Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Notices 10897 

endangered species, and potential 

project costs. 

2. Proposed Action. The proposed 

action is to construct a regional 

wastewater pumping, conveyance, 

treatment, and discharge facility to serve 

the Towns of Apex, Cary, Holly Springs 

and Morrisville, as well as RTP South, 

North Carolina. The Towns have 

cooperated together to develop the 

proposal, and each town will be 

responsible for the permits for their part 

of the proposed project. It is anticipated 

there will be 4 permit requests to 

construct the whole project. Future 

request for Department of the Army 

authorization for other sections of the 

project will be submitted once the final 

plans have been completed. 

This request for Department of the 

Army authorization consists of the 

construction of a regional wastewater 

system that includes the construction of 

influent conveyance facilities, a new 

water reclamation facility (WRF), and 

new effluent conveyance facilities in 

western Wake County and Chatham 

County, North Carolina to serve the 

Towns of Apex, Cary, and Morrisville 

and RTP South. The proposed WRF site 

is north of U.S. 1 and just south of Old 

U.S. 1 between New Hill-Holleman and 

Shearon Harris Roads. The WRF would 

be constructed in two phases to a 

proposed treatment capacity of 30- 

million gallons per day (mgd). The 

Town of Holly Springs Utley Creek 

Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) 

has already been approved to expand to 

6 MGD and will share the 38 MGD 

outfall to the Cape Fear River. The 

effluent line will leave the WRF in 

Wake County and enter Chatham 

County to the discharge point located on 

the Cape Fear River downstream of 

Buckhorn Dam in Chatham County. 

As a result of the construction 

activities related to this permit request 

from Western Wake Partners, there will 

be temporary and permanent impacts to 

wetlands and streams. The total 

permanent impact of the proposed 

project is 509 of linear feet (lf) of stream 

(329 lf of perennial and 180 lf 

intermittent) and 1.8 acres of wetlands. 

The total temporary impact of the 

proposed project is 1,924 lf of stream 

(1,115 lf of perennial and 809 lf of 

intermittent) and 6.8 acres of wetlands. 

Most of these impacts are along the 

influent transmission lines. 

3. Alternatives. An extensive 

alternatives analysis was performed and 

reviewed by the Project Delivery Team 

(PDT). This included the evaluation of 

wastewater management options; 

wastewater discharge options; WRF site 

alternatives; conveyance alternatives 

and wastewater outfall options. Many 

alternatives were identified and 

evaluated through the scoping process, 

and further detailed description of all 

alternatives is disclosed in Section or 

Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS. 

4. Scoping Process. A public scoping 

meeting was held on April 19, 2007 and 

a Project Delivery Team (PDT) was 

developed to provide input in the 

preparation of the EIS. The PDT was 

comprised of representatives from local, 

state, and federal government, the 

Western Wake Partners, Wake County, 

Chatham County, and the New Hill 

Community. 

The COE coordinated closely with the 

North Carolina Division of Water 

Quality Construction Grants and Loans 

Section in the development of the EIS 

to ensure the process complies with 

State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) 

requirements, as well as the NEPA 

requirements. The Draft EIS has been 

designed to consolidate both NEPA and 

SEPA processes to eliminate 

duplications. 

Dated: March 4, 2009. 

C. Scott McLendon, 

Assistant Chief, Wilmington Regulatory 

District. 

[FR Doc. E9–5563 Filed 3–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Corps of Engineers 

Department of the Army; 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) 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 

http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/ERA/ 

pages/Default.aspx). On behalf of the 

Estuary Habitat Restoration Council 

(Council), the Corps is soliciting 

proposals for estuary habitat restoration 

projects. 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 costeffective. Proposals selected for Estuary 

Habitat Restoration Program funding 

may be implemented in accordance 

with a cost-share agreement with the 

Corps, a cooperative agreement with the 

Corps, or a cooperative agreement with 

one of the other agencies represented on 

the Council, subject to availability of 

funds. 

DATES: Proposals must be received on or 

before May 12, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Ms. Ellen Cummings, 

Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Washington, DC 20314–1000. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Ellen Cummings, (202) 761–4750, email: 

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. However, 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 conducted. The Strategy was 

published in the Federal Register (67 

FR 71942) on December 3, 2002. It is 

also accessible at http:// 

www.usace.army.mil/CECW/ERA/ 

pages/Default.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, estuary is 

considered to extend from the head of 

tide to the boundary with the open sea 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
10898 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Notices 

(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. 

Eligible habitat restoration activities 

include re-establishment 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, below). 

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 or to fund educational or 

recreational facilities. 

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 nongovernmental organization does not 

include for profit enterprises. The NonFederal Sponsor must be able to provide 

the real estate interests necessary for 

implementation, operation, 

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 except that 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 costeffectiveness. 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. 

Prior to initiation of a project, the 

Non-Federal Sponsor must enter into a 

written 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 provide services and in-kind 

contributions for credit 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, 

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 these 

other Federal funds may be used toward 

the project but will not be considered in 

determining the non-Federal share in 

relation to the Federal share of the costs. 

Credit will be provided only for work 

necessary for the specific project being 

funded with Estuary Habitat Restoration 

Program funds. For example, a nonFederal 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 six dams is creditable as 

part of the non-Federal share of the 

project for removal of four dams. 

The Corps will not transfer funds to 

the Non-Federal Sponsor unless the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Notices 10899 

project meets the conditions for 

implementation under a cooperative 

agreement. If a Corps cost-share 

agreement is required, the Corps will 

implement (construct) some portion of 

the proposed project and be responsible 

for managing construction activities not 

performed by the Non-Federal Sponsor 

as in-kind contribution. Projects funded 

by the other Council agencies will be 

implemented using 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 http://www.usace.army.mil/about/ 

Pages/Locations.aspx. If additional 

assistance 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 not accept proposals 

that indicate an estimated Federal cost 

of less than $100,000 or more than 

$1,500,000. There is no guarantee that 

sufficient funds will be available to fund 

all eligible proposals. 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 written agreement 

discussed in Project Sponsor and Cost 

Sharing, Section IV above. Projects 

selected for funding must be capable of 

producing the ecosystem benefits 

described in the proposal in the absence 

of Federal funding beyond that 

established 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. Agency scientists involved in 

estuarine research or the development 

and application of innovative methods 

for restoring estuary habitats will also 

review proposals that indicate the use of 

innovative technologies or approaches. 

Each agency will score and rank the 

proposals; the staff of the five agencies 

will use these rankings as the basis for 

a consolidated recommendation. The 

staff will also recommend which agency 

should fund a project if agencies other 

than the Corps have funds for this 

program. The Council will consider the 

staff 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. 

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. It 

will benefit applicants to ensure that 

project proposals clearly address the 

criteria set forth under the following 

four subsections: Initial Screening of 

Project Proposals; Evaluation of Project 

Proposals; Priority Elements; and Other 

Factors. 

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 monitoring plan that is 

consistent with standards developed by 

NOAA under section 104 (c)(2)(C). The 

standards are available at: http:// 

www.usace.army.mil/CECW/ERA/ 

Pages/monitor_db.aspx and http:// 

era.noaa.gov/htmls/era/ 

era_monitoring.html, or from the 

contact 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. The following 

criteria are listed in order of relative 

importance with the most important 

criteria first. The first four criteria are 

critical. If the reviewers find that a 

response to any of the first four criteria 

is completely inadequate, 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 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
10900 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Notices 

contribution to the long-term 

conservation of estuary habitat function, 

(b) benefits for Federally listed 

endangered or threatened 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. 

Examples of activities that would not 

qualify would be restoration of an oyster 

bed 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. 

(2) Cost-Effectiveness 

Reviewers will evaluate the 

relationship between estimated project 

costs, including the costs of remaining 

planning, design, construction, required 

lands, and annual operation, 

maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and 

replacement, and monitoring cost, 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, 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? Or 

is there a possibility the project will be 

impaired within the next fifty years 

from rising sea levels? 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 

proposed benefits. 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 

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 be successfully 

implemented. Consideration will also be 

given to: 

(a) Potential success of restoration 

techniques, based on a history of 

successful implementation in field or 

pilot projects, 

(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. 

(4) Scientific Merit 

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 

(c) specific methods proposed (if 

successfully implemented—see criteria 

on technical feasibility) have a good 

chance of meeting project goals and 

achieving long-term sustainability. 

(5) Agency Coordination 

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 multiagency 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 

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 longterm partnerships among public and 

private entities. 

(7) Level of Contribution 

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. 

(8) Monitoring Plan 

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 success criteria, 

(b) how results will be evaluated 

(statistical comparison to baseline or 

reference condition, trend analysis, or 

other quantitative or qualitative 

approach), 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Notices 10901 

(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) the appropriateness of the nature, 

frequency, and timing of measurements 

and which areas will be sampled, 

(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. 

(9) Multiple Benefits 

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, 

water quality and/or quantity for human 

uses, recreational opportunities, and 

benefits to commercial fisheries. 

(10) Supports Regional Restoration 

Goals 

Reviewers will evaluate the extent to 

which the proposed project contributes 

to meeting and/or strengthening the 

needs, goals, objectives and restoration 

priorities contained in regional 

restoration plans, and the means that 

will be used to measure such progress. 

(11) Part of a Federal or State Plan 

If the proposed project is part of a 

Federal (examples of Federal plans are 

listed in section 103(6)(B) of the Act) or 

State plan, reviewers will consider the 

extent to which the project would 

contribute to meeting and/or 

strengthening the plan’s needs, goals, 

objectives and restoration priorities, and 

the means that will be used to measure 

such progress. 

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 other technologies in 

current practice, 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 preconstruction 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 

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 NonFederal 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 costsharing agreements and schedules for 

project implementation. 

IX. Project Application Form 

Clarifications 

Most of the entries are relatively selfexplanatory, however, based on 

experience some clarifying comments 

are provided to facilitate completion of 

the form. 

A. Project name should be short but 

unique and descriptive. 

B. Non-Federal Sponsor’s Point(s) of 

Contact. One of the individual(s) listed 

should be the person that can answer 

project specific questions and will be 

the day-to-day contact for the project. 

This may be a different individual than 

the individual signing the Non-Federal 

Sponsor’s certification. That individual 

should have the legal authority to make 

the required commitments. 

C. Item 8. Funding and Partners. Postconstruction costs for adaptive 

management and long-term project 

maintenance do not count as a cost 

share for projects funded under the 

Estuary Restoration Act and should not 

be included in the estimated total 

project cost. In the budget table, list the 

share of the project cost being sought 

from the Estuary Habitat Restoration 

Program as ERA funds. Funds from 

other Federal programs such as NOAA’s 

Community Based Restoration Program 

should be listed by agency and program. 

Also note whether the value of the 

contribution from non-Federal sources 

are cash or in-kind. 

D. If submitting a proposal 

electronically, a hard copy of the Letter 

of Assurance and Certification may be 

submitted if it is post-marked by the 

closing date for this announcement and 

the electronic submission has the text of 

the Letter of Assurance and Certification 

with an indication of the date signed 

and name/title/organization of the 

individual signing these documents. 

The Letter of Assurance should be 

addressed to ‘‘Chairman, Estuary 

Habitat Restoration Council’’ and sent to 

the address in Section X for hard copy 

submittals. 

E. In the project description section of 

the project application form the phrase 

‘‘Estimated life cycle of the project’’ 

refers to the functional life of the project 

and might include discussion of phases 

such as x years to maturity, y years at 

peak performance and z years in a 

declining state. As an example a 

wetland may fill with sediment over 

time and its functionality diminish. The 

‘‘life-cycle’’ would be the number of 

years until the project no longer 

provides the original benefits. 

G. The proposed project should only 

be described as innovative if the NonFederal Sponsor is requesting the 

special cost sharing for the incremental 

costs of including testing of or a 

demonstration of an innovative 

technology or approach as defined in 

the application form. 

X. Application Process 

Proposal application forms are 

available at http://www.usace.army.mil/ 

CECW/ERA/Pages/pps.aspx or by 

contacting Ms. Ellen Cummings (see 

ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT sections). Project 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
10902 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Notices 

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. Electronic 

submissions are encouraged and should 

be sent to 

estuary.restoration@usace.army.mil. 

Multiple e-mail messages may be 

required to ensure successful receipt if 

the files exceed 5MB in size. Questions 

may also be sent to the same e-mail 

address. Hard copy submissions may be 

sent or delivered to HQUSACE, ATTN: 

CECW–PB, 7701 Telegraph Road #3D72, 

Alexandria, VA 22315–3860. The part of 

the nomination 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. × 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 

WordPerfect 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. E9–5463 Filed 3–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Agency Information Collection 

Extension 

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, intends to 

extend for three years, an information 

collection request with the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the extended collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

DATES: Comments regarding this 

proposed information collection must 

be received on or before May 12, 2009. 

If you anticipate difficulty in submitting 

comments within that period, contact 

the person listed below as soon as 

possible. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be sent to all of the following: 

Information_Collection@hq.doe.gov. 

Denise Clarke, Procurement Analyst, 

MA–612/L’Enfant Plaza Building, 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC, 20585–1615, 

deniset.clarke@hq.doe.gov 

Ever Crutchfield, Business Analyst, IM– 

23/Germantown Building, U.S. 

Department of Energy 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–1290, 

ever.crutchfield@hq.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument and instructions should be 

directed to Denise Clarke at the above 

address, or by telephone at (202) 287– 

1748. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

information collection request contains: 

(1) OMB No. 1910–0400; (2) Information 

Collection Request Title: DOE Financial 

Assistance Information Clearance; (3) 

Type of Review: Continuation of 

Mandatory Information Collection 

under Paperwork Reduction Act; (4) 

Purpose: This information collection 

package covers collections of 

information necessary to annually plan, 

solicit, negotiate, award and administer 

grants and cooperative agreements 

under the Department’s financial 

assistance programs. The information is 

used by Departmental management to 

exercise management oversight with 

respect to implementation of applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

and obligations. The collection of this 

information is critical to ensure that the 

government has sufficient information 

to judge the degree to which awardees 

meet the terms of their agreements; that 

public funds are spent in the manner 

intended; and that fraud, waste, and 

abuse are immediately detected and 

eliminated; (5) Respondents: 24,241; 

and (6) Estimated Number of Burden 

Hours: 239,458. 

Statutory Authority: Section 3506(c)(2)(A) 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–13). 

Issued in Washington, DC on March 6, 

2009. 

Edward R. Simpson, 

Director, Office of Procurement and 

Assistance Management, Department of 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. E9–5462 Filed 3–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Combined Notice of Filings #1 

March 5, 2009. 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following exempt 

wholesale generator filings: 

Docket Numbers: EG09–33–000. 

Applicants: Windy Flats Partners, 

LLC. 

Description: Notice of Self 

Certification of Exempt Wholesale 

Generator Status of Windy Flats 

Partners, LLC. 

Filed Date: 03/02/2009. 

Accession Number: 20090302–5075. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Monday, March 23, 2009. 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric rate 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: ER00–3039–002. 

Applicants: Exeter Energy Limited 

Partnership. 

Description: Request for Category 1 

Seller Status Classification Pursuant to 

Order 697 and 697–A; Exeter Energy 

Limited Partnership. 

Filed Date: 03/04/2009. 

Accession Number: 20090304–5141. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Wednesday, March 25, 2009. 

Docket Numbers: ER03–114–005; 

ER04–183–004. 

Applicants: Great Bay Power 

Marketing, Inc.; Great Bay Hydro 

Corporation. 

Description: Updated version of Great 

Bay Power Marketing’s Application for 

qualification as Category I Seller. 

Filed Date: 02/24/2009. 

Accession Number: 20090224–5100. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Tuesday, March 17, 2009. 

Docket Numbers: ER06–864–012; 

ER00–2885–019; ER01–2765–018; 

ER02–1582–016; ER02–2102–018; 

ER03–1283–013; ER05–1232–011; 

ER06–1543–009; ER07–1112–003; 

ER07–1113–003; ER07–1115–003; 

ER07–1116–003; ER07–1117–003; 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES