G ETTING A H EAD S TART ON ARC G RANTS June 2016 C ENTER FOR C REATIVE L AND R ECYCLING • Workshops • Technical Assistance: EPA TAB grantee • Policy & Research • Consulting • Online at www.cclr.org Sarah Sieloff sarah.sieloff@cclr.org Ignacio Dayrit 415.398.1080 | ignacio.dayrit@cclr.org 1
P OLLING Q UESTIONS • What type(s) of ARC grant(s) did you apply for this year? • Who prepared your ARC application? P RESENTERS & A GENDA • The low down – what happened? • ARC findings, guidelines & tips redux • Three recent grantees’ stories • Amberdawn La France & Julia Jacobs | Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe • Jenn Bildersee | City of Portland, OR • Sean Farrelly | City of Tigard, OR • What’s next? • Q&A 2
P OLLING Q UESTIONS • Prior to this year, have you ever received an ARC grant? • Not including this year, how many times have you applied for ARC funds? A SSESSMENT , RLF & C LEANUP – ARC https://www.epa.gov/grants/fy201 Targeted 7-brownfields-area-wide- Brownfields Assessments planning-grant Job Training Area-Wide Grants Planning AWP Webinar June 16 12:30 – 2:00 EDT Revolving Assessment http://epawebconferencing.acms. Loan Fund Grants Grants com/fy17bf_awp/ Cleanup Phone - 866-299-3188 Grants Code - 202 566 0633# 3
L ESSONS FROM 2016 # Communities Year # Grants** $M Awarded Applied % 2016 131 423 31 218 55.2 2015 147 449 33 243 54.3 ( no RLF ) 2014 171 491 35 267 64.0 • Some communities submit multiple applications • ** Cleanup applications considered separately • ** Many community-wide grants considered as two • $10M less available for assessment and cleanup from 2015 L ESSONS FROM 2016 • Every point counts • Most points unrealized on: • Not answering all questions, succinctly • Leveraging • Not having a good story • Impacts → Project → Outcomes/Benefits • Project description • Programmatic capability → Outputs 4
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Telling the Poor Air Quality Direct/Indirect Dirty Surface water Measured by Story Toxic Groundwater Indicators Contaminated Soil Traffic HEALTH & WELFARE ECONOMIC Poor Pedestrian Safety Unrealized revenues High Asthma Depressed tax revenue High Diabetes Response costs Poor Heart Health Crime ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES Telling the Improved Air Quality Direct/Indirect Clean Surface water Story Safe Groundwater Healthy Soil Less Congestion HEALTH & WELAFRE ECONOMIC Pedestrian Friendly New revenues Lower Asthma Tax increment Lower Diabetes Less response costs Good Heart Health Public safety 5
P ROPOSAL G UIDELINES O VERVIEW • Late Summer/Early Fall guidelines released • Webinars and workshops • 15 page proposals + attachments • Submit on grants.gov • Threshold criteria: pass/fail • Ranking criteria • May 2017 announcement G ET S TARTED E ARLY • Read last years’ Guidelines • Many tips in the FAQs • Address Threshold Criteria ASAP • www.tabez.org for template & proposals • Efforts + Leveraging • Team + Partners + Champion • Contact EPA/CCLR/State partners • 60 days is not enough for all the above 6
W RITING & D ATA T IPS • Write for a national audience • Steinbeck with stats • ‘Fess up – don’t beat around the bush • Wandering takes up precious space • Minimize negatives and unnecessary adjectives and adverbs D ATA SOURCES • Your COG, EDD, MPO, health & environmental agency • www.epa.gov/Ejscreen • datawarehouse.hrsa.gov/ • www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ • statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/ • www.niddk.nih.gov/Pages/ • minorityhealth.hhs.gov/. • www.ihs.gov/hpdp/index.cfm • www.census.gov/acs/www/ • www.bls.gov/bls/unemployment.htm. 7
B ENEFITS & O UTCOME T IPS • Talk to agencies who may benefit from the program/project • Police, fire, public works, health, economic development, parks, housing • If space is available, do both economic and non- economic benefits • Back up your projections with data and policy/practice P ARTNER & S USTAINABILITY T IPS • Best to have a champion that is not staff • Identify the sustainable and livability aspects of your policies, plans, and practices • Is your project is consistent with these goals? • Build on existing work; i.e. • Affordable housing, Transit oriented development, Commercial revitalization, Open space 8
S T . R EGIS M OHAWK T RIBE A Story of Grant Success Presented by Julia Jacobs and Amberdawn Lafrance A KWESASNE : C OMMUNITY -W IDE P ETROLEUM A SSESSMENT 9
G RANT O BJECTIVES • Not regulated by NYS • Tanks and piping not removed when stations closed • Community plagued with abandoned stations • The overall objectives for this grant is to identify all of our abandoned gas stations and marina’s, rank them based on criteria developed by our own community, and conduct Environmental Assessments on as many sites as possible. B ROWNFIELDS EXPERIENCE • Past Brownfields Grant Applications • 128(a) Tribal Response Program since 2010 • Unsuccessful Environmental Workforce Development and Job Training Grant in 2013 • Unsuccessful Community Wide Petroleum Assessment Proposal in 2015 • RLF along with 128(a) that was declined in 2015 • 128(a) • Developed and trained our staff of 8 people • Extensive grant writing and program development training • Collected significant community input • Identified our vital natural resources • Identified potential Brownfields sites and their influences on these resources • Developed a process for prioritization based on community input 10
W HO W ORKED ON THE P ROPOSAL ? • “ Strategic Grant Development Writing Workshop” by Edward Wollman in 2011 • Technical Assistance to Brownfields EZ by KSU • SRMT Staff • Brownfields Team • 7 Staff involved in writing and reviewing • Tribal Grant Development Specialist –Review • Consultant • Maine & New Hampshire PG –Write and Review • CCLR Review • ***Debriefing with our EPA Project Manager C OMMUNITY P ARTNERSHIPS • Akwesasne Boys & Girls Club • Akwesasne Chamber of Commerce • Akwesasne Task Force on the Environment • Akwesasne Cultural Center 11
C ONNECTING THE D OTS W HAT WE LEARNED FROM THIS PROCESS … • Impacts: SRMT suffers emotionally, physically, and economically from Brownfields contributing blight, poverty, devaluation of property, discouragement of investment, unemployment, health issues, and attraction to vandalism. • Project: Identify, rank, and investigate potential environmental hazards from abandoned gas stations and marinas. • Benefits: One main goal of the SRMT Brownfields Program is to protect the natural resources in our area that carry a significance to our culture. The reduction or elimination of these natural resources through impacts from Brownfields negatively affects SRMT’s historical culture, livelihood, and overall lifestyle. T IPS / COMMENTS • What worked: 1. Tribal staff working together and knowing our community 2. Working with a consultant to help with understanding grant guidelines and proposal format 3. Training & Review • What didn’t: • Ran out of time • Partnership letters • Not enough details • Not enough input 12
W ORKING WITH CCLR • Reactions to CCLR’s recommendations • Easy and quick • Very helpful • Responded to almost all recommendations • What you would do differently? • Submit proposal earlier • Attend more CCLR Trainings/Workshop/Webinars C ITY OF P ORTLAND B ROWNFIELD P ROGRAM Jenn Bildersee jenn.bildersee@portlandoregon.gov 13
C OMMUNITY B ACKGROUND • Target area: East Portland OREGON East Portland Portland Population 147,347 609,456 Unemployment, Oct 2014 N/A 6.1 % % below poverty level 19.1 % 17.8 % % Nonwhite 33.0 % 23.9 % Median Household Income $42,500 $52,657 % 18 or younger 27.4 % 19.1 % % 5 or younger 6.8 % 6.0 % % 65 or older 15.2 % 10.4 % T ARGET : C OMMERCIAL C ORRIDORS • East Portland has 118 sites -306 acres - with an existing DEQ record • East Portland’s development pattern for the car: low-density commercial corridors with numerous vacant and underutilized sites (former gas stations, automotive service, dry cleaners, manufacturing) 14
ARC EXPERIENCE • Portland Brownfield Program since EPA Brownfield Showcase grant in 1998 • Past EPA Brownfield Assessment Grant funding in 2003, 2005, 2008, and 2011 • Recipient of two EPA Cleanup Grants and a 2011 Revolving Loan Fund • Unsuccessful grant application in 2015 • Full-time brownfield program coordinator funded by City of Portland – writes grant applications O UR GENERAL TIMELINE (1) Developed goals internally, and discussed plans with potential partners (2) Started with previous grant template – but if you don’t have that, start with last year’s guidelines (3) Filled in all the easily accessible information (4) Provided draft letters of support to partners (5) Identified gaps; slowly filled with research (6) Sent drafts to CCLR and internal reviewers (7) Revised and submitted 3 days ahead 15
Recommend
More recommend
