Notice of Solicitation for Estuary Habitat Restoration Program, 2517-2522 [2010-681]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
• Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
• Engineers Corps
• Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2517-2522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-681]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers


Notice of Solicitation for Estuary Habitat Restoration Program

AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of solicitation for project applications.

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

SUMMARY: Congress has appropriated limited funds to the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers (Corps) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) for implementation of the Estuary Habitat 
Restoration Program as authorized in Section 104 of the Estuary 
Restoration Act of 2000, Title I of the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act 
of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-457) (accessible at https://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/ERA/Pages/home.aspx). On behalf of the Estuary Habitat Restoration 
Council (Council) the Corps is soliciting proposals for estuary habitat 
restoration projects. The Council requests that all proposals address 
the potential effects of sea level change and other impacts related to 
climate change on the viability of the proposed restoration. This may 
take the form of considering climate change in the planning, design, 
siting, and construction of the project, or in testing new restoration 
technologies that may help to alleviate effects of climate change. This 
document describes project criteria and evaluation criteria the Council 
will use to determine which projects to recommend. Recommended projects 
must provide ecosystem benefits, have scientific merit, be technically 
feasible, and be cost-effective. Proposals selected for Estuary Habitat 
Restoration Program funding may be implemented in accordance with a 
cost-share agreement with the Corps; or a cooperative agreement with 
the Corps or NOAA, subject to availability of funds.
    In addition to this solicitation and the application form, a 
Supplemental Guide for Prospective Applicants is available at: https://
www.usace.army.mil/CECW/

[[Page 2518]]

ERA/Pages/pps.aspx and https://era.noaa.gov/.

DATES: Proposals must be received on or before March 16, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Ms. Jenni Wallace, NOAA Restoration Center, SSMC3 F/HC3 Room 
14730, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jenni Wallace, (301) 713-0174 
x183, e-mail: Jenni.Wallace@noaa.gov or Ms. Ellen Cummings, (202) 761-
4750, e-mail: Ellen.M.Cummings@usace.army.mil.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction

    Under the Estuary Habitat Restoration Program, the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers (Corps), Department of the Interior (acting through the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of 
Agriculture are authorized to carry out estuary habitat restoration 
projects. The Estuary Habitat Restoration Council (Council) is 
responsible for soliciting, reviewing and evaluating project proposals. 
The agencies may only fund projects on the prioritized list provided by 
the Council. The Estuary Habitat Restoration Strategy prepared by the 
Council contains introductory information about the program and 
provides the context in which projects will be evaluated and the 
program will be administered. The Strategy was published in the Federal 
Register (67 FR 71942) on December 3, 2002. It is also accessible at 
https://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/ERA/Pages/home.aspx in PDF format.
    An emphasis will be placed on achieving cost-effective restoration 
of ecosystems while promoting increased partnerships among agencies and 
between public and private sectors. Projects funded under this program 
will contribute to the Estuary Habitat Restoration Strategy goal of 
restoring 1,000,000 acres of estuary habitat.
    For purposes of this program, estuary is defined as ``a part of a 
river or stream or other body of water that has an unimpaired 
connection with the open sea and where the sea water is measurably 
diluted with fresh water from land drainage.'' Estuary also includes 
the ``* * * near coastal waters and wetlands of the Great Lakes that 
are similar in form and function to estuaries * * *'' For this program, 
an estuary is considered to extend from the head of tide to the 
boundary with the open sea (to downstream terminus features or 
structures such as barrier islands, reefs, sand bars, mud flats, or 
headlands in close proximity to the connection with the open sea). In 
the Great Lakes, riparian and nearshore areas adjacent to the mouths of 
creek or rivers entering the Great Lakes will be considered to be 
estuaries. Estuary habitat includes the estuary and its associated 
ecosystems, such as: Salt, brackish, and fresh water coastal marshes; 
coastal forested wetlands and other coastal wetlands; maritime forests; 
coastal grasslands; tidal flats; natural shoreline areas; shellfish 
beds; sea grass meadows; kelp beds; river deltas; and river and stream 
corridors under tidal influence.

II. Eligible Restoration Activities

    Section 103 of the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (the Act) 
defines the term estuary habitat restoration activity to mean ``an 
activity that results in improving degraded estuaries or estuary 
habitat or creating estuary habitat (including both physical and 
functional restoration), with the goal of attaining a self-sustaining 
system integrated into the surrounding landscape.'' Projects funded 
under this program will be consistent with this definition and should 
include consideration of potential changes in future conditions due to 
climate change.
    Eligible habitat restoration activities include reestablishment of 
chemical, physical, hydrologic, and biological features and components 
associated with an estuary. Restoration may include, but is not limited 
to, improvement of estuarine wetland tidal exchange or reestablishment 
of historic hydrology; dam or berm removal; improvement or 
reestablishment of fish passage; appropriate reef/substrate/habitat 
creation; planting of native estuarine wetland and submerged aquatic 
vegetation; reintroduction of native species; control of invasive 
species by altering conditions so they are less conducive to the 
invasive species; and establishment of riparian buffer zones in the 
estuary. Cleanup of pollution for the benefit of estuary habitat may be 
considered, as long as it does not meet the definition of excluded 
activities under the Act (see section III, EXCLUDED ACTIVITIES).
    In general, proposed projects should clearly demonstrate 
anticipated benefits to habitats such as those habitats listed in the 
INTRODUCTION. Although the Council recognizes that water quality and 
land use issues may impact habitat restoration efforts and must be 
considered in project planning, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Program 
is intended to fund physical habitat restoration projects, not measures 
such as storm water detention ponds, wastewater treatment plant 
upgrades or combined sewer outfall improvements.

III. Excluded Activities

    Estuary Habitat Restoration Program funds will not be used for any 
activity that constitutes mitigation required under any Federal or 
State law for the adverse effects of an activity regulated or otherwise 
governed by Federal or State law, or that constitutes restoration for 
natural resource damages required under any Federal or State law. 
Estuary Habitat Restoration Program funds will not be used for 
remediation of any hazardous substances regulated under the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
(42 U.S.C. 9601-9675). Additionally, Estuary Habitat Restoration 
Program funds will not be used to carry out projects on Federal lands.
    The Council recognizes that water quality issues can impact estuary 
habitat restoration efforts. However, this solicitation is intended to 
fund on-the-ground habitat restoration projects that will have 
significant and tangible ecological impacts. Projects dealing only with 
water quality improvement measures are not eligible. Ineligible 
projects include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment plant 
upgrades, combined sewer outfalls, and non-point source pollution 
projects such as replacement of failing septic systems, implementation 
of farm waste management plans, and stormwater management projects. 
Other examples of activities that would not qualify would be 
restoration of an oyster bed with significant areas open to commercial 
harvest or a fish hatchery. Educational facilities such as classrooms, 
botanical gardens, or recreational facilities such as trails or boat 
ramps would also not qualify for cost sharing under this program 
although they may be included in the project if they do not conflict 
with the environmental benefits expected from project implementation.

IV. Project Sponsor and Cost Sharing

    The Non-Federal Sponsor may be a State, a political subdivision of 
a State, a Tribe, or a regional or interstate agency. A non-
governmental organization may serve as a Non-Federal Sponsor as 
determined by the Secretary of the Army (Secretary) in consultation 
with appropriate State and local governmental agencies and Tribes. For 
purposes of this act the term ``non-governmental organization'' does 
not include for profit enterprises. The Non-Federal Sponsor must be 
able to provide the real estate interests necessary for implementation, 
operation,

[[Page 2519]]

maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and replacement of the project. In 
most cases this means the Non-Federal Sponsor must have fee title to 
the lands necessary for the project although in some cases an easement 
may be sufficient.
    The Federal share of the cost of an estuary habitat restoration 
project shall not exceed 65 percent in most cases. The exception to 
this is when the project deals with pilot testing or demonstrating an 
innovative technology or approach. In the latter case, the Federal 
share shall be 85 percent of the incremental additional cost of pilot 
testing or demonstration of an innovative technology or approach having 
the potential for improved cost-effectiveness. Innovative technology or 
approach are defined as novel processes, techniques and/or materials to 
restore habitat, or the use of existing processes, techniques, and/or 
materials in a new restoration application. Applicants must justify in 
the proposal why a particular project is innovative. In addition, the 
Council has final say as to whether a proposed project is innovative. 
The difference in the cost of the project related to the use of the 
innovative technique or approach must be clearly described. Please 
refer to the Supplemental Guidance for Prospective Applicants for an 
example of how to calculate the cost share for an innovative 
technology/approach application.
    Prior to initiation of a project, the Non-Federal Sponsor must 
enter into an agreement with the funding agency in which the Non-
Federal Sponsor agrees to provide its share of the project cost; 
including necessary lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations 
and long-term maintenance. The value of the required real estate 
interests will be credited towards the Non-Federal Sponsor's share of 
the project cost. The Non-Federal Sponsor may also receive credit for 
services and in-kind contributions toward its share of the project 
cost, including cost shared monitoring. Adaptive management will be a 
non-Federal responsibility; it will not be cost shared. Credit for the 
value of in-kind contributions is subject to satisfactory compliance 
with applicable Federal labor laws covering non-Federal construction, 
including but not limited to the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a et 
seq.,) the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327 
et seq.), and the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (40 U.S.C. 276c). Credit 
may be afforded for the value of required work undertaken by 
volunteers, using the hourly value in common usage for grants programs 
but not to exceed the Federal estimate of the cost of activity. The 
Non-Federal Sponsor shall also have a long-term responsibility for all 
costs associated with operating, maintaining, replacing, repairing, and 
rehabilitating these projects. The cost of these activities will not be 
included in the total project cost and will not count toward the Non-
Federal Sponsor's minimum 35 percent share of the project cost.
    Other Federal funds, i.e., funds appropriated to agencies other 
than the agency signing the cost-share agreement or cooperative 
agreement, may not be used by the Non-Federal Sponsor to meet its share 
of the project cost unless the other Federal agency verifies in writing 
that expenditure of funds for such purpose is expressly authorized by 
statute. Otherwise, other Federal funds may be used for the proposed 
project if consistent with the other agency's authorities and will 
count as part of the Federal share of the project cost. Any non-Federal 
funds or contributions used as a match for those other Federal funds 
may be used toward the project but will not be considered in 
determining the non-Federal share in relation to any Federal Estuary 
Habitat Restoration Program funds.
    Credit will be provided only for work necessary for the specific 
project being funded with Estuary Habitat Restoration Program funds. 
For example, a non-Federal entity is engaged in the removal of ten 
dams, has removed six dams, and now seeks assistance for the removal of 
the remaining four dams as an Estuary Habitat Restoration Program 
project. None of the costs associated with the removal of the prior six 
dams is creditable as part of the non-Federal share of the project for 
removal of the remaining four dams.
    If a Corps cost-share agreement is required, funds will not be 
transferred to the Non-Federal Sponsor. Instead, the Corps will use the 
funds to implement (construct) some portion of the proposed project as 
well as cover its management responsibilities. If the project meets the 
Corps conditions for implementation under a cooperative agreement or if 
NOAA funds a project, funds will be transferred to the Non-Federal 
Sponsor under a cooperative agreement. In all cases the funding 
agencies will use the planning, evaluation, and design products 
provided by the applicant to the extent possible. The Federal funding 
agency will be responsible for assuring compliance with Federal 
environmental statutes, assuring the project is designed to avoid 
adverse impacts on other properties and that the project can reasonably 
be expected to provide the desired benefits. Corps activities related 
to implementation of projects under this authority will be part of the 
Federal cost of the project, and the Non-Federal Sponsor should 
consider these costs in developing the project cost estimate. The Non-
Federal Sponsor should coordinate with the appropriate Corps district 
office during preparation of the proposal to obtain an estimate of the 
funds required and other available information which may improve the 
proposal. Information on district locations and boundaries may be found 
at https://www.usace.army.mil/about/Pages/Locations.aspx. If additional 
assistance regarding the Corps process or contacts is required please 
contact Ms. Cummings (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

V. Funding Availability

    Limited funds have been appropriated for implementation of projects 
under the Estuary Habitat Restoration Program. The Council will only 
accept proposals that request at least $100,000 and no more than 
$1,000,000 from this program. Projects will be funded subject to the 
availability of funds. The number of proposals funded as a result of 
this notice will depend on the number of eligible proposals received, 
the estimated amount of funds required for each selected project, and 
the merit and ranking of the proposals. The exact amount of the Federal 
and non-Federal cost share for each selected project will be specified 
in the agreement (See PROJECT SPONSOR AND COST SHARING, Section IV). 
Projects selected for funding must be capable of producing the 
ecosystem benefits described in the proposal in the absence of Federal 
funding beyond that provided in the cost-share or cooperative 
agreement.

VI. Proposal Review Process

    Proposals will be screened as discussed in section VII.A. below to 
determine eligibility. The staff of the agencies represented on the 
Council will conduct a technical review of the eligible proposals in 
accordance with the criteria described in section VII.B. below. Each 
agency will score and rank the proposals; the five agencies will use 
these rankings as the basis for a consolidated recommendation to the 
Council. The recommendation will include indications as to which agency 
should fund a project, NOAA or the Corps. The Council will consider the 
recommendation, the items discussed in sections VII.C. and D. below, 
and possibly other factors when preparing its prioritized list of 
recommended projects for the Secretary's use.

[[Page 2520]]

VII. Proposal Review Criteria

    This section describes the criteria that will be used to review and 
select projects to be recommended to the Secretary for funding under 
the Act. Project proposals should clearly address the criteria set 
forth under the following four subsections: Initial Screening of 
Project Proposals (VII.A.); Evaluation of Project Proposals (VII.B.); 
Priority Elements (VII.C.); and Other Factors (VII.D.).

A. Initial Screening of Project Proposals

    Proposals will be screened according to the requirements listed in 
sections 104(b) and 104(c)(2) of the Act as described below. Proposed 
projects must not include excluded activities as discussed in Section 
III above. Additionally, the letter of assurance must indicate that the 
primary property owner and the party responsible for long-term 
maintenance have reviewed and support the proposal. Proposals that do 
not meet all of these initial screening criteria will not be evaluated 
further. To be accepted the proposal must:
    (1) Originate from a Non-Federal Sponsor (section 104(b));
    (2) Address restoration needs identified in an estuary habitat 
restoration plan (section 104 (c)(2)(A)). The Act defines ``estuary 
habitat restoration plan'' as any Federal, State, or regional plan for 
restoration of degraded estuary habitat that was developed with 
substantial participation of the public. (section 103(6));
    (3) Be consistent with the Estuary Habitat Restoration Strategy 
(section 104(c)(2)(B)) by:
    (a) Including eligible restoration activities that provide 
ecosystem benefits;
    (b) Addressing estuary habitat trends (including historic losses) 
in the project region, and indicating how these were considered in 
developing the project proposal;
    (c) Involving a partnership approach, and
    (d) Clearly describing the benefits expected to be realized by the 
proposed project;
    (4) Include a post-construction monitoring plan that is consistent 
with standards developed by NOAA under section 104(c)(2)(C). The 
standards are available at: https://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/ERA/Pages/monitor_db.aspx and https://era.noaa.gov/htmls/era/era_monitoring.html, or from the contacts listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Minimum monitoring requirements include 
monitoring over a period of five years post-construction and tracking 
of at least one structural and one functional element. Examples of 
structural and functional elements are contained in the monitoring 
document cited above, and;
    (5) Include satisfactory assurances that the Non-Federal Sponsor 
has adequate authority and resources to carry out items of local 
cooperation and properly maintain the project (section 104(c)(2)(D)).

B. Evaluation of Project Proposals

    Proposals that meet the initial screening criteria in A. above will 
be eligible for further review using the criteria listed below. 
Reviewers will assign scores to applications ranging from 0 to 100 
points based on the evaluation criteria and respective weights 
specified below. Applications that best address these criteria will be 
the most competitive. The following criteria are listed in order of 
relative importance with the assigned points used in evaluation. If the 
reviewers find that a response to any of the first four criteria is not 
included in the proposal, or not adequate, the proposal will be 
rejected. For each of the listed criteria the focus will be on the 
factors mentioned below but other factors may also be considered.
    (1) Ecosystem Benefits (15 points)--
    Proposals will be evaluated based on the extent of proposed habitat 
restoration activities and the type(s) of habitat(s) that will be 
restored. Following are specific factors that reviewers will consider 
as part of this criterion:
    (a) Prevention or reversal of estuary habitat loss or degradation 
in the project area and the nature and extent of the proposed project's 
potential contribution to the long-term conservation of estuary habitat 
function and adaptation to climate change,
    (b) Benefits for Federally listed threatened or endangered species, 
species proposed for Federal listing, recently delisted species or 
designated or proposed critical habitat in the project area,
    (c) Extent to which the project will provide, restore, or improve 
habitat important for estuary-dependent fish and/or migratory birds 
(e.g., breeding, spawning, nursery, foraging, or staging habitat),
    (d) Prevention or reduction of nonpoint source pollution or other 
contaminants to estuary habitats or restoration of estuary habitats 
that are already contaminated, and
    (e) Benefits to nearby existing habitat areas, or contribution to 
the creation of wildlife/ecological corridors connecting existing 
habitat areas.
    (2) Cost-Effectiveness (15 points)--
    Reviewers will evaluate the relationship between estimated project 
costs, including the costs of remaining planning, design, construction, 
required lands, and monitoring, to the monetary and non-monetary 
benefits described in the proposal. Clear quantitative and qualitative 
descriptions of the proposed outputs will facilitate this evaluation. 
Examples of units of measure include: Acres restored, stream miles 
opened to fish passage, flood damage reduction levels, changes in water 
quality parameters, increases in the productivity of various species, 
and presence and absence of certain species. The estimated persistence 
of the proposed project outputs through time will be considered. For 
example, will the area be maintained as a wetland, or allowed to erode 
or become upland? Is the project designed to adapt to climate change 
and potential changes in sea level? Will the proposed project produce 
additional benefits due to synergy between the proposed project and 
other ongoing or proposed projects? Reviewers will consider if the 
proposed project is a cost-effective way to achieve the project goals. 
In some instances the costs and benefits of proposed projects may be 
compared to the costs and benefits of other similar projects in the 
area. The significance of the proposed outputs is also a factor to be 
considered as part of cost-effectiveness. The significance of 
restoration outputs should be recognized in terms of institutional 
(such as laws, adopted plans, or policy statements), public (such as 
support for the project), or technical (such as if it addresses 
scarcity, increases limiting habitat, or improves or increases 
biodiversity) importance.
    (3) Technical Feasibility (15 points)--
    Reviewers will evaluate the extent to which, given current and 
projected environmental conditions of the restoration site--e.g., 
soils, flood regime, presence of invasive species, surrounding land 
use--the proposed project is likely to succeed. Consideration will also 
be given to:
    (a) Potential success of restoration techniques, based on a history 
of successful implementation in field or pilot projects, and ability to 
adapt to climate change and potential changes in sea level,
    (b) Implementation schedule,
    (c) Expected length of time before success can be demonstrated,
    (d) Proposed corrective actions using monitoring information,
    (e) Project management plans, and
    (f) Experience and qualifications of project personnel.

[[Page 2521]]

    (4) Scientific Merit (15 points)--
    Reviewers will evaluate the extent to which the project design is 
based on sound ecological principles and is likely to meet project 
goals. This may be indicated by the following factors:
    (a) Goals of the project are reasonable considering the existing 
and former habitat types present at the site and other local 
influences,
    (b) The proposed restoration methodology demonstrates an 
understanding of habitat function, and has a good chance of meeting 
project goals and achieving long-term sustainability.
    (5) Agency Coordination (10 points)--
    Reviewers will evaluate the degree to which the project will 
encourage increased coordination and cooperation among Federal, State, 
and local government agencies. Some of the indicators used to evaluate 
coordination are:
    (a) The State, Federal, and local agencies involved in developing 
the project and their expected roles in implementation,
    (b) The nature of agency coordination, e.g., joint funding, 
periodic multi-agency review of the project, collaboration on adaptive 
management decisions, joint monitoring, opportunities for future 
collaboration, etc., and
    (c) Whether a formal agreement, such as a Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU), exists between/among agencies as part of the 
project.
    (6) Public/Private Partnerships (10 points)--
    One of the focuses of the Act is the encouragement of new public/
private partnerships. Reviewers will evaluate the degree to which the 
project will foster public/private partnerships and uses Federal 
resources to encourage increased private sector involvement. Indicators 
of the success at meeting this criterion follow. How will the project 
promote collaboration or create partnerships among public and private 
entities, including potential for future new or expanded public/private 
partnerships? What mechanisms are being used to establish the 
partnership, e.g., joint funding, shared monitoring, joint decision-
making on adaptive management strategies? Is there a formal agreement, 
such as a Memorandum of Understanding, between/among the partners as 
part of the project? Also important is the extent to which the project 
creates an opportunity for long-term partnerships among public and 
private entities.
    (7) Monitoring Plan (10 points)--
    Reviewers will consider the following factors in evaluating the 
quality of the monitoring plan:
    (a) Linkage between the monitoring methods and the project goals, 
including accomplishment targets,
    (b) How results will be evaluated (statistical comparison to 
baseline or reference condition, trend analysis, or other quantitative 
or qualitative approach),
    (c) How baseline conditions will be established for the parameters 
to be measured,
    (d) If applicable, the use and selection of reference sites, where 
they are located, how they were chosen, and whether they represent 
target conditions for the habitat or conditions at the site without 
restoration,
    (e) Frequency and timing of measurements, and location to be 
sampled (at a minimum, one functional and one structural parameter must 
be measured),
    (f) Provisions for adaptive management, and data reporting, and
    (g) Whether the length of the proposed monitoring plan is 
appropriate for the project goals. The minimum required monitoring 
period is five years post-construction.
    (8) Level of Contribution (5 points)--
    Reviewers will consider the level and type (cash or in-kind) of 
Non-Federal Sponsor's contribution. Providing more than the minimum 35-
percent share will be rated favorably. It must be clear how much of the 
total project cost the Estuary Habitat Restoration Program is expected 
to provide, how much is coming from other Federal sources, how much is 
coming directly from the sponsor, and how much is available or expected 
to be provided by other sources (either cash or in-kind). Preference 
may be given to projects with the majority of the funding confirmed.
    (9) Multiple Benefits (3 points)--
    In addition to the ecosystem benefits discussed in criterion (1) 
above, restored estuary habitats may provide additional benefits. Among 
those the reviewers will consider are: flood damage reduction, 
protection from storm surge, adaptation to climate change, water 
quality and/or quantity for human uses, recreational opportunities, and 
benefits to commercial fisheries.
    (10) Supports Regional Restoration Goals (1 point)--
    Describe the project's regional/local priority based on specific 
recovery planning goals or on publicly vetted restoration plans, 
watershed assessments, or other priority setting planning documents.
    (11) Part of a Federal or State Plan (1 point)--
    If the proposed project is part of a Federal or state plan, 
describe how the project would contribute to meeting and/or 
strengthening the plan's needs, goals, objectives and restoration 
priorities.

C. Priority Elements

    Section 104 (c)(4) of the Act directs the Secretary to give 
priority consideration to a project that merits selection based on the 
above criteria if it:
    (1) Occurs within a watershed where there is a program being 
implemented that addresses sources of pollution and other activities 
that otherwise would adversely affect the restored habitat; or
    (2) Includes pilot testing or demonstration of an innovative 
technology or approach having the potential to achieve better 
restoration results than conventional technologies, or comparable 
results at lower cost in terms of energy, economics, or environmental 
impacts.
    The Council will also consider these priority elements in ranking 
proposals.

D. Other Factors

    In addition to considering the composite ratings developed in the 
evaluation process and the priority elements listed in C. above, the 
Council will consider other factors when preparing its prioritized list 
for the Secretary's use. These factors include (but may not be limited 
to) the following:
    (1) Readiness of the project for implementation. Among the factors 
to be considered when evaluating readiness are the steps that must be 
taken prior to project implementation, for example is the project a 
concept, a detailed plan, or completed design; potential delays to 
project implementation; and the status of real estate acquisition. 
Proposed projects that have completed more of the pre-construction 
activities will generally receive more favorable consideration.
    (2) Balance between large and small projects, to the extent 
possible given the program funding constraints.
    (3) Geographic distribution of the projects.

VIII. Project Selection and Notification

    The Secretary will select projects for funding from the Council's 
prioritized list of recommended projects after considering the criteria 
contained in section 104(c) of the Act, availability of funds and any 
reasonable additional factors. It is expected that the Secretary will 
select proposals for implementation approximately 100 days after the 
close of this solicitation or 30 days after

[[Page 2522]]

receiving the list from the Council, whichever is later. The Secretary 
will also recommend the lead Federal agency for each project to be 
funded. The Non-Federal Sponsor of each proposal will be notified of 
its status at the conclusion of the selection process. Staff from the 
appropriate Federal agency will work with the Non-Federal Sponsor of 
each selected project to develop the cost-sharing agreements and 
schedules for project implementation.

IX. Structure and Content of Application Submission

    Each application should include:

------ PART I questions completed (see Project Application)
------ Project description organized according to the Project 
Application, including descriptions of:

    ------ how regional habitat trends were considered in developing 
the project proposal
    ------ expected ecosystem benefits, their significance/importance, 
when the benefits will be realized, and the project's expected lifetime
    ------ the roles and contributions of project partners
    ------ how the long-term operation and maintenance of the project 
will be handled
    ------ Monitoring plan specifying at least one structural and one 
functional parameter to be measured and that monitoring will occur for 
five years post-construction
    ------ Name and link to Federal or State restoration plan the 
project will address
    ------ Detailed budget broken out by object class (see Supplemental 
Guidance for Prospective Applicants for more detail on creating a 
budget, including a budget table template and example narrative)
    ------ Justification for an innovative project. If an applicant 
feels their project could be considered innovative, they should develop 
two budgets--one considering it innovative and one considering it as a 
standard project
    ------ Map showing the project site and key features
    ------ Description of compliance activities (e.g., NEPA) if any are 
completed
    ------ Brief resumes of key staff (no more than one page per 
person, not more than 5 individuals)
    ------ Letter of assurance stating adequate personnel, funding, and 
authority to conduct the project
    ------ Signed certification form (see Project Application) that the 
project is not an excluded activity (for a list of excluded activities 
see section III EXCLUDED ACTIVITIES)

    A complete application package should be submitted in accordance 
with the guidelines in this solicitation.

X. Application Process

    Proposal application forms, including Supplemental Guidance for 
Prospective Applicants, are available at https://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/ERA/Pages/pps.aspx and https://era.noaa.gov or by contacting Ms. 
Jenni Wallace (see ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
sections). Project proposals may be submitted electronically, by mail, 
or by courier. Electronic submissions are preferred. The application 
form has been approved by OMB in compliance with the Paper Work 
Reduction Act and is OMB No. 0710-0014 with an expiration date of 
November 30, 2011. Send electronic submissions to 
Jenni.Wallace@noaa.gov. Questions may also be sent to the same e-mail 
address. If it is not feasible to provide an electronic submission, 
hard copy submissions may be sent or delivered to Ms. Jenni Wallace, 
NOAA Restoration Center, SSMC3 F/HC3 Room 14730, 1315 East-West 
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The part of the proposal prepared to 
address the ``proposal elements'' portion of the application should be 
no more than twelve double-spaced pages, using a 10 or 12-point font. 
Paper copies should be printed on 8.5 in. x 11 in. paper and may be 
double sided but must not be bound as multiple copies will be necessary 
for review. Only one hard copy is required. A PC-compatible CD-ROM in 
either Microsoft Word or PDF format may accompany the paper copy. 
Nominations for multiple projects submitted by the same applicant must 
be submitted in separate e-mail messages and/or envelopes.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-681 Filed 1-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720-58-P