1.A.3 Coalition Assessment Grants
(Assessment Page 5, RLF Page 4)
Add: Coalition
members may not be members of other coalitions or apply for their own
assessment funding.
Change: Decrease
the amount of funding from $1,000,000 to $600,000
Add: A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
documenting the coalition’s site selection process must be in place prior to
the expenditure of any funds that have been awarded to the coalition. The coalition
members should identify and establish relationships necessary to achieve the
project’s goal. A process for successful
execution of the project’s goal, to include a description and role of each
coalition member should be established along with the MOA. The purpose of the MOA…
I.D Livability Principles
(Assessment Page 7, RLF Page 6, Cleanup Page 6)
Change from: On June 16, 2009, EPA joined with the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) to help improve access to affordable housing, more
transportation options, and lower transportation costs while protecting the
environment in communities nationwide.
It is the goal of this partnership to discourage sprawl and encourage or
incentivize location efficient investments, smart growth practices, and green
infrastructure development.
(1) Provide
more transportation choices, (2) Promote equitable, affordable housing, (3)
Increase economic competitiveness, (4) support existing communities, (5)
Leverage federal investment, and (6) Value communities and neighborhoods. EPA recognizes that eligible activities
listed in these guidelines advance the partnership’s livability principles by
providing funding to inventory, characterize, assess and conduct planning that
promotes cleanup and sustainable reuse of brownfield sites.
Change to: EPA’s Brownfield Assessment, Revolving
Loan, and Cleanup (ARC) Program is being carried out under the Partnership for
Sustainable Communities (PSC) among the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and EPA.
The Partnership was conceived to advance
development patterns and infrastructure investment programs that achieve
improved economic prosperity, healthy, environmentally sustainable, and
opportunity-rich communities for all Americans, regardless of race or
income.
Recognizing the fundamental role
that public investment plays in achieving these outcomes, the Administration
charged three agencies whose programs impact the physical form of
communities—HUD, DOT, and EPA—to coordinate and incorporate the Livability
Principles into their policies and funding programs to the maximum degree
possible.
The Livability Principles can
be found at
www.sustainablecommunities.gov and
include:
(1) provide more transportation
choices, (2) promote equitable, affordable housing, (3) increase economic
competitiveness, (4) support existing communities, (5) leverage federal
investment, and (6) value communities and neighborhoods.
Under ranking criterion V, Project Benefits, applicants will be
evaluated on how their proposed BF ARC project will advance the Livability
Principles (see Section V. B.).
Specifically, ranking criterion V, Project
Benefits asks applicants to describe how their proposed BF Assessment,
Revolving Loan Fund, or Cleanup project will lead to sustainable and equitable
outcomes.
Add: Linking BF Assessment,
Revolving Loan Fund, and Cleanup Approaches to Sustainable and Equitable
Development Outcomes
Under the Project Benefits criteria, EPA will evaluate the extent to which applicants
incorporate sustainable and equitable cleanup and reuse approaches into their
proposed BF Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund, and Cleanup (BF ARC) project. The Agency will also consider how well an Applicant’s
proposed project is coordinated with HUD, DOT, EPA programs and programs
available from other potential federal and non-federal partners. Sustainable and equitable approaches can
ensure brownfields are cleaned up and reused in ways that:
·
contribute to greener and healthier homes,
buildings, and neighborhoods;
· mitigate environmental conditions through effective
deconstruction and remediation strategies which address solid and hazardous
waste, and improve air and water quality;
· improve access by residents to greenspace, recreational
property, transit, schools, other nonprofit uses (e.g., libraries, health
clinics, youth centers, etc.), and healthy and affordable food;
· improve employment and affordable housing opportunities
for local residents;
· reduce toxicity, illegal dumping, and blighted vacant
parcels; and
· retain residents who have historically lived within the
area affected by brownfields.
Sustainable development
practices facilitate environmentally-sensitive brownfield cleanup and
redevelopment while also helping to make communities more attractive,
economically stronger, and more socially diverse. While ensuring consistency with
community-identified priorities, sustainable development approaches encourage
brownfield site cleanup and reuse in ways that provide new jobs, commercial
opportunities, open space amenities, and/or social services to an existing
neighborhood. Brownfield site
preparation strategies that prevent contaminant exposure through green building
design, materials recycling, enable urban agricultural reuse, promote
walkability to/around the site and contribute to community walkability, and
on-site stormwater management through green infrastructure, among other
approaches, can contribute to sustainable development outcomes.
Equitable development
outcomes come about when intentional strategies are put in place to ensure that
low-income and minority communities not only participate in, but benefit from,
decisions that shape their neighborhoods and regions. There are many different approaches that
promote equitable development, such as ensuring a mix of housing types across a
range of incomes, access to fresh food, access to jobs, and access to local
capital. Programs or policies can be put
in place to help ensure creation or integration of affordable housing; local or
first-source hiring; minority contracting; inclusionary zoning (where a
percentage of new housing is designated as affordable housing); healthy food
retailers in places where they do not exist (e.g. food deserts); co-operative
ownership models where local residents come together to run a community-owned,
jointly owned business enterprise; rent control or community land trusts (to
help keep property affordable for residents); supportive local entrepreneurial
activities, and adherence to equal lending opportunities.
EPA encourages applicants to
provide specific examples of how the proposed BF Assessment, Revolving Loan
Fund, or Cleanup project will work to remove economic, environmental and social
barriers to make sustainable and equitable brownfields cleanup and reuse of the
highest priority.
Please note, if the above language (I.D.
Livability Principles) is modified before the proposal submission deadline, the
guidelines will be amended to reflect this change which could affect your
proposal’s content.
Add: For evaluation and
selection purposes, EPA’s Office of Brownfield and Land Revitalization (OBLR)
will prepare two ranked lists of eligible RLF proposals. One list will be
comprised of “new” applicants defined as those applicants who have never
received an EPA brownfield RLF grant before with the exception of a pilot
grant EPA awarded in 2002 or earlier. A second list will be comprised of
“existing and former” applicants defined as those applicants who have a current
brownfield RLF grant or have had a grant that was awarded in 2003 or later. The Agency intends to use approximately 50%
of the total amount of funding available under this announcement for grants to
“new” applicants. This percentage is an estimate and is subject to change based
on funding levels, the quality of proposals received and other applicable
considerations.
V.B.2.c.ii Adverse
Audits (Assessment Page 33, RLF Page 26, Cleanup Page 34)
Change: Describe
any adverse audit findings associated with a state or
federal grant.
Add: Respond to this criterion regardless of whether or not you have had a
federal or non-federal assistance agreement.
V.B.4 Project Benefits (Assessment Page 34)
Add: While citing to health
statistics is appropriate the preparation or citing to health studies is
unnecessary.
V.C. Other Factors (Assessment Page 35/36,
RLF Page 29, Cleanup Page 37)
Add: Fair
distribution of funds between urban and non-urban areas including an equitable
distribution to “micro” communities (those communities with populations of
10,000 or less). EPA strongly encourages non-urban communities,
including “micro” communities to apply.
Additionally, the EPA has a special consideration to ensure fair
distribution of funds between urban and non-urban areas (Section V.C. Other
Factors). The EPA selection official may
consider this factor when making the final selections;
Add: Provide
summary on how applicable special considerations apply
Add: The
needs of communities adversely affected by natural disasters (2005 or later)
Add: Communities
experiencing plant closures that occurred in 2007 or later,…
Add: Whether the applicant is a
recipient of an EPA Brownfield Area-Wide Planning grant.
Change from: Whether the applicant is a recipient of a
HUD/DOT/EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities grant
Change to: Whether the applicant
is a recipient or a core partner of a HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable
Communities (PSC) grant that is directly tied to the project area, and can
demonstrate that funding from a PSC grant has or will benefit the project
area. To be considered, applicant must attach documentation
which demonstrates this connection to a HUD-DOT-EPA PSC grant
Appendix 3 Special
Considerations Checklist (Assessment Page 60, RLF Page 54, Cleanup Page 62)
Add: EPA will verify these
disclosures prior to selection and consider this information during the
evaluation process. Describe how each
consideration applies to your proposal and/or attach documentation, otherwise,
this information will not be considered in the grant selection process.
Change: Community is impacted by recent
natural disaster(s) (2005 or later). To be considered, applicant must identify
here the timeframe and type of natural disaster.
Change: Community experiencing plant closures
(or other significant economic disruptions) (2007 or
later), including communities experiencing auto plant closures due to
bankruptcy or economic disruptions. To be considered, applicant mus identify here
the timeframe and name of the plant recently closed and jobs lost, or reason
for other significant economic disruption.
Add: Applicant
is a recipient or a core partner of a HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable
Communities (PSC) grant that is directly tied to the project area, and can
demonstrate that funding from a PSC grant has or will benefit the project area. To be considered, applicant must attach documentation which demonstrates this connection
to a HUD-DOT-EPA PSC grant.
Add: Applicant
is a recipient of an EPA Brownfield Area-Wide Planning grant.
FY13 Guidelines for Brownfields Assessment Grants
