New Bedford Harbor Trustee Council

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

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