[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 157 (Monday, August 16, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44505-44509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21096]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 990730207-9207-01; I.D. 072899B]
RIN 0648-ZA68


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: On behalf of the New Bedford Harbor Trustee Council (Council), 
NMFS, serving as the Administrative Trustee, announces this request for 
ideas for projects that will restore natural resources that were 
injured by the release of hazardous substances, including 
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), in the New Bedford Harbor 
environment. The Council will evaluate ideas in three major areas: the 
restoration criteria established by the Council as described in section 
V.A.2 of this document, the legal requirements for eligibility, and the 
technical feasibility. The Council will also seek public comment on the 
ideas received. After receiving public comments, technical, public and 
other recommendations will be provided to the Council for its 
consideration in deciding which ideas, if any, be adapted into measures 
to be implemented.

DATES: The Council will accept project ideas through September 7, 1999.

ADDRESSES: The Council will accept project ideas at the following 
location: New Bedford Harbor Trustee Council, c/o National Marine 
Fisheries Service, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, Attn: Jack 
Terrill, or New Bedford Harbor Trustee Council, 37 N. Second Street, 
New Bedford, MA 02740. Comments on the collection-of-information-
requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act can be submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at: Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: NOAA Desk 
Officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Terrill, Coordinator, 978-281-
9136, or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    New Bedford Harbor is located in Southeastern Massachusetts at the 
mouth of the Acushnet River on Buzzards Bay. The communities of 
Acushnet, Dartmouth, Fairhaven, and New Bedford are adjacent to the 
harbor. The harbor and river are contaminated with high levels of 
hazardous materials, including PCBs, and as a consequence are on the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund National 
Priorities List. This site is also listed by the Massachusetts 
Department of Environmental Protection as a priority Tier 1 disposal 
site. The contamination resulted both directly from discharges into the 
Acushnet River estuary and Buzzards Bay and indirectly via the 
municipal wastewater treatment system into the same bodies of water.
    The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act (CERCLA or ``Superfund,'' 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) 
provides a mechanism for addressing the Nation's hazardous waste sites, 
allowing states and the Federal Government to sue polluters for the 
clean-up and restoration of designated sites. CERCLA provides for the 
designation of ``natural resource trustees:'' Federal, state, or tribal 
authorities who represent the public interest in natural resources. 
Natural resource trustees may seek monetary damages (i.e., 
compensation) from polluters for injury, destruction, or loss of 
natural resources resulting from releases of specified hazardous 
substances. These damages, which are distinct from clean-up costs, must 
be used by the trustees to ``restore, replace, or acquire the 
equivalent of'' (CERCLA) the natural resources that have been injured, 
after the trustees have approved a restoration plan.
    The parties responsible for the New Bedford Harbor discharges were 
electronics manufacturers who were major users of PCBs from the time 
their operations commenced in the late 1940s until 1977, when EPA 
banned the use and manufacture of PCBs. PCBs are human carcinogens that 
can be introduced to humans through eating contaminated fish and 
shellfish. PCBs also have adverse effects on such

[[Page 44506]]

natural resources as shellfish, birds, and higher mammals.
    Executive Order 12580 and the National Contingency Plan, which is 
the implementing regulation for CERCLA, designate 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 governor of each state is required to designate a state trustee.
    Trustee responsibilities include assessing damages resulting from 
the release of hazardous substances, pursuing recovery of both damages 
and costs from the responsible party or parties, and using recovered 
funds to restore, replace or acquire the equivalent of natural 
resources that were injured by the release. For the New Bedford Harbor 
Superfund Site, there are three natural resource trustees on the 
Council: Department of Commerce (DOC), the Department of the Interior, 
and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Secretary of Commerce has 
delegated DOC trustee responsibility to NOAA; within NOAA, NMFS has 
responsibility for natural resource restoration. The Secretary of the 
Interior has delegated trustee responsibility to the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service. The Governor of Massachusetts has delegated trustee 
responsibility to the Secretary of Environmental Affairs.
    In 1983, the Federal and state trustees filed complaints against 
the electronic manufacturers in Federal District Court in Boston 
alleging causes of action under CERCLA for injuries to natural 
resources under their trusteeship that had resulted from releases of 
hazardous substances, including PCBs. The complaints were resolved as 
of 1992 through settlement agreements with the electronic manufacturers 
who paid $109 million for (1) cleanup of the harbor, (2) restoration of 
injured natural resources, and (3) reimbursement of funds already 
expended. The Council was created as a result of the settlements.
    CERCLA defines natural resources to include land, fish, wildlife, 
biota, air, water, groundwater, drinking water supplies or other 
resources under the control or management of the Federal or state 
government. Natural resources within the New Bedford Harbor environment 
showing documented injury or 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 by the release of PCBs include mussels, clams, 
quahogs, oysters, various species of crabs and lobster. PCB 
contamination also affected other organisms such as amphipods, diatoms 
and copepods that are part of the food chain and are a means for 
further transmission of PCBs.
    The Council issued an initial ``Request for Restoration Ideas'' in 
October 1995 (60 FR 52164, October 5, 1995)(the first round). Fifty-six 
ideas were received from the local communities, members of the public, 
academia, and state and Federal agencies. The ideas were the basis for 
the alternatives listed in the Council's ``Restoration Plan for the New 
Bedford Harbor Environment'' (Restoration Plan) that was developed to 
guide the Council's restoration efforts. An environmental impact 
statement was prepared in conjunction with the Restoration Plan to 
fulfill requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. A record 
of decision was issued on September 22, 1998, for both the Restoration 
Plan and the environmental impact statement. The issuance of the record 
of decision allowed the implementation of 11 preferred restoration 
projects analyzed in the Restoration Plan.
    The Restoration Plan also identifies an ``event based'' process 
that allows the Council to proceed with additional restoration 
activities as more information on EPA's remediation becomes available 
or as portions of the harbor remediation are completed. Because EPA has 
issued the ``Record of Decision for the Upper and Lower Harbor Operable 
Unit'' (September 25, 1998), which describes the methods and actions 
EPA will undertake to clean up the site, the Council now believes it is 
appropriate to issue another request for restoration ideas (the second 
round).

II. Guidance For Development of Natural Resource Project Proposals

    Following the conclusion of the first round of funding for 
restoration projects, members of the public requested further 
information regarding potential project proposals to be submitted to 
the Council for consideration in the second round, particularly 
potential water quality projects such as sewer and septic related 
construction projects. At its May 7, 1999 meeting, the Council provided 
the following legal guidelines to be considered during development of 
restoration project proposals to be submitted to the Council for 
funding from the New Bedford Harbor Natural Resource Damages 
Restoration Trust Fund. In addition to these legal guidelines, the 
Council must also consider restoration requirements (see V.A.2 of this 
document). Please understand that this summary cannot provide a 
complete explanation of everything that the Council may consider in 
evaluating proposed projects and that the following summary does not 
constitute an official rule, regulation, or law.
    Further, it is important to note that a project's consistency with 
these legal guidelines does not guarantee that it will be funded, but 
merely establishes that the Council will/may consider the project for 
possible funding. Conversely, rejection of a proposed project based 
upon the legal guidelines means that the Council will not use natural 
resource damage settlement funds for that project, even though the 
proposed project may yield a restoration benefit to an injured natural 
resource.
    (1) The Council may fund a restoration project only if the primary 
purpose of the project is to, in a manner consistent with the 
Restoration Plan, restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent of a 
natural resource that was injured by the release of PCBs into the New 
Bedford Harbor environment.
    The primary purpose of a project must be the restoration of an 
injured natural resource or the services that the resource provided to 
a condition comparable to that which would have existed in the absence 
of the release of PCBs into the harbor environment.1 The 
Council will not select a proposed project for funding if the 
restoration benefit to the injured natural resource or to its related 
services is only incidental to the objective of the project. For 
example, although a proposed project may provide an incidental 
restoration benefit to an injured resource, the Council will not fund 
it if its cost is disproportionate to or exceeds the restoration 
benefit or if its primary purpose appears to be to alleviate financial 
hardship for one or more private individuals. The Council will consider 
projects that ameliorate conditions that may limit the effectiveness of 
any restoration action (for example, the removal of residual sources of 
contamination) or would accelerate an injured resource's return to its 
``baseline condition.''2 However, the Council may give lower 
priority to

[[Page 44507]]

projects that propose to restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent of 
injured natural resources by addressing such limiting conditions 
instead of providing an affirmative restoration benefit to the 
resource.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See section 107(f)(1) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607.
    \2\ ``Baseline'' means the condition that would have existed in 
the area where the natural resources have been affected by the 
release of hazardous substances had the release not occurred. 43 CFR 
11.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The Council has determined that it will not fund a restoration 
project if there is an independent, prior obligation to perform the 
project pursuant to statute, regulation, ordinance, consent decree, 
judgement, court order, permit condition or contract or if otherwise 
required by Federal, state, or local law.
    Please note that this summary cannot cover all possible laws that 
may apply to a restoration proposal.3 Specifically, in 
deciding whether a proposed project regarding water quality is 
``otherwise required'', the Council will consider: (1) The legal 
requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act and the analogous 
provisions of Massachusetts law; (2) the legal requirements of Title 5, 
which consists of the Massachusetts regulations governing on-site 
sewage treatment and disposal, codified at 310 CMR 15.00; and (3) 
whether the project is otherwise required by Federal, state, or local 
law, consent decree, judgement, court order, permit condition or 
contract, or could be required by enforcement of such law, consent 
decree, judgement, court order, permit condition or contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council has limited discussion in this section to the 
Clean Water Act and to Massachusetts Title 5, as interested parties 
primarily and specifically requested information concerning the 
effect of those laws on water quality related project ideas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regardless of whether a governmental agency has elected to exercise 
its discretion to enforce a provision of law, if a governmental agency 
has the authority to order certain work (for example, EPA or the 
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has the 
authority to request a municipality to upgrade a combined sewer 
overflow or Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) due to an improper 
point source discharge under the Clean Water Act, or DEP or a local 
board of health has the authority to order a homeowner to address a 
failed system under Title 5), then the Council will consider the 
project to be ``otherwise required'' and not appropriate to be 
considered for funding. Further, even though a project may not be 
currently required by an independent prior obligation, the Council will 
not fund it if there is an established deadline after which such an 
obligation will exist.
    For proposed projects that involve connecting a facility (currently 
serviced by a Title 5-regulated on-site sewage treatment and disposal 
system) to a municipal or private sanitary sewer, the project proponent 
upon request, must provide the Council with adequate documentation that 
(1) the facility is not the subject of an order or agreement to upgrade 
its system or connect the system to a sanitary sewer or shared system; 
(2) no inspection of the system is required pursuant to 310 CMR 15.301 
or, if an inspection is required, a currently valid certificate of 
compliance has been issued for the system by the approving authority; 
and (3) the system does not fail to protect ``public health and safety 
and the environment'' pursuant to 310 CMR 15.303 and 304.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For purposes of this section, ``facility'' has the meaning 
as defined by Title 5, 310 CMR 15.002 not as defined by CERCLA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For proposed projects covered under the Clean Water Act and 
involving the treatment or elimination of point source discharges of 
pollutants to surface waters, including, for example, sewage, 
industrial wastewater, and/or storm water, the project proponent must 
demonstrate to the Council upon request and with adequate 
documentation, that the proposed project goes beyond what is required 
by applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, 
enforcement orders and consent decrees. In the case of a discharge for 
which no permit has been issued, the project proponent must 
demonstrate, upon request, that the project would go beyond the 
requirements that would apply to the discharge pursuant to the Clean 
Water Act, its implementing regulations, and state water quality 
standards, as well as to any enforcement action which has been 
initiated. The question of whether a proposed project would result in 
pollution control beyond Clean Water Act requirements is complex and 
must be answered on a case-by-case basis.
    If, during its review of a proposed project pursuant to this 
requirement, the Council determines that an ``otherwise required'' 
issue may exist, the Council will seek further clarification and 
information from the proponent and/or other governmental entities 
before making a final determination.
    (3) In determining whether a proposed restoration project will be 
funded, the Council will consider whether the project fits, in terms of 
the project's costs, with the Council's plan to retain sufficient funds 
to accomplish meaningful and necessary restoration work after EPA's 
cleanup is finished.
    The Council has not established a definite cap on funding for the 
second round; however, the Council has decided that it will not expend 
an amount of funds whose spending would impair its ability to 
accomplish meaningful restoration following the completion of EPA's 
remediation. In recognition of this limitation, the Council plans to 
select a suite of projects that will accomplish restoration priorities 
and whose total cost is consistent with the Restoration Plan. Project 
proponents should scale proposals accordingly.
    (4) The Council will not fund a restoration project that will be 
undone or negatively impacted by EPA's future remediation work or that 
will interfere with any ongoing remediation related work.
    Even if the Council's analysis of a proposed project indicates that 
it will yield a cost-effective restoration benefit to an injured 
resource, the Council will not fund the project in this round if it 
will be undone or negatively impacted by EPA's future remediation work. 
The Council intends to closely coordinate its actions with those of EPA 
during the development of the remediation plans and to inform the 
public as to EPA's cleanup schedule so that restoration proposals may 
be developed accordingly.
    Although a proponent may have a general sense of the New Bedford 
Harbor environment and the injured natural resources sufficient for an 
initial identification of projects, precise legal meanings of certain 
terms are provided in the Restoration Plan. Please consult the 
Restoration Plan prior to submitting a project proposal (for example, 
see Figure 1.1 in chapter 1 of the Restoration Plan for the meaning of 
the ``affected'' New Bedford Harbor environment, and chapter 2.1 for 
definitions of certain terms including ``injury'' and ``natural 
resources'').
    If a municipality proposes a project, the Council suggests that the 
proposal be reviewed by the municipality's legal counsel prior to 
submission. In addition, please remember that information submitted to 
the Council by all parties is included in a public record and is 
subject to disclosure pursuant to the Federal Freedom of Information 
Act and the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Please note that, prior 
to selection of any project for funding, all proposals will be subject 
to public review and comment as part of an open public comment process.

III. Restoration Priorities

    The Council has identified the following list of priorities for 
restoration of injured natural resources:
    1. Marshes and/or wetlands,
    2. Recreation areas,

[[Page 44508]]

    3. Water column,
    4. Habitats,
    5. Living resources, and
    6. Endangered species.
    Project ideas should address these priorities but respondents are 
not limited to these areas alone. New priorities can be identified, if 
appropriate, and incorporated into the restoration planning process 
provided that they meet legal requirements, technical feasibility, and 
selection criteria.

IV. How to Submit Ideas

    This is not a formal solicitation for contract or grant proposals. 
Instead this is a request for ideas that could eventually lead to 
contracts or grants. Depending on the activity involved in a project 
and the project's proponent, the funding award could be a grant, a 
contract, or, if appropriate, work 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 are reminded that, once an idea has been submitted, the 
idea will be made available to the public. Even if the idea is chosen 
and a solicitation is conducted for accomplishing that idea, there is 
still no guarantee that the proponent of the idea will be chosen to 
perform that work. It is possible that an idea may be implemented, 
after public review (see IV.B.1), through a sole source contract or 
grant if the idea meets the appropriate criteria for such an award. 
Because proposals will be subject to public review, respondents who are 
concerned about revealing proprietary interests or methods should 
present only enough information to provide the Council with an 
understanding of the idea.

A. Eligible Submissions

    All individuals are eligible to submit ideas, and all submissions 
are welcomed and encouraged. Respondents are asked to evaluate their 
idea(s) against criteria developed by the Council in the Restoration 
Plan (see V.A.2).
    Assistance from Council staff 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

    Direct awards of funding will not occur under this solicitation for 
restoration ideas. Rather, this solicitation for restoration ideas will 
result in prioritization of proposed ideas by the Council considering 
public review and comment. The Council will then determine the most 
appropriate means of implementing approved project ideas that may or 
may not require further solicitation.
    The Council has a fixed amount of money to implement restoration 
projects. The cost of the project constitutes an important 
consideration in determining which project ideas are to be implemented. 
Estimated cost information allows the Council to develop a spending 
plan for future years and allows both the public to understand 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 multiyear 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 announcement is only a request for restoration ideas, 
publication of this request 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. Cost sharing

    One way of extending the fixed amount of money the Council has to 
work with is through cost sharing (often referred to as providing 
``matching funds''). It is not required that project ideas contain cost 
sharing. However, the Council does encourage respondents to think about 
cost sharing and, if it is appropriate for a project idea, to discuss 
within the idea the degree to which cost sharing may be possible. If 
cost sharing 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.

D. Format

    The forms described below are available from the Council's offices 
(see ADDRESSES) or through the internet at http://www.darp.noaa.gov/
neregion/newbed.htm.
    1. Project idea summary: An applicant must complete ``Request for 
Restoration Ideas'', Project Summary form, 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 cost sharing. Fees or profits should not be included in the 
estimated budget.
    The total costs of the project idea include all costs incurred in 
accomplishing its 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: Describe the work to be 
performed that will achieve the Council goals, priorities, and 
criteria. Include the work, activities, or procedures to be undertaken 
and 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: Describe how the project idea 
would address the criteria contained in V.A.2.

V. 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 advisors, 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

[[Page 44509]]

experts. Point scores will be given to project ideas up to the maximum 
value shown below, 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, replaces, or acquires the equivalent of 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 the New Bedford 
Harbor environment will be considered if 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 that 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. (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. Project idea ranking: Utilizing the numerical scores resulting 
from the technical evaluation described at V.A.2., project ideas will 
be ranked in order of the highest to the lowest score. Project ideas 
scoring the highest will be considered as ``preliminary preferred'' 
alternatives, with the other ideas as alternatives. The ranking is used 
only to provide guidance to the Trustees, but is not controlling. 
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. These 
recommendations will be submitted to the Council which will review the 
recommendations, accept or modify the recommendations, and make a 
preliminary determination on the approximate number of project ideas it 
expects to undertake.
    1. Public review: Once a preliminary determination is made on the 
preferred project ideas and on the number of project ideas to be 
funded, the Council will initiate a 30-day public comment period and 
hold a public hearing to receive comment on the Council's 
recommendations.
    2. Trustee Council determination: At the conclusion of the 30-day 
comment period, the Council will consider the comments from the public 
and its advisors before making its final decisions on funding. Factors 
the Trustees may consider include, but are not limited to, the total 
cost of the highest ranked projects, the cost of individual projects, 
the amount available to be spent, and the potential impact of clean up 
activities on the project.
    3. Project solicitation: Upon the Council's final decisions, the 
Council may solicit restoration projects for the selected ideas. If 
necessary, 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.

Classification

    This notice contains a collection-of-information requirement 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The collection of this 
information has been approved by the 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.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required 
to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure 
to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information 
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 and OMB (see ADDRESSES).

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. and 9601 et seq.

    Dated: August 9, 1999.
Gary C. Matlock,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Services.
[FR Doc. 99-21096 Filed 8-13-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F