1. Changes to the EPA Brownfields Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund and Cleanup (ARC) Grant Proposal Guidelines May 6, 2008 Presented by: Megan Quinn US EPA Headquarters Brownfields Program http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/ What You Need to Know

2. Agenda Purpose of Revisions New Proposal Requirements New Opportunities New Format Next Steps Q&A Time

3. Background EPA has awarded over $500 million in brownfields grants since program inception In FY08 EPA received 845 proposals Selected 314 for award of over $74 million Expect increased amount in coming years

4. Purpose  Responding to stakeholders frustrated with cumbersome grant guidelines  10 Regional Representatives (1 from each EPA region) met from July-February  Clear and accessible guidelines to attract a dynamic pool of applicants.  Streamlined proposal effort.  Revised proposal requirements designed to help ensure grantee success.  Increased applicant flexibility.

5. Important Items to Remember  Basic format hasn’t changed  Threshold/Ranking Sections are still there  Significant streamlining of threshold “legalese” and clarifying ranking criteria  90 days- more time to adapt to the process

6.  Reorganized format for Ranking Criteria.  Reduced complex terminology i.e. legalese.  Reduced leading statements.  Separate guidance documents for each grant type.  Single proposal for community-wide assessment (Continued) Streamlining Effort

7.  Reduced number of legal opinions (RLF grants only).  Community notification back in Threshold.  Added proposal Check Lists at the end of threshold & ranking criteria.  Eliminated several appendices.  Enhanced Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) posted to web.

8. Revised Proposal Requirements  Cleanup Grant – requires Phase II report complete  Community Based Organization Letters of Support  Assessment Coalition – Commitment Letters  2 page limit for cover letters  18 page limit for narrative proposal

9. Increased Opportunities/Applicant Flexibility  Assessment Coalitions  Single proposal for community-wide assessment- $200k limit still applies  hazardous/petroleum requests can be combined in one proposal for a total of $400k

10. Assessment Coalitions  3 or more eligible entities  Up to $1 million haz/petro or combined (e.g. $500k hazardous, $500k petroleum)  Memorandum of Agreement  Documents site selection process & plans for funds distribution  Must assess a minimum of 5 sites  Members cannot apply for additional assessment funds

11. Examples of Options for Assessment Grant Applicants Community WideSite SpecificCoalitions Up to $200,000 for hazardous substances and $200,000 for petroleum addressing the same community. Up to $200,000 for petroleum and/or hazardous substances (comingled) Up to $1 million per coalition. Coalition Members can NOT apply for individual assessment funding. May request a waiver for up to $350,000 Maximum Combined Amount $400,000 Maximum Amount $350,000 Maximum Amount $1 million

12. Revised Format  Ranking criteria now 4 sections: 1. Community Need 2. Project Description/Feasibility for Success 3. Community Engagement/Partnerships 4. Project Benefits

13. Community Need  Health, welfare, environmental needs of the targeted community (e.g. the number and size of the brownfields, the health, welfare and environmental impacts of these sites, health and welfare of sensitive populations).  Financial needs of the targeted community (e.g. economic impact of brownfields on the targeted community).

14. Project Description/Feasibility of Success  Project Description [incl. RLF business plan]  EPA Budget/Leveraging  Budget Table w/ narrative describing outputs (Continued)

15. Project Description/Feasibility of Success  Programmatic Capability (i.e. demonstrate your ability to manage and successfully perform all phases of work under previous or existing cooperative agreement(s)).  Still reviewed by the home region.

16. Community Engagement/Partnerships  Community Engagement Plan (i.e. plan for engaging the targeted community in the project).  Local, state/tribal health and/or environmental agency/other partners  Community-based organization partners (e.g. local citizen or business groups, environmental or civic organizations, educational institutions, and local labor organizations).  Letters of support (i.e. from organizations mentioned in proposal that describes their role and affirms any referenced commitments).

17. Project Benefits  Public Welfare/Public Health Benefits (i.e. environmental, social and/or public health benefits anticipated from the redevelopment of sites assessed under this grant).  Economic Benefits/Greenspace (e.g. increased employment and expanded tax base of the redevelopment of sites assessed under this grant, acres of greenspace created).  Infrastructure Reuse/Sustainable Reuse/Environmental Benefits (e.g. use of existing infrastructure, such as utilities and public transit, reuse of existing structures, construction and demolition material recycling).

18. Next Steps  CLU-In Sessions scheduled through the summer  Final ARC Grant Guidelines posted in late summer 2008 for 2009 competition  Questions