of public meetings that informed
the communities of the Council's efforts, requirements and legal
constraints in restoring injured natural resources. During these
meetings, several projects were suggested for consideration. Some of
these projects could possibly be accomplished in the near term and the
Trustees are seeking to continue the NEPA scoping process by
identifying the universe of projects for consideration. The focus of
this request is for ideas for projects that can be accomplished prior
to completion of the cleanup actions being conducted by EPA. EPA has
been dredging parts of the Acushnet River/New Bedford Harbor to remove
sediments containing the highest levels of PCB contamination. The next
phase is for EPA to determine the best means to clean up remaining
contamination in other parts of the river/harbor/bay. The method chosen
for cleaning up the contamination could impact restoration projects if
those projects are undone by EPA's actions. For example, if the
Trustees conduct a restoration project in an area which EPA later
dredges or modifies through construction, it could result in the
destruction of the project. Recognizing this, the Trustees are seeking
ideas for projects that could be accomplished before cleanup is
complete, but would not be harmed by EPA's cleanup actions.
[[Page 52166]]
Projects that would require waiting for EPA's actions or would be
accomplished in the long-term are welcome as well. Submission of these
project ideas would assist the Trustees in planning for future actions.
The same criteria and evaluation method will be used for these long-
term project ideas as well as all other project ideas.
There may be ideas for projects that address emergency restoration
which could be accomplished on a much faster basis. Emergency
restoration is described in CERCLA as actions taken to avoid an
irreversible loss of natural resources or to prevent or reduce any
continuing danger to natural resources. If the Trustees determine that
such an emergency exists, project funding could occur before the
approval of a restoration plan or EIS. The Council will determine the
most appropriate means of implementing such an idea, such as through
further procurement solicitations.
Project ideas will be accepted by the Council until November 20,
1995. All individuals or groups are invited to participate in this
phase of the idea solicitation process. Assistance is available at
either Council office (see ADDRESSES) if further explanation or
guidance is needed on what the Council is requesting, restoration
concepts, or the method of submission.
II. Restoration Priorities
From the list of resources identified as having a high probability
of injury, and applying what is known about the resources injured
within the New Bedford Harbor environment, the following list has been
identified as proposed priorities for restoration of injured natural
resources. The list includes those areas or resources of the New
Bedford Harbor environment that the Trustees have proposed so far as
likely candidates for restoration. Through the scoping process and
through public input, other restoration priorities may be determined.
1. Marshes or wetlands. Projects under this priority could include,
but are not limited to, restoration activities including transplanting
marsh grasses, enhancing or creating marshes or wetlands.
2. Recreation areas. Project areas could include, but are not
limited to restoration of beaches and parkland, activities to enhance
access such as boat ramps or landings, and shoreline cleanups.
3. Water column. Examples of projects that restore the water column
to its pre-PCB condition include grit or sediment removal.
4. Habitats. Restoration of habitats could include projects to
restore or enhance fish and shellfish habitats or submerged aquatic
vegetation.
5. Living resources. Living resources include the fish species,
shellfish species and anadromous fish species that have been injured
through the release of hazardous materials. Activities that have been
suggested include aquaculture, transplants, bottom culture, and
enhancement of other species.
6. Endangered species. Endangered species include birds such as
roseate terns that have been injured by PCBs. Project ideas should
attempt to meet these priorities but respondents are not limited to
these areas alone. As part of the scoping process, new priorities can
be identified and incorporated into the restoration planning process
provided that they meet legal requirements, technical feasibility and
selection criteria.
III. How to Submit Ideas
This is not a formal solicitation for contracts, rather it is a
request for ideas that could eventually lead to an additional
solicitation that may result in funding awards or interagency transfer
of funds. Depending on the activity involved, the funding award could
be a grant, a contract, or, if appropriate, the work could be performed
by Federal or state agencies. Please note that the type of submission
expected under this solicitation for restoration ideas is significantly
different from that for Federal assistance programs.
Respondents should note that once an idea has been submitted, the
idea becomes public domain. Both CERCLA and NEPA require public comment
before formal adoption of a restoration plan or EIS. This can only be
accomplished by revealing to the public the ideas that have been
submitted. If the idea is chosen and then a solicitation is conducted
for accomplishing that idea, the respondent loses all proprietary
privilege to that idea. There remains the possibility that an idea may
be implemented, after public review (see IV.B.1 below), through a sole
source contract if the idea meets procurement criteria for such an
award. Respondents who are concerned about revealing proprietary
interests or methods should only present enough information to provide
the Council with an understanding of the idea.
A. Eligible Submissions
During this phase, all individuals are eligible to submit ideas and
all submissions are welcomed and encouraged. Respondents are asked to
evaluate their idea(s) against criteria proposed by the Council. Unless
modified through the result of this solicitation or by public comment,
the criteria are expected to be used throughout the restoration
process.
Assistance from Council employees is available by telephone or
through meetings. Assistance will be limited to such issues as the
Council's goals, restoration priorities, selection criteria,
application procedures, and responding to questions regarding
completion of application forms. Assistance will not be provided for
conceptualizing, developing or structuring proposals. Information can
be obtained at the offices of the Council (see ADDRESSES).
B. Duration and Terms of Funding
Under this solicitation, no actual awards of funding will occur.
Rather, the solicitation will result in prioritization by the Council,
and through public review and comment, of project ideas for a further
solicitation. The Council has a fixed amount of money to implement
restoration projects. In determining which project ideas to implement,
an important consideration is the cost of the project. Estimated cost
information allows the Council to develop a spending plan for future
years and allows both the public and the Council to determine how many
project ideas can actually be funded.
In describing the project idea, respondents should consider whether
funding would be needed for a single or multi-year basis. This
information will in no way affect consideration of the merits of the
proposal but instead will assist the Council in its planning.
Since this is only a solicitation for project ideas, publication of
this announcement does not obligate the Council to award any specific
grant or contract or to obligate any part or the entire amount of funds
available.
C. Costsharing
One way of extending the fixed amount of money the Council has to
work with is through costsharing. It is not required that project ideas
contain costsharing and this information will not be considered in the
technical evaluation of proposals. However, the Council does encourage
respondents to think about costsharing, and if it is appropriate for a
project idea, to discuss within the idea the degree to which
costsharing may be possible. If costsharing is proposed, the respondent
is asked to account for both the Council and non-Council amounts. This
information will allow the Council to better plan future expenditures.
[[Page 52167]]
D. Format
The forms described are available from the Council's offices (see
ADDRESSES).
1. Project idea summary: An applicant must complete ``Request for
Restoration Ideas'', Project Summary, for each project. This form is
required in addition to the project narrative described below.
2. Project idea budget: Since this is a solicitation of ideas and
not a competitive bidding process for work to be performed, a project
budget is not required. However, the Council requests that a cost
estimate be provided in order to better plan for a proposed allocation
of available funds. In determining the estimate for total project cost,
the respondent should take into account direct costs, indirect costs,
and any costsharing. Fees or profits should not be included in the
estimated budget.
The total costs of the project idea consist of all costs incurred
in accomplishing idea objectives during the life of the project.
3. Project idea narrative description: The project idea should be
completely and accurately described, as follows:
a. Project idea goals and objectives: State what the proposed
project idea is expected to accomplish.
b. Project idea statement of work: The statement of work is an
action plan of activities to be conducted during the period of the
project idea. The respondent should provide a narrative describing the
work to be performed that will achieve the Council goals, priorities
and criteria. In developing the statement of work, the respondent
should include the work, activities, or procedures to be undertaken.
The respondent should include the types of individuals expected to
perform such work.
c. Federal, state, and local government activities: List any
Federal, state or local government programs or activities that this
project idea would affect, if known, including activities under
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Plans and those requiring
consultation with the Federal Government under the Endangered Species
Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Describe the relationship
between the project idea and these plans or activities.
d. Project idea evaluation criteria: Respondents should describe
how the project idea would address the criteria contained in IV.A.2.
IV. Evaluation Criteria and Selection Procedures
A. Evaluation of Restoration Project Ideas
1. Consultation with interested parties: The Council will evaluate
ideas in consultation with Federal trust agencies, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts trust agencies, other Federal and state agencies, the
Council's Public Advisory Committee, and others outside the Federal and
state trust agencies who have knowledge in the subject matter of the
project ideas or who would be affected by the project ideas.
2. Technical evaluation criteria: The Council will solicit
technical evaluations of each project idea from appropriate private and
public sector experts. Point scores will be given to project ideas up
to the maximum value shown, based on the following evaluation criteria:
(a) Project ideas must restore the injured natural resources and
associated activities of the area. The idea will be evaluated on
whether it restores, replace or acquires the equivalent natural
resources that were injured as a result of the release of hazardous
materials, including PCBs, in the New Bedford Harbor environment. (25
points)
(b) Priority will be given to project ideas within the New Bedford
Harbor environment, however, project ideas within the affected marine
ecosystem that have a direct, positive impact on the harbor environment
will be considered. Project ideas that are outside of the New Bedford
Harbor environment will be considered provided that they restore
injured natural resources within the New Bedford Harbor environment.
(15 points)
(c) Priority will be given to project ideas that give the largest
ecological and economic benefit to the greatest area or greatest number
of people affected by the injury. The Council is seeking project ideas
that will provide the greatest good. A project idea will be evaluated
on the basis of whether it provides positive benefits to a more
comprehensive area or population. Project ideas that benefit a
particular individual rather than a group of individuals would be
scored lower under this criterion. (15 points)
(d) Ecological or economic effects of the project ideas should be
identifiable and measurable so changes to the New Bedford Harbor
environment can be documented. The idea will be evaluated on whether it
has discrete quantifiable results so that a determination can be made
on its success or failure. (10 points)
(e) Preferred project ideas are those that employ proven
technologies that have high probabilities of success. In evaluating a
project idea, the reviewers will determine the likelihood of success
based on the method being proposed. To assist in this evaluation, the
respondent should provide information on whether the technique has been
used before and whether it has been successful. (10 points)
(f) Project ideas should be cost effective. The justification and
allocation of a project's budget in terms of the work to be performed
will be evaluated. Project ideas which would result in high
implementation costs will be taken into account. (Note: No awards will
directly result from this solicitation for ideas.) (10 points)
(g) Project ideas should enhance the aesthetic surroundings of the
harbor environment to the greatest extent possible, while acknowledging
the ongoing industrial uses of the harbor. The extent that a project
idea recognizes the multiple number of uses and the project idea's
impacts on those uses will be evaluated as well as the project idea's
ability to enhance the overall beauty of the harbor environment. (5
points)
(h) Project ideas should ultimately enhance the public's ability to
use, enjoy, or benefit from the harbor environment. Besides a project
idea's success at restoring natural resources, it will be evaluated on
the basis of collateral gains in the public's ability to utilize the
harbor environment. (5 points)
(i) Project ideas should provide an opportunity for community
involvement that should be allowed to continue even after the Council's
actions have ended. Project ideas will be evaluated on whether the
public can be involved in various facets after the Council has
completed its funding and the project is completed. (5 points)
3. Emergency restoration criteria: In addition to the criteria
listed above, project ideas that are considered to be emergency
restoration may be funded earlier. See B.3. below. Emergency
restoration project ideas are those that: (a) require action to avoid
an irreversible loss of natural resources, or (b) prevent or reduce any
continuing danger to natural resources.
4. Project idea ranking: Utilizing the numerical scores resulting
from the technical evaluation, described at IV.A.2. above, project
ideas will be ranked in order of highest score to lowest score. Project
ideas scoring the highest will be considered as ``preferred''
alternatives, with the other
[[Page 52168]]
ideas as alternatives. The ranking is used to provide guidance to the
Trustees, but is not controlling, and can be modified through further
review by the Council and the public. Project ideas that fail to meet
criterion (a) may be excluded from further consideration though
respondents may be provided other opportunities through later Council
solicitations.
B. Selection Procedures and Project Funding
After project ideas have been evaluated and ranked, the review team
will develop recommendations for preferred projects. Of particular
interest will be those project ideas that address emergency restoration
that can be done immediately. These recommendations will be submitted
to the Council which will review the recommendations, accept or modify
the recommendations, and determine the approximate number of project
ideas it expects to undertake. The Council will determine the most
appropriate means of implementing such ideas, such as through further
procurement solicitations.
1. Public review: Once a determination is made on the preferred
project ideas, the number of project ideas to be funded, and whether
emergency restoration projects exist, the Council will hold public
hearings, publish a document in the Federal Register, and initiate a
30-day public comment period to receive public comment on the Council's
recommendations. The Council will consider the public comments in
making its final recommendations for funding.
2. Project solicitation: Upon the Council's final recommendations,
and the completion of restoration planning and NEPA documents, the
Council will solicit restoration projects for the preferred
alternatives. The solicitation will be a formal request following the
appropriate contract or grant procedures. The projects ultimately
selected could be awarded to private entities, commercial firms,
educational institutions or local, state or Federal agencies.
3. Emergency restoration: If projects are found that address
emergency restoration, the Council may solicit restoration projects
prior to the completion of restoration planning and NEPA documents. The
solicitation will be a formal request following the appropriate
contract or grant procedures.
Classification
This notice contains a new collection-of-information requirement
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. This collection-of-information
requirement has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under OMB Control Number 0648-0302. No person is required to
respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB Control Number. The public reporting burden for this
collection is 1 hour per response. Send comments regarding this burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden to Jack Terrill (see
ADDRESSES) and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
OMB, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: NOAA Desk Officer.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. and 9601 et seq.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
[[Page 52169]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN05OC95.002
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Dated: September 29, 1995.
Charles Karnella,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-24786 Filed 10-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
