Summary of FY12 Brownfields ARC Grant Guidelines Changes

Area	FY11 ARC Guidelines	FY12 ARC Guidelines
All Proposals
Page Limit Attachments	18 page limit – This included the responses to both threshold and ranking criteria.	15 page limit – Information addressing threshold criteria is now submitted as part of the attachments and does not count against the page limit requirement. This change does not penalize those proposals that are site specific and have extensive site information required as part of the threshold information.
	Identified a list of acceptable attachments, however, the list did not include information on leveraging. Did not require applicants to “self-identify” which “other factors/special considerations” applied to them or their proposed project.	Require applicants to attach documentation regarding leveraged funding that is committed to the project. Applicants are required to complete checklist in Appendix 3 and submit with their proposal.
Proposal Ranking and Selection
	Select highest ranking proposals using a single list.	Select highest ranking proposals using two lists – one list of new applicants that have never received a post-law Brownfields grant and a second list of “existing” brownfields grantees. Will also select additional proposals from a second tier list of very good proposals based on highest ranked proposals in the second tier that meet “Other Factors.” Revised the list of “Other Factors” to include regional priorities and Assistant Administrator’s priorities of moving sites to cleanup and redevelopment.
General Award Information
All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI)		For Assessment Grant Guidelines, a section was added with information about AAI report requirements.
Sufficient Progress		Applicants are advised on the sufficient progress terms and conditions should they be selected for a grant award.
Protection of Nearby Sensitive Populations		Applicants are advised regarding their obligation to protect nearby sensitive populations as they conduct the work, should they be selected for award.
General Grant Information
General Description		Highlighted Brownfields Program link to environmental justice and commitment to helping communities revitalize brownfields properties.
All ARC Grants – Threshold and Ranking Criteria
Project Benefits	While the criteria included information on equitable development issues, it did not specifically use the term “equitable development.”	Applicants must describe how the proposed project will impact/address Equitable Development issues such as affordable housing, public transit, and urban greening.
Community Need - Health, Welfare and Environment	Applicants were required to provide information regarding the effects of brownfields and how this has resulted in a disproportionate impact on their community.	Applicants must provide information on the “cumulative environmental impacts” and how these issues have also contributed to a disproportionate impact on the community (not just brownfields related). Applicants must also describe how major economic disruptions (e.g., plant closures) have caused economic distress in the community.
Community Need – Financial Data	Applicants were required to provide demographic information supporting financial need in a variety of ways.  Often key information or demographic data was not provided in a consistent or uniform manner.	Applicants can use a table format to submit the demographic information about their community.  Applicants are more likely to submit key information/data and in a uniform manner by using this table which will have the National data pre-populated for them.
Community Engagement  & Partnership	Applicants were required to provide information on partnerships with other relevant state, tribal or local agencies they are working with to ensure the success of the project.	In addition to requiring a description of key roles the state/local/fed partners will play in the project, applicants are also required to identify how they would facilitate hiring from local job training programs as part of their assessment, cleanup and redevelopment activities.
	No language regarding EPA verifying community based support letters.	Added language that EPA may conduct reference checks with the partner organizations identified to confirm their involvement and support in the project.
	No examples of how the community could be engaged.	Added language providing examples of how the applicant can satisfy the on-going community engagement requirements, including public meetings, webinars, use of media and internet forums. “Applicants must demonstrate how they will engage the targeted community in meaningful ways to ensure success of the proposed project.”
Project Description and Feasibility of Success – Leveraging	Applicants were required to describe any planned or actual leveraged resources.	Applicants must demonstrate how they will leverage funds beyond the grant resources, and describe the amount and type of resources leveraged. Applicants are also required to attach documentation of committed leveraged resources to their proposal.
Programmatic Capability/ Past Performance	Applicants who had previous bf grants were required to describe how they managed the grant.	Applicants now required to also identify the planned outputs/outcomes from their past brownfields grants and if those outputs/outcomes were successfully achieved. If not, explain why not.
Assessment Grants - Threshold and Ranking Criteria
Community Need		Strengthened the language for Assessment Coalition applicants regarding how they are serving their coalition partners and communities that would otherwise not have access to resources to address Brownfields.
Project Description	Applicants were asked to describe their plan for area-wide planning or site assessment activities.	All language related to AWP was deleted.
Project Description	Applicants were asked to tie the proposed project back to their “vision” but not “master plan”	New language tells applicants that communities w/ existing “master plans” will be evaluated more favorably. Further, under the criterion, applicants must describe how the project fits in w/ the community’s plan, as well as how they are using “products or outputs from recent community planning processes” to inform the project.
Community Engagement & Partnership		Added language about assessment coalitions tailoring their community engagement specifically to the needs of their target communities.
Project Benefits	Applicants were required to describe environmental, social and public health benefits.	In addition to describing environmental, social and public health benefits, applicants must also demonstrate how the planning activities or site assessments will lead to cleanups and redevelopment to support the community’s plan.
Point Distribution	Community Need - 20% Project Description and        Feasibility Success - 40% Community Engagement - 20%, Project Benefits - 20%	Community Need - 20% Project Description and        Feasibility of Success - 50% Community Engagement - 15% Project Benefits - 15%
RLF Grants –Ranking Criteria
Program Description	No note about evaluating program description with the programmatic capability response.	Applicants will be evaluated on their responses to criteria, in conjunction w/ their descriptions of staff under programmatic capability criterion.
	No criterion on “reasonable & prudent lending practices.”	Applicants are required to describe how they will use “reasonable and prudent lending practices” to ensure redevelopment of sites.
	No criterion on market research	Applicants must explain how they have determined there is a target market and who that target market is.
	No direct criterion about the project team.	Applicants must describe their entire team and specifically describe how their project/program manager, QEP and financial manager will work together.
Point Distribution	Community Need - 15% Project Description and        Feasibility of Success - 45% Community Engagement - 20% Project Benefits - 20%	Community Need - 15% Project Description and        Feasibility of Success - 55% Community Engagement - 15% Project Benefits - 15%
Cleanup Grants - Threshold and Ranking Criteria
Threshold	Applicants were required to make the proposal available for public review and comment and hold a public meeting prior to submission of the proposal.	In addition to making the proposal available for public review and comment and holding a public meeting, the applicant is also required to make a copy of the Draft Analysis of Brownfields Cleanup Alternatives (ABCA) available for public review and comment at the same time. Applicants should use ABCA template in Appendix 4.  This is meant to be a BRIEF document.
Project Description	Applicants were required to describe their cleanup plan.	Revised to require applicants to provide more specific information about their cleanup plans including the conditions of the existing property, the proposed/projected redevelopment, any previous activities to prepare the site for cleanup, and any institutional controls or engineering controls, if applicable.
Point Distribution	Community Need - 15% Project Description and        Feasibility of Success - 40% Community Engagement - 15% Project Benefits - 30%	Community Need - 15% Project Description and        Feasibility of Success - 50%, Community Engagement - 15% Project Benefits - 20%