|
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%
|
