[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


      
-----------------------------------------------------------------------