FY23 Summary of the Brownfield Multipurpose, Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund, and Cleanup Grant Guidelines Changes (as of 9/12/22) EPA prepared this Summary of Changes document to assist prospective applicants with preparing Brownfields Multipurpose, Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund (RLF), and Cleanup Grant applications. Please review the FY23 Application Guidelines (also referred to as Request for Application (RFA) or the solicitation) when preparing your application. If the information in the Summary of Changes differs from information in the statute, regulation, or the Guidelines, then the statute, regulation, or the Guidelines will take precedence. If you are interested in applying for more than one grant type in FY23, review the FY23 Eligibility Chart for Multiple Applications to determine which other grants are available to you. If you currently have an EPA Brownfields Grant and are interested in applying for an FY23 grant, review the FY23 Eligibility Chart for Existing Grant Recipients to determine which other grants are available to you. Changes to All Grant Types Changes to the Multipurpose Grant Guidelines Changes to the Community-wide Assessment Grant Guidelines Changes to the Assessment Coalition Grant Guidelines Changes to the Community-wide Assessment Grants for States and Tribes Guidelines Changes to the Revolving Loan Fund Grant Guidelines Changes to the Cleanup Grant Guidelines CHANGES TO THE MULTIPURPOSE, ASSESSMENT, REVOLVING LOAN FUND (RLF), AND CLEANUP GRANT GUIDELINES Topic Previously Published Guidelines FY23 Multipurpose, Assessment, RLF, and Cleanup Grant Guidelines General Information Assessment Requests for Applications (RFAs) EPA issued one RFA for Community-wide Assessment Grants, Site-specific Assessment Grants, and Community-wide Assessment Grants for States and Tribes. EPA is issuing separate RFAs in separate documents for Community- wide Assessment Grants (EPA-OLEM-OBLR-22-05), Community-wide Assessment Grants for States and Tribes (EPA-l-OLEM-OBLR-22-06), and Assessment Coalition Grants (EPA-OLEM-OBLR-22-07). There is no solicitation for FY23 Site-specific Assessment Grants. Entities interested in applying for a Site-specific Assessment Grant should consider applying for an FY23 Community-wide Assessment Grant. 1 ------- Overview Information Information that was previously provided before the table of contents is incorporated throughout the RFAs. Terminology EPA used the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)/Council of Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) term "disadvantaged communities" in reference to the Justice40 Initiative, which aims for at least 40% of the overall benefits of Federal investments to flow to disadvantaged communities. Recognizing that some communities do not favor the term "disadvantaged," EPA is using the term "underserved communities" in reference to Justice40 and included a footnote defining this term and its relevance in the RFAs. The Brownfields Program used the term "jurisdiction" when referring to an applicant's legal geographic limits. The Brownfields Program will use the term "geographic boundary" to account for that 1) nonprofit organizations do not have jurisdictions and 2) applicants may choose to define the scope of where grant activities will be performed in an area(s) that is smaller than their legal jurisdictions. Participant Support Costs Section 1. in the Assessment Grant and Multipurpose Grant Guidelines provides information on how entities may use grant funds for Participant Support Costs to enhance community engagement activities. Additional Provisions for Applicants Incorporated into the Solicitation The RFAs included grant clauses and provisions in Sections IV., V., and VI. titled "Additional Provisions for Applicants Incorporated int the Solicitation." The references to the grant clauses and provisions are now consolidated into Section I.F. Substantial Involvement The EPA Project Officers' substantial involvement is expanded to ensure that future sites (i.e., sites that are not identified as a priority in the Narrative) on which recipients plan to use grant funds are consistent with the selection criteria outlined in the workplan. Unique Entity Identifier Applicants were required to obtain a DUNS to apply for a funding opportunity. Applicants are required to obtain a Unique Entity Identifier, instead of a DUNS, to apply for funding opportunities. See more information at https://sam.gov/content/duns-uei. Submission Instructions in Appendix 1 The instructions are updated to incorporate the new requirement for applicants to obtain a Unique Entity Identifier. Additionally, the 2 ------- instructions are updated and streamlined to guide applicants on how to resolve submission issues. III. Eligibility Information and Threshold Criteria Contractors EPA did not require or encourage applicants to name procurement contractors (including consultants) in applications for brownfields cooperative agreements. However, if an applicant chose to identify a procurement contractor(s) to conduct work proposed in its application, the applicant had to demonstrate compliance with applicable competition requirements. Applicants that have already procured a contractor to conduct work proposed in its application must provide information to demonstrate that the procurement was conducted in compliance with applicable competition requirements, regardless of if the contractor is named in the application. IV.E. Ranking Criteria & V.A. Evaluation Criteria Scope of Work Applicants are advised in Section IV.E. to carefully consider and accurately respond to the criteria, including the identification of the geographic boundary(ies) (which will become the boundary(ies) in which work can be performed), the discussion of the target area(s) within the geographic boundary(ies), the criteria for which sites will be selected, and leveraged resources committed to the project that will materialize during the period of performance. If the application is selected for funding, the information in the Narrative will be incorporated into the workplan and will become the scope of the grant. The workplan is a legally binding document. General Criteria Alignment Minor changes are made to better align narrative/ranking criteria in Section IV and the corresponding evaluation criteria in Section V. l.a.i. Overview of Brownfield Challenges and Description of Target Area The previous evaluation criterion stated: The criterion is retitled and expanded to request applicants to define the geographic boundary(ies) of the grant. Additionally, the criterion is restructured to clarify that applicants should focus the discussion on the brownfield challenges and impacts (versus the general industrial and cultural history) and how this grant will help address those challenges. 3 ------- "Background and Description of Target Area Provide a brief description of the city(ies), town(s), or geographic area(s) targeted by this application to provide background on its cultural and/or industrial history that establishes the brownfield challenges and their impact." " Iverview of Brownfield Challenges and Description of Target Area "Identify the eographic boundary(ies] where you are proposing to conduct eligible activities under this grant and discuss the brownfield challenges and their impacts. Provide a brief overview of how this grant will potentially help address those challenges and impacts. Within the geographic boundary(ies) discussed above, identify and describe the specific target area(s) where you plan o focus grant activities, such as a neighborhood, district, corridor, or census tract." l.b.ii. Outcomes and Benefits of Reuse Strategy The previous evaluation criterion stated: "Given the type of community being served (e.g., urban, rural, tribal, etc.), the degree to which the proposed project or revitalization plans will potentially stimulate economic and/or non-economic development in the target area(s) upon completion of the cleanup of the priority site(s), and the degree to which these outcomes clearly correlate with the applicant's reuse strategy." The evaluation criterion in Section V. is revised to better align with the requested information in Section IV. "Given the type of community being served (e.g., urban, rural, tribal, etc.), the degree to which the proposed project or revitalization plans will potentially stimulate economic development in the target area(s) upon completion of the cleanup of the priority site(s) and/or the degree to which the grant will facilitate the creation of, preservation of, or addition to a park, a greenway, undeveloped property, recreational property, or other property used for nonprofit purposes in the target area(s . The degree to which these outcomes clearly correlate with the applicant's reuse strategy." l.b.ii. Outcomes and Benefits of Reuse Strategy The previous criterion stated: "Additionally, if applicable, describe how the proposed project or revitalization plans will benefit a disadvantaged community(ies)." The criterion is revised to: "If the proposed project or revitalization plans may potentially cause the displacement of residents and/or businesses, describe the strategies and/or policies that will be implemented to minimize displacement." Information on how projects can incorporate measures to advance the Biden-Harris Administration Justice40 Initiative to reach underserved communities are reflected in other criteria. 4 ------- 2.a.i. The Community's Need for Funding The previous criterion stated: "The extent to which this grant will meet the needs of the community(ies) (i.e., the city(ies), town(s), or geographic area(s) targeted in this application) that has an inability to draw on other initial sources of funding to carry out environmental assessment or remediation, and subsequent reuse in the target area(s) because the community has a small population and/or is low- income. (Note, responses must discuss a community(ies) that has a small population and/or is low-income to be evaluated favorably.)" The criterion is updated to use the term "geographic boundary" consistent with the rest of the guidelines and the evaluation criterion i expanded to increase consistency in how a response will be evaluated. "The extent to which this grant will meet the needs of the community(ies) (i.e., the communities located within the geographic boundary(ie: ) that has an inability to draw on other initial sources of funding to carry out environmental assessment or remediation, planning activities, and subsequent reuse in the target area because the communitv has a small population and/or is low-income. (Note, if the inability to draw on other initial sources of funding is not because the community has a small population or is low-income, then the response may only earn up to 2 points.)" 2.a.ii. Threats to Sensitive Populations In addition to encouraging the use of EJSCREEN (or other EJ-focused geospatial mapping tools), EPA is referencing CEQ's beta CEJST tool, which was developed to identify communities for the purpose of meeting the Justice40 Initiative. "Applicants mav consider using the beta version of the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST) as an optional tool to help identify disadvantaged communities, as defined by the White House Council on Environmental Quality, for purposes of Justice40. For more information on using CEJST data in your Brownfields Grant application, please refer to the FY23 FAQs." 2.b.ii.(2) Greater Than Normal Incidence of Disease and Adverse Health Conditions The previous evaluation criterion stated: "The extent to which this grant and reuse strategy/projected site reuse(s) will address, or facilitate the identification and reduction of, threats to populations in the target area(s) that suffer from a greater-than-normal incidence of diseases or conditions (including cancer, asthma, or birth defects) that may be associated with exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants, contaminants, or petroleum. (Note, projects that address a The evaluation criterion is expanded to increase consistency in how a response will be evaluated. "The extent to which this grant and revitalization plan(s) will address or facilitate the identification and reduction of threats to populations in the target area(s) that suffer from a greater-than-normal incidence of diseases or conditions (including cancer, asthma, or birth defects) that may be associated with exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants, contaminants, or petroleum. (Note, if the populations in the target area(s) do not suffer from a greater-than-normal incidence 5 ------- greater-than-normal incidence of cancer, asthma, or birth defects will be evaluated more favorably.)" of cancer, asthma, or birth defects then the response may only earn up to 2 point .)" 2.b.ii.(3) Promoting Environmental Justice The previous criterion stated: "Describe how this grant and reuse strategy/projected site reuse(s) will promote environmental justice in the target area(s) and/or will support populations in the target area(s) that disproportionately share the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental, and/or commercial operations or policies. This criterion is updated to incorporate EPA's effort to meet the Justice40 Initiative. "Describe the environmental justice issues and how they affect underserved population: in the target area(s). Further, discuss how this grant and reuse strategy/projected site reuse(s) will promote environmental justice among the underserved populations in the target area(s)." 2.b.i. Project Involvement "Identify the local organizations/entities/groups that will be involved in, and provide assistance/information to you to assist in, the performance of the project." This criterion is expanded for applicants to discuss how community- based organizations and/or community liaisons will be involved. "Identify the local organizations/entities/groups that will be involved in, and provide assistance/information to you to assist in, the performance of the project. This includes community-based organizations and/or community liaisons representing residents directly affected by the project work in the target area(s)." Note: This change to the criterion does not apply to Cleanup and RLF Grant applications. 3.a.i. Project Implementation Added to the criterion: "If you plan to issue a subaward(s), indicate what tasks/activities or services will be provided." 3.a.ii. Identifying Additional Sites Applicants provided a discussion of EPA-funded tasks/activities for the non-priority site(s), if applicable, under 3.a.i. Project Implementation. Information that was previously requested is replaced with the following new criterion: "Describe how additional sites will be identified for eligible activities throughout the geographic boundary(ies) identified in l.a.i. Overview of Brownfield Challenges and Description of Target Area in the event that grant funds remain after addressing the target area(s)/priority brownfield site(s) discussed in the Narrative. Identify the criteria that 6 ------- will be used to prioritize additional sites for selection, including criteria that consider underserved communities." Note: This criterion does not apply to Cleanup Grant applications. 3.b.ii. (3.c.ii. in the Cleanup Grant RFA) Application of Cost Estimates The following evaluation criterion was piloted in the FY22 Community-wide Assessment Grants for States and Tribes RFA: "A response that includes cost estimates that are not reasonable or realistic to implement the project/grant will be evaluated less favorably. For example, applicants that request more funds than is reasonably justified in the Narrative to complete the proposed project/grant.)" The evaluation criterion is included in the FY23 Multipurpose, Assessment, and Cleanup Grant RFAs (not in the RLF Grant RFA). 4.a.i. Organizational Capacity The following criterion was piloted in the FY22 Assessment RFA: "Discuss the applicant's organizational capacity for carrying out the programmatic, administrative, and financial requirements of the project and grant." This criterion is included in the FY23 Multipurpose, Assessment, and RLF RFAs (not in the Cleanup RFA). "Discuss the applicant's organizational capacity for carrying out and managinf the programmatic, administrative, and financial requirements of the project and grant." 4.b. Past Performance and Accomplishments Applicants that have recently received an assistance agreement (including a Brownfields Grant), but have not had an opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the award requirements will receive a neutral score for the Past Performance and Accomplishments criterion. 4.b. Past Performance and Accomplishments -i. Currently Has or Previously Received an EPA Brownfields Grant Revised criterion clarifies that applicants should provide information on no more than three current/most recent grants to address the (1) Accomplishments and (2) Compliance with Grant requirements criteria. However, the discussion on the open and closed EPA Brownfields Grants pertains to all EPA Brownfields Grants. 7 ------- V.B. Other Factors and Considerations Added: • Whether the applicant has considered climate adaptation and/or mitigation measures as part of the reuse strategy or projected reuse of the priority site(s). • Whether the applicant has not previously been awarded a Brownfields Grant (based on the type of funding being requested). [Does not apply to RLF Grant applications.] MULTIPURPOSE GRANT GUIDELINE CHANGES A Multipurpose Grant is appropriate for communities that have identified, through community engagement efforts, a discrete area (such as a neighborhood, a number of neighboring towns, a district, a corridor, a shared planning area or a census tract) with one or more brownfield sites. The target area may not include communities that are located in distinctly different geographic areas. Multipurpose Grant funds allow communities to carry out a range of eligible assessment and cleanup activities, including planning and additional community engagement activities. Topic FY21 Multipurpose Grant Guidelines FY23 Multipurpose Grant Guidelines III. Eligibility Information and Threshold Criteria Drawdown Requirements Entities that were awarded an FY19 Multipurpose Grant were not eligible to apply for an FY21 Multipurpose Grant. Current EPA Brownfields Multipurpose Grant and Assessment Grant recipients must demonstrate that payment has been received from EPA (also known as 'drawn down'), and drawn down funds have been disbursed, for at least 70.00% of each Multipurpose and Assessment cooperative agreement they have with EPA by October 1, 2022, in order to apply for an FY23 Multipurpose Grant. Ineligible Applicants Entities that were awarded an FY22 Community-wide Assessment Grant for States and Tribes are not eligible to apply for Multipurpose Grant funding. Cost Share Requirement Applicants were required to provide a $40,000 programmatic cost share. Since the Cleanup Grant and RLF Grants applicants are not required to provide a cost share (per the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) the programmatic $40,000 cost share requirement for Multipurpose Grants is waived. III.B.5. Use of Grant Funds Clarified that applicants must demonstrate their plan to use Multipurpose Grant funds to complete at least one environmental 8 ------- site assessment, remediate at least one site, and develop an overall plan for the revitalization of the target area that includes a feasible reuse strategy for at least one priority brownfield site if a plan does not already exist. IV.E. Ranking Criteria & V.A. Evaluation Criteria Ranking and Evaluation Criteria - Structure Ranking and evaluation criteria is rewritten and/or restructured to align with the format of the FY23 Assessment, RLF, and Cleanup Grant Guidelines. Please review the FY23 Multipurpose Grant Guidelines for details. 2. b. i. Prior/Ongoing Community Involvement Added criterion: "Discuss how the community has been involved/engaged in your efforts to address the brownfields sites in the target area, including the priority site(s)." Point/Percentage Distribution Listed in Section V. within the Evaluation Criterion Project Area Description and Plan for Revitalization - 26% Community Need and Community Engagement - 21% Task Description, Cost Estimates, and Measuring Success - 32% Programmatic Capability - 21% Project Area Description and Plan for Revitalization - 26% Community Need and Community Engagement - 26% Task Description, Cost Estimates, and Measuring Success - 28% Programmatic Capability - 20% Maximum number of points: 170 Maximum number of points: 175 COMMUNITY-WIDE ASSESSMENT GRANT GUIDELINE CHANGES A Community-wide Assessment Grant is appropriate for communities that are beginning to address their brownfield challenges, as well as for communities that have ongoing efforts to bring sites into productive reuse. Topic FY22 Assessment Grant Guidelines FY23 Assessment Grant Guidelines General Information Period of Performance The period of performance was up to 3 years. The period of performance is up to 4 years. 9 ------- III. Eligibility Information and Threshold Criteria Drawdown Requirements Current Assessment Grant recipients and Multipurpose Grant recipients that wanted to apply for funding had to meet the 70.00% drawdown requirement by October 1, 2021. Current Assessment Grant recipients and Multipurpose Grant recipients that want to apply for funding must meet the 70.00% drawdown requirement by October 1, 2022, to apply for an FY23 Community-wide Assessment Grant. Review the eligibility criteria in Section III. of the Guidelines for details. Ineligible Applicants Entities that were awarded an FY22 Community-wide Assessment Grant for States and Tribes are not eligible to apply for additional Assessment Grant funding. IV.E. Ranking Criteria & V.A. Evaluation Criteria 3.b.ii. Application of Cost Estimates Assessment Grant projects that allocated at least 60% of the funds to tasks directly associated with site-specific work were reviewed more favorably. EPA decreased the percentage of funds that should be allocated toward site-specific work in order to allow recipients more flexibility to use grant funds for other eligible activities, including planning and community engagement activities. Assessment Grant projects that allocate at least %0°A of the funds to tasks directly associated with site-specific work will be reviewed more favorably. Point/Percentage Distribution Listed in Section V. within the Evaluation Criterion Project Area Description and Plan for Revitalization - 25% Community Need and Community Engagement - 25% Task Description, Cost Estimates, and Measuring Success - 28% Programmatic Capability - 22% Project Area Description and Plan for Revitalization - 24% Community Need and Community Engagement - 24% Task Description, Cost Estimates, and Measuring Success - 30% Programmatic Capability - 22% Maximum number of points: 160 Maximum number of points: 165 ASSESSMENT COALITION GRANT GUIDELINE CHANGES Assessment Coalitions are designed for one "lead" eligible entity to partner with two to four eligible entities that do not have the capacity to apply for and manage their own EPA cooperative agreement and otherwise would not have access to Brownfields Grant resources. Additionally, EPA strongly encourages coalitions to include eligible community-based nonprofit organizations as non-lead members to help promote strong local engagement and to ensure the community's concerns and vision for revitalization are incorporated into the project. 10 ------- Topic FY21 Assessment Grant Guidelines (most recent competition that included Assessment Coalitions) FY23 Assessment Grant Guidelines General Information Award Information • Awards were available for up to $600,000. • The period of performance was up to 3 years. • Awards are available for up to $1,000,000. • The period of performance is up to 4 years. Narrative Page Limit The narrative was limited to 10-pages, single-spaced for Assessment Coalitions. The narrative is limited to 12-pages, single-spaced for Assessment Coalitions. Required Number of Sites to Address Assessment Coalition Grant recipients were required to assess a minimum of five sites, including at least one site in each coalition member's jurisdiction. Assessment Coalition Grant recipients are required to assess at least two sites in each coalition member's geographic boundary. III. Eligibility Information and Threshold Criteria Drawdown Requirements Current Assessment Grant recipients that wanted to apply for funding had to meet the 70.00% drawdown requirement by October 1, 2020. Current Assessment Grant recipients and Multipurpose Grant recipients that want to apply for funding must meet the 70.00% drawdown requirement by October 1, 2022, to apply for an FY23 Assessment Coalition Grant. Review the eligibility criteria in Section III. of the Guidelines for details. Ineligible Applicants Entities that were awarded an FY22 Community-wide Assessment Grant for States and Tribes are not eligible to apply for additional Assessment Grant funding. III.B.l. Eligibility of Lead Entity Any entity eligible to apply for a Brownfields Assessment Coalition Grant could be a lead or non-lead member. The lead entity must be a state, county government, Indian tribe other than in Alaska, an Alaska Native Regional Corporation, an Alaska Native Village Corporation, the Metlakatla Indian community, regional council established under a governmental authority (e.g., regional planning commissions), or a group of general purpose units of local government established under Federal, state, or local law (e.g., councils of governments) to function as a single legal entity with authority to enter into binding agreements with the Federal Government. Refer to Section III.A. in the Guidelines for the full list of entities eligible to apply. III.B.2. Number of Non-lead Coalition The threshold criteria did not specify a maximum number of non- lead coalition members or requirements regarding coalition The following threshold eligibility criterion is added: 11 ------- Members and Target Areas members' target areas. Assessment Coalitions were for one lead eligible entity to partner with two or more eligible entities. "The coalition must have at least two, but ot more than fou , non- lead members, and the coalition members' target areas may not overlap " Coalition members could not have the same jurisdiction (for example, different departments in the same county) unless they were separate legal entities (for example, a city and an affiliated nonprofit organization exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code). The non-lead coalition members may not be an agency or instrumentality of or affiliated with the lead member (for example, a county and the redevelopment authority of the same county); except for coalitions in which the state is the lead and one of the members is a regional council or regional commission that is created by a state legislature through a charter or another official action. III.B.3. Eligibility of Non-Lead Coalition Members A non-lead member may not be an agency or instrumentality of or affiliated with another non-lead member in the same coalition. The non-lead members must be separate legal entities. For example, the following may not be members of the same coalition: 1. Different departments within the same unit of government; 2. A unit of government and an affiliated nonprofit organization exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that the city controls; or 3. Affiliated 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations (e.g., nonprofit organizations that have the same board of directors or staff). A state entity could be the lead or a non-lead member of the coalition. A state entity may only be the lead member of the coalition. III.B.4. Existing Brownfields Grants to Non-lead Members Entities with an open or recently closed Brownfields Grant were eligible to be non-lead members. Entities that have an open* Brownfields Multipurpose, Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund, or Cleanup (MARC) Grant and entities that were awarded a MARC Grant that closed in 2015 or later, are not eligible to be a non-lead coalition member. (*Open = The grant period of performance has not ended) IV.E. Ranking Criteria & V.A. Evaluation Criteria l.a.i. Coalition Members The previous criterion under 2.a.i. The Community's Need for Funding stated: "Additionally, describe how this funding will serve communities that do not have the capacity to apply for and manage their own The criterion is renamed and revised to: 12 ------- Brownfields Grant and would otherwise not have access to Brownfield Grant resources to address brownfield sites." "Identify the non-lead members of the coalition and indicate what kind of organization each non-lead member is (e.g., local government, regional planning organization, community-based organization, etc.). Describe the non-lead members' lack of capacity to apply for and manage their own Brownfields Grant and their lack of access to Brownfield Grant resources to address brownfield sites." Applicants will be evaluated less favorably if this funding does not include at least one non-lead coalition member that is a community- based organization. l.a.ii. Overview of Brownfield Challenges and Description of Target Area Applicants will be evaluated less favorably when they do not identify at least one target area in each coalition member's geographic boundary, and when their target areas overlap. l.a.iii. Description of the Priority Brownfield Site(s) Applicants are asked to identify at least one priority brownfield site in each coalition member's (i.e., the lead and each non-lead member) target area. Those that do not will be evaluated less favorably. Point/Percentage Distribution Listed in Section V. within the Evaluation Criterion Project Area Description and Plan for Revitalization - 28% Community Need and Community Engagement - 22% Task Description, Cost Estimates, and Measuring Success - 31% Programmatic Capability -19% Project Area Description and Plan for Revitalization - 26% Community Need and Community Engagement - 24% Task Description, Cost Estimates, and Measuring Success - 29% Programmatic Capability - 21% Maximum number of points: 160 Maximum number of points: 170 COMMUNITY-WIDE ASSESSMENT GRANTS FOR STATES AND TRIBES (CWAGST) This funding is only available to states, tribes, and eligible native corporations in Alaska to address brownfield sites throughout their entire jurisdiction. Topic FY22 Assessment Grant Guidelines FY23 Assessment Grant Guidelines General Information Site Funding Limit Consistent with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, activities carried out at each approved, eligible site may exceed $200,000. 13 ------- Ineligible Applicants All eligible entities could apply for funding. Entities that were awarded an FY22 Community-wide Assessment Grant for States and Tribes are not eligible to apply for additional Assessment Grant funding. IV.E. Ranking Criteria & V.A. Evaluation Criteria l.a.i. Overview of Brownfield Challenges and Description of Target Area Provided guidance only in the FAQ for states and territories that only have metropolitan statistical areas or only non-metropolitan statistical areas. Added criterion: "Applicants from American Samoa, Delaware, District of Columbia, Guam, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Northern Mariana Islands, Rhode Island, and the U.S. Virgin Islands: Include a statement that state/territory only has a metropolitan statistical area(s) or does not have a metropolitan statistical area. Additionally, indicate which target areas have higher versus lower population densities. (See FY23 FAQJ.17. for additional information.)" 2.b.i. Project Involvement The previous criterion stated: "In addition to the entities identified above, discuss your plan to identify and engage local organizations/entities/groups to be involved in the project as additional target areas and priority sites are identified throughout the period of performance." Removed this criterion for CWAGST applicants. Point/Percentage Distribution Listed in Section V. within the Evaluation Criterion Project Area Description and Plan for Revitalization - 26% Community Need and Community Engagement - 26% Task Description, Cost Estimates, and Measuring Success - 28% Programmatic Capability - 20% Project Area Description and Plan for Revitalization - 24% Community Need and Community Engagement - 26% Task Description, Cost Estimates, and Measuring Success - 29% Programmatic Capability - 21% Maximum number of points: 175 Maximum number of points: 170 CLEANUP GRANT GUIDELINE CHANGES Cleanup Grants provide funding for eligible entities to carry out cleanup activities at brownfield sites. The applicant must own the site for which it is requesting funding. 14 ------- Topic FY22 Cleanup Grant Guidelines FY23 Cleanup Grant Guidelines General Information Award Information • Awards were available for up to $500,000 (or up to $650,000 with an approved waiver). • The period of performance was up to 3 years. • Awards are available in three categories: up to $500,000, up to $1,000,000, or up to $2,000,000. Applications in each category will be placed on separate selection lists. • The period of performance is up to 4 years. III. Eligibility Information and Threshold Criteria Cost Share Requirement Applicants were required by statute to provide a 20% cost share. Consistent with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the statutory 20% cost share requirement is waived. Drawdown Requirements Current Multipurpose Grant recipients that wanted to apply for funding had to meet the 70.00% drawdown requirement by October 1, 2021. Current Multipurpose Grant recipients that want to apply for funding must meet the 70.00% drawdown requirement by October 1, 202 , to apply for an FY23 Cleanup Grant. Review the eligibility criteria in Section III. of the Guidelines for details. III.B.9. Site Characterization New threshold criterion: Applicants must demonstrate that there has been a sufficient level of site characterization from the environmental site assessment performed to date for the remediation to begin on the site(s). Depending on the applicant type and whether or not their site(s) is eligible to be enrolled in a voluntary cleanup program or state or tribal equivalent oversight program, this criterion may require the applicant to provide a current letter from their State or Tribal Environmental Authority (or equivalent State or tribal regulatory oversight authority) regarding the status of the site(s). This letter will serve as the acknowledgment letter that was previously requested as part of the Narrative Information Sheet. III.B.12.b.i. Information Required for a Petroleum Eligibility Determination Clarified that the liability for an underground storage tank is the owner of the tank, not the owner of the land. 15 ------- IV.E. Ranking Criteria & V.A. Evaluation Criteria I.e. Strategy for Leveraging Resources The previous criterion stated: Describe the applicant's eligibility for monetary funding from other resources and how the grant will stimulate the availability of additional funds for environmental site assessment or remediation, and subsequent reuse. The criterion is now separated into three sections with the following headings: • i. Resources Needed for Site Characterization • ii. Resources Needed for Site Remediation • iii. Resources Needed for Site Reuse Point/Percentage Distribution Listed in Section V. within the Evaluation Criterion Project Area Description and Plan for Revitalization - 28% Community Need and Community Engagement - 22% Task Description, Cost Estimates, and Measuring Success - 33% Programmatic Capability -17% Project Area Description and Plan for Revitalization - 31% Community Need and Community Engagement - 21% Task Description, Cost Estimates, and Measuring Success - 31% Programmatic Capability -17% Maximum number of points: 180 Maximum number of points: 180 REVOLVING LOAN FUND (RLF) GRANT GUIDELINE CHANGES Revolving Loan Fund Grants provide funding for a grant recipient to capitalize a revolving loan fund and to provide loans and subgrants to carry out cleanup activities at brownfield sites. Topic FY22 RLF Grant Guidelines FY23 RLF Grant Guidelines General Information Discounted Loans and Subgrants There is updated guidance on the maximum limit for discounted loans and subgrants. See section I.A. for details. Signing a Closeout Agreement All recipients will be required to sign a Closeout Agreement (COA) which governs the use of program income after the cooperative agreement ends. The FY22 RLF COA Template and a fact sheet describing it are available under "RLF Closeout Resources" on the Brownfields Program website. III. Eligibility Information and Threshold Criteria Eligible Applicants Onlv eligible entities who do not have or are not part of (i.e., a coalition member) an open cooperative agreement for a Brownfields RLF at the time of application could apply for funding in the FY22 competition. Onlv eligible entities who do not have or are not part of (i.e., a coalition member) an open cooperative agreement for a Brownfields RLF at the time of application may apply for funding in the FY23 competition. 16 ------- RLF Grant recipients with an open cooperative agreement may request supplemental funding in early 2023. Additional information on the timing, requirements, and procedures for supplemental funding requests will be posted on EPA's Brownfields Program website at a later date. Cost Share Requirement Applicants were required by statute to provide a 20% cost share. Consistent with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the statutory 20% cost share requirement is waived. III.B.3. Description of RLF Boundaries Added guidance that EPA recommends that applicants choose as large a boundary as is legally allowable since recipients cannot easily expand their RLF boundary after selection and award. For example, some regional organizations may operate their RLF within their entire state boundary, and 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations may operate their RLF without regard to jurisdictional boundaries that are applicable to governmental recipients. 111.B.4.b. Oversight Structure and Legal Authority to Manage a Revolving Loan Fund The guidance is revised to clarify that a legal opinion from counsel needs to cite the relevant state law(s) or local ordinance(s). Point/Percentage Distribution Listed in Section V. within the Evaluation Criterion Project Area Description and Plan for Revitalization - 24% Community Need and Community Engagement - 21% Task Description, Cost Estimates, and Measuring Success - 37% Programmatic Capability -18% Project Area Description and Plan for Revitalization - 21% Community Need and Community Engagement - 21% Task Description, Cost Estimates, and Measuring Success - 37% Programmatic Capability - 21% Maximum number of points: 190 Maximum number of points: 190 17 ------- |