NOFO_Content_of_FR-6600-N-29B.pdf

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Policy Development and Research

HUDRD - Wildfire Recovery and Resilience

FR-6600-N-29B

07/19/2022

Table of Contents Summary

Overview

I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

A. Program Description

B. Authority

II. Award Information

A. Available Funds

B. Number of Awards

C. Minimum/Maximum Award Information

D. Period of Performance

E. Type of Funding Instrument

III. Eligibility Information

A. Eligible Applicants

B. Ineligible Applicants

C. Cost Sharing or Matching

D. Threshold Eligibility Requirements

E. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Affecting Eligibility

F. Program-Specific Requirements

G. Criteria for Beneficiaries

IV. Application and Submission Information

A. Obtaining an Application Package

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

C. System for Award Management (SAM) and Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number

D. Application Submission Dates and Times

E. Intergovernmental Review

F. Funding Restrictions

G. Other Submission Requirements

V. Application Review Information

A. Review Criteria

B. Review and Selection Process

VI. Award Administration Information

A. Award Notices

B. Administrative, National and Department Policy Requirements and Terms for HUD Recipients Financial Assistance Awards

C. Reporting

D. Debriefing

VII. Agency Contact(s)

VIII. Other Information

APPENDIX

Program Office:

Policy Development and Research Funding Opportunity Title:

HUDRD - Wildfire Recovery and Resilience Funding Opportunity Number:

FR-6600-N-29B

Assistance Listing Number:

14.536 Due Date for Applications:

07/19/2022 Summary The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Strategic Plan sets the direction and focus of our programs and staff to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality, affordable homes for all.

HUD's Strategic Goals HUD’s FY 2022-2026 Strategic Plan lays out this administration’s strategy for ensuring everyone has an affordable, healthy place to live. Over the course of the next four years HUD will pursue two overarching priorities focused on increasing equity and improving customer experience across all HUD programs. Five strategic goals undergird the Plan as follows:

Strategic Goal 1: Support Underserved Communities Strategic Goal 2: Ensure Access to and Increase the Production of Affordable Housing Strategic Goal 3: Promote Homeownership Strategic Goal 4: Advance Sustainable Communities Strategic Goal 5: Strengthen HUD’s Internal Capacity

The five goals of the FY 2022-2026 Strategic Plan present the core vision of what we hope to accomplish, the strategies to accomplish those objectives, and the indicators of success.

Overview The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issues this Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) to invite applications from eligible applicants for the program and purpose described within this NOFO. Prospective applicants should carefully read all instructions in all sections to avoid sending an incomplete or ineligible application. HUD funding is highly competitive. Failure to respond accurately to any submission requirement could result in an incomplete or noncompetitive proposal.

During the selection process HUD is prohibited from disclosing 1) information regarding any applicant’s relative standing, 2) the amount of assistance requested by an applicant, and 3) any information contained in the application. Prior to the application deadline, HUD may not disclose the identity of any applicant or the number of applicants that have applied for assistance.

For Further Information Regarding this NOFO: Please direct questions regarding the specific requirements of this NOFO to the office contact identified in Section VII.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement. The information collection requirements in this notice have been approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501- 3520). In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. Each NOFO will identify its applicable OMB control number unless its collection of information is excluded from these requirements under 5 CFR part 1320.

OMB Approval Number(s):

2528-0299

I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION.

A. Program Description.

Purpose

This NOFO announces the availability of $600,000 to study the effectiveness of disaster recovery funding after wildfire. HUD anticipates awarding one or more cooperative agreements. The goal of the research is to increase the capacity of communities affected by wildfire to use disaster assistance to enhance resilience to wildfire, especially the resilience of low- and moderate-income persons and communities. HUD anticipates the need for such knowledge because in recent years wildfire disasters have become more frequent and destructive and HUD has sharply increased allocations of disaster assistance for wildfires through the Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) and Community Development Block Grant-Mitigation (CDBG-MIT) programs (see Table 1 in the Related Documents).

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 provided HUD funding to study the effectiveness of its disaster recovery funding. To find out how disaster assistance, including CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT grants, can be used more effectively during recovery to enhance resilience to wildfires, HUD will award one or more cooperative agreements for studies of communities in the American West affected by presidentially declared wildfire disasters that occurred in 2017 or later. To be considered for funding, a study must include at least one community that received CDBG-DR or CDBG-MIT funding, but may also include one or more communities that did not receive such funding as part of a comparative analysis.

HUD is soliciting proposals that use a community studies method to examine positive, negative, and neutral effects of disaster assistance on the resilience to wildfire of low- and moderate-income persons and communities. HUD seeks proposals that will consider both biophysical factors (e.g., defensible space, location of buildings) and social factors (e.g., insurance coverage, education) that affect resilience to wildfire, including actions that may be individual (e.g., putting a new roof on your home, having a get-away bag at your front door) and collective (e.g., building codes and enforcement, free chipper days). “Community studies method” means an observational study that uses multiple data sources to investigate a problem within the context of other behavior and attitudes within a community (adapted from Arensberg, 1954). HUD will consider both retrospective and prospective studies for funding.

Background and Policy Relevance of Wildfire to HUD’s Disaster Recovery Funding https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-1320?toc=1

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260, approved December 27, 2020) gave HUD funding to study the effectiveness of disaster recovery funding. This NOFO solicits proposals to study the effectiveness of disaster recovery funding after wildfire disasters. The goal of the research is to reveal opportunities to use disaster assistance grants more effectively to enhance the resilience of low- and moderate-income persons and communities to wildfire.

Historically, the American people have relied on forest management and fire suppression to manage wildfire risk. Federal funding for wildfire recovery and mitigation mostly has been dedicated to immediate response (e.g., FEMA funds) and fuels reduction (e.g., US Forest Service funding). Today we need additional tools, such as land use planning, fire-resistant construction, and fire-adapted communities (Pinchot Institute, 2002; Schoennagel, 2017; U.S. Departments of Interior and Agriculture, 2014). Federal wildfire policy now makes community adaptation to wildfire a cornerstone of policy (Pinchot Institute, 2002; U.S. Departments of Interior and Agriculture, 2014). The federal National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, finalized in 2014, has three goals: (1) resilient landscapes, (2) fire-adapted communities, and (3) safe and effective wildfire response.[1] In other words, today’s federal wildland fire policy is premised on much more than fire suppression. It recognizes the positive ecological role of fire, and requires people to act individually and collectively to prepare for, and to mitigate, negative impacts of wildfire.

HUD’s disaster assistance funds, awarded as CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT grants, could be a useful resource for supporting community adaptation to wildfire, especially for enhancing the resilience to wildfire of low- and moderate-income persons. Congress appropriates disaster recovery funds to HUD in response to specific disasters and the funds are flexible, facilitate local control, and must benefit primarily low- and moderate-income persons and communities. CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT grants must be used for purposes that tie back to the specific disaster for which they were appropriated, but potential uses are broad and the funds are intended to support long-term recovery. CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT grants typically

Provide significant funding additional to other federal disaster response funding Are tied to Presidential declarations of major disaster Are often used to cover a grantee’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) cost share requirements Provide funds to cover needs not addressed by FEMA and Small Business Administration

(SBA) disbursements Allow uses eligible under the regular CDBG program, which include a broad range of activities such as planning and capacity building, economic development, and relocation of displaced persons, among several others (Cecire and Jaroscak, 2020; HUD, 2001)

Recently, there has been a sharp increase in the number of wildfire disasters that receive CDBG- DR or CDBG-MIT funds. Grants from these programs went to only 15 of the 61 wildfire major disasters declared since 1992 (when CDBG-DR started). The first wildfire disaster to receive such funds was in 2003. As of this writing, 7 of the 15 wildfire major disasters that received CDBG-DR or CDBG-MIT allocations occurred in 2017 or later. (See Table 1 in the Related Documents for a list of presidentially declared wildfire disasters and associated CDBG-DR grants.) Of the $90 billion in disaster recovery funding awarded by HUD since 1992, only about

$2.4 billion went to wildfire disasters—and most of that ($1.9 billion, or 79 percent) was awarded for wildfire disasters that occurred during or after 2017.[2]

The 2017 so-called “Wine Country” fires in California led to $162 million in CDBG-DR grant funds. The Thomas Fire started in 2017 in Ventura County, CA and was followed by massive mudslides in Montecito in 2018, resulting in $88 million in CDBG-DR funds. Wildfires and high winds in California in August of 2018 (including the Carr and Mendocino Complex fires) led to a CDBG-DR grant of $491 million. The Camp Fire, which incinerated more than 18,000 structures in Butte County (including most of Paradise, CA) in winter of 2018 resulted in a grant of $525 million in CDBG-DR funds. Wildfires in California in 2020 led to a grant of $231 million. In Oregon in 2020, the Almeda Drive and Santiam Fires substantially destroyed the towns of Phoenix, Talent, Detroit, and Gates, resulting in a CDBG-DR grant of $422 million (See Table 1 in the Related Documents).

Forest scientists predict that due to a combination of forest conditions and climate change, very large wildfires will continue to become more frequent (Cobian-Iñiguez, Gollner, and Kolden, 2020; Hessburg et al., 2021; Parks and Abatzoglu, 2020; Pyne, 1997; Schoennagel, 2017;

Singleton et al., 2019; Weber et al., N.D.). Between 1983 and 2014, the total number of acres burned in one year by wildfires was usually under 5,000,000 and never exceeded 10,000,000. In 2015 wildfires burned more than 10,000,000 acres; this happened again in 2017 and 2020 (Wildfires and Acres | National Interagency Fire Center (nifc.gov).[3]

We do not have the tools to suppress very large fires effectively, and increased building in the wildland-urban interface (WUI)—areas where human development and wildland vegetation meet or mingle—exposes more homes to wildfires (Radeloff et al., 2018). Homes burned down by wildfire in WUI areas are likely to be rebuilt or replaced by new construction (Mockrin et al., 2016; Kramer et al., 2021). Locations with past wildfires are at risk of experiencing similar fires again.

In the years after 2010 and especially after 2015, wildfires consumed a large number of structures. For instance, as of May 2022, 15 of California’s top 20 most destructive fires were in 2015 or later (CalFire, fire.ca.gov).[4] The value of structures destroyed in California’s 2015 fire season was so high that insurance companies, and California’s Department of Insurance, worried for the first time that pay-outs related to wildfires in California might become an unacceptable risk.[5] Previously, wildfires annually destroyed only a few hundred or a few thousand structures. In 2015 and again in 2016, wildfires burned more than 4,000 structures. In 2017, wildfires incinerated nearly 13,000 structures, followed by 25,000 in 2018, and 18,000 in 2020 (https://headwaterseconomics.org/natural-hazards/structures-destroyed-by-wildfire/).

In sum, because of climate change and building patterns, the trend of more frequent, larger fires destroying greater numbers of structures is likely to continue. In the past, the American people relied on fire suppression and fuels reduction to manage wildfire risks, but we lack capacity to effectively and efficiently suppress monster wildland fires—this fact plus increased building in WUI areas means that today we need additional tools to manage wildfire risks, such as land use planning, building and construction codes, and community-based organizing, such as the Washington State Fire-Adapted Communities Learning Network (Alexandre et al., 2016; Kramer https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/statistics/wildfires https://headwaterseconomics.org/natural-hazards/structures-destroyed-by-wildfire/ et al., 2018; Schoennagel, 2017; https://www.fireadaptedwashington.org/). Community adaptation, moreover, is a cornerstone of federal wildland fire policy (Pinchot Institute, 2002;

U.S. Departments of Interior and Agriculture, 2014).

Community Studies of Recovery from Wildfire

Wildland-urban interface (WUI) communities are diverse. One typology identifies four WUI types: (1) formalized, suburban, (2) high amenity-high resource, (3) rural lifestyle, and (4) working landscape/resource dependent (Paveglio et al., 2014). Even undocumented migrant workers, defined less by geographic boundaries and more by shared social conditions, can be identified as a community with unique responses to wildfire (Mendez, Flores-Haro, and Zucker, 2020). Different community types bring different values and capacities to the problem of managing wildfire risk (Abrams et al., 2015; McCaffrey, 2015; Paveglio and Edgeley, 2017;

Rodriguez Mendez, et al., 2003), and risk management programs tailored to local context are more successful (McCaffrey, 2015). Wildfire disasters can be focusing events, but do not necessarily lead to policy or behavioral changes that decrease vulnerability to wildfires (Mockrin et al., 2016; Kramer et al., 2021). Finally, financial factors may be strong incentives or barriers to specific preparedness and mitigation activities—for instance being under-insured has been an incentive to stay and defend a property rather than evacuate (see McCaffrey, 2015 for review and discussion).

Disaster assistance may offer individuals and communities an opportunity to enhance resilience to wildfire, and this is partly because financial factors are critical in shaping preparedness, response, and mitigation (McCaffrey, 2015). However, we know of only a few studies that investigate the influence of disaster assistance on resilience to wildfire, especially of low- and moderate-income persons and communities. Studies of community recovery from wildfire disaster tend to mention the existence of funding without close analysis of its role and impacts on recovery or adaptation to wildfire. One exception is a study of how populations affected by the Carlton Complex fire in 2014 in Washington state viewed FEMA aid (Edgeley and Paveglio, 2017). According to residents, FEMA officials did not understand the rural west, mismeasured damage, and did not clearly communicate the application process, leading to misunderstandings about needs representations. These experiences affected how respondents prepared for future wildfires. The authors concluded that “social dynamics between locals and extra-local organizations is a crucial component” of recovery that influences resilience to future wildfires (p.

145).

Disaster assistance, when it is available, may be an important “extra-local” factor in recovery from wildfire disasters. To our knowledge, however, there are no studies of recovery from wildfire that embed the sources and uses of all disaster mitigation and recovery funding within a community study. There are no community studies of the uses and consequences of HUD’s disaster recovery or mitigation funding after a wildfire disaster. There are no community studies that take a close look at how disaster assistance in the wake of a wildfire influences the long-term resilience to wildfire of low- and moderate-income persons and communities. With this NOFO, HUD seeks to address this gap in knowledge.

Research Needs & Research Questions https://www.fireadaptedwashington.org/)%20

This NOFO will fund a study that examines the full picture of disaster recovery and mitigation assistance for community recovery after a wildfire disaster, and analyzes the influence of this disaster assistance—including CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT grants—highlighting positive, negative, and neutral effects on the resilience to wildfire of low- and moderate-income persons and communities. Based on careful empirical analysis of specific cases, the research ultimately should also identify opportunities to use recovery and mitigation funding more effectively to increase the resilience to wildfire of low- and moderate-income persons and communities.

HUD will fund one or more studies of community recovery from wildfire guided by the following general questions about the long-term recovery of communities from wildfire disasters:

1. As part of recovery from wildfire disaster, how do communities consider and prioritize activities intended to increase resilience to wildfire—including biophysical and social factors, and individual and collective actions?

2. How does disaster recovery and mitigation funding influence these processes and priorities?

3. What are the positive, negative, and neutral impacts of activities supported by disaster recovery or mitigation funds on the resilience to wildfire of low- and moderate-income persons and communities?

4. What recovery activities could be supported by disaster recovery and mitigation funding that would enhance the resilience to wildfire of low- and moderate-income persons and communities, but have not been, or usually are not implemented?

5. How do low- and moderate-income members of wildfire-affected communities conceive of and define resilience to wildfire and how would they measure community resilience to wildfire?

A community study is an observational method that uses multiple data sources (e.g., documents, household surveys, direct observation, census data products, ecosystem assessments, budgets, etc.) and multiple analytic methods to investigate a problem within the context of other behavior and attitudes within a community (adapted from Arensberg, 1954). In this case, the problem is how to use disaster recovery and mitigation funding to promote long-term resilience to wildfire of low- and moderate-income persons and communities.

Biophysical resilience factors are biological, physical, and ecological variables that influence wildfire ignitions, wildfire severity, and damage caused by wildfire, recovery processes, and resilience or adaptation. Examples include fire-resistant building, bird-safe power lines, fuels build-up and treatments, topography, and weather.

Social resilience factors are the beliefs, attitudes, and actions of individuals and groups that influence wildfire ignitions, wildfire severity, damage caused by wildfire, recovery processes, and resilience or adaptation. Examples include insurance coverage, defensible space ordinances, presence of organizations promoting fire-adapted communities, knowledge of wildfire safety and preparedness, perspectives on natural resource management, relations with outside organizations, the social composition of a community, and its memories of wildfire.

HUD intends to fund a study (or studies) that includes all of the following elements:

1. Using a community studies approach

2. Studying one or more communities affected by presidentially declared wildfire disasters that occurred during or after 2017, including at least one community that received CDBG-DR or CDBG-MIT funding

3. Producing a picture that is as complete as possible of the disaster recovery and mitigation funding (including federal, state, and local public sources, and private sources) available to residents and to the community, and the activities supported by each source

4. Describing community prioritization of resilience as part of the recovery process, and the role of disaster assistance in these processes, including prioritization of biophysical and social factors, individual and collective actions

5. Assessing the extent to which the recovery activities supported by disaster assistance had positive, negative, and neutral impacts on the resilience to wildfire of low- and moderate-income persons and communities, looking at both biophysical and social factors that influence resilience to wildfire

6. Including diverse perspectives from affected persons, considering especially forms of social exclusion (e.g., citizenship, homelessness, race or ethnicity, and disability) relevant in the studied sites

Methodological Considerations

HUD will consider for funding studies that investigate one or more communities. Applicants should propose an approach to selecting communities to study, and one of the studied communities must be a recipient of CDBG-DR or CDBG-MIT funding.

Applicants should use a notion of community that works for the proposed study. HUD encourages use of an existing notion of community, but HUD is not committed to any one particular definition. HUD is not looking for extensive discourse on community concepts, but rather HUD is looking for empirical studies of communities recovering from wildfire that use a conceptal framework suited to the study. Examples of community studies of wildfire impacts or recovery include Mockrin et al.’s (2016) study of recovery processes in three different jurisdictions (one city and two counties) affected by wildfire in the Colorado front range. This study uses jurisdiction to bound community. In contrast, Paveglio and Edgeley (2017) use an anthropological approach and identify distinct communities based on attitudes, economic base, and lifestyles. In a study of the 1994 Wenatchee fires in Washington state, Rodriguez et al.

(2003) use three different notions of community: “(1) community as local society bounded by geography or territory, (2) community as local social system…, (3) community as shared meaning and identity …extending over … distance” (p. 61). In a study of the impacts of wildfires on undocumented Latin and indigenous workers in California, Mendez, Flores-Haro, and Zucker (2020) study communities defined by immigration status, ethnicities and languages, and labor markets. Fairbrother et al. (2014) argue that policymakers need to acknowledge communities as networks that extend beyond locality and geography and generally be more explicit about how the term “community” is used.

This NOFO requires a community studies approach, which means investigating a problem within the context of other behavior and attitudes within a community. In this case the problem is how to use disaster recovery and mitigation funding to promote long-term resilience to wildfire, especially of low- and moderate-income persons and communities. A community study is an observational method that uses multiple data sources (e.g., documents, household surveys, direct observation, census data products, ecosystem assessments, budgets, etc.) and multiple analytic methods. (Adapted from Arensberg, 1954.) Within this approach, selected factors can be observed.

HUD intends to fund a proposal or proposals that look at different types of factors that may affect or enhance resilience to wildfire of low- and moderate-income persons and communities, including biophysical and social factors and individual and collective actions. Applicants should propose an approach to including consideration of how disaster assistance affected both biophysical and social resilience factors in the particular localities that will be studied.

Applicants should propose an approach to showing the influence of disaster assistance in particular localities in terms of positive, negative, and neutral consequences for resilience to wildfire of low- and moderate-income persons and communities. A community study could or might include a quasi-experimental or experimental analysis, but we are not looking for those kinds of analyses here. By asking for a community studies approach, we are looking for descriptive methods that produce narratives about the influence of disaster assistance that are convincing, that is, narratives using well-defined concepts, making clear arguments, grounded in local knowledge, and based on detailed empirical data and information.

In considering how to produce a full picture of disaster assistance within studied communities, applicants cannot rely on the unmet needs analysis conducted by CDBG-DR grantees (although it may be useful). Applicants should propose an approach to producing a full picture of recovery resources available to studied communities, including private and public resources, and, if relevant, pre-disaster hazard mitigation grants that may have had an impact on the wildfire disaster being studied. Please be aware that it is not always easy to trace the use of CDBG-DR funds. For instance, areas affected by fires in Colorado in 2012, received CDBG funding in 2013 when floods followed the fires; in 2015, two areas that had been affected by the 2012 wildfires were retroactively declared eligible for CDBG funds. This is documented in Mockrin et al.

(2016), whereby the authors do not specify if funds were CDBG or CDBG-DR, but do state that “federal funds post flooding created a new source of support for long-term disaster and recovery planning, including wildfire” (p. 1150).

HUD’s Policy Statement on Program Evaluation published August 13, 2021, encourages HUD-supported research to include diverse perspectives in research teams and data collection, including racial and ethnic diversity, and engagement of affected persons in research in ways tailored to particular studies. It also encourages dissemination of research findings to studied populations. (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/08/13/2021-17339/hud-program-evaluation-policy-policy-statement).

Project Deliverables

Project Management Deliverables. HUD’s Cooperative Agreements require certain deliverables as part of the project management system, including the following: (1) Opening meeting with HUD, (2) Management and Work Plan with a detailed allocation of grant resources and timelines, (3) Quality Control Plan, and (4) Quarterly Progress Reports.

Research Project Deliverables. Project deliverables must be approved by the Government Technical Representative. HUD will have substantial involvement in definition of project deliverables, which include the following:

(1) Expert Panel

(2) Research Design

(3) Data Collection and Analysis Plan that includes data collection instruments or protocols, informed consent materials, data analysis plans, IRB approval

(4) Meeting with HUD staff to discuss research plans

(5) Draft research report 1

(6) Meeting with HUD staff to discuss plans for the final report

(7) Draft research report 2

(8) Final Research Report

(9) Policy Brief for a broad audience of practitioners and policymakers, including federal, state, and local policymakers.

(10) Dissemination of research findings to affected communities.

The Expert Panel should be a multidisciplinary group with expertise in biophysical and social factors that affect resilience to wildfire. The Expert Panel must include at least one physical or biological scientist, one social scientist, and one practitioner. The Expert Panel will advise the study, contribute to the policy brief, and may participate in discussions with HUD staff and the research team on project deliverables. For example, the expert panel might include, but is not limited to, experts in wildfire science, urban and regional planning, forest management, fire-resistant construction, building code enforcement, WUI communities, organization of fire-adapted communities, adaptive governance, watershed resilience, and so on. HUD anticipates the Expert Panel will have at least six members.

The Final Research Report must comprehensively document the study methods and report the findings.

The Policy Brief must be a stand-alone document that proposes innovative ways to more effectively use federal disaster assistance to enhance the resilience to wildfire of low- and moderate-income persons and communities. It should be based on lessons drawn from the community study, but go beyond those lessons to incorporate creative input from the research team and the Expert Panel. The Policy Brief must be written for a broad audience of practitioners and policymakers, including federal, state, and local policymakers.

The Government Technical Representative and other HUD staff will work closely with grantees to define deliverables. HUD will have substantial involvement in carrying out the activity contemplated by the award.

Final work products shall be well written and the final research report and policy brief shall conform to HUD’s formatting requirements. (See https://www.huduser.gov/portal/About/style-guide-for-reports.pdf.)

HUD intends to publish the final research report and the policy brief.

Eligible Activities

Eligible activities include all research, convening, and project management activities that contribute to producing high-quality research that meets the NOFO objectives and answers the guiding research questions. Eligible activities include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:

Research activities required to complete the funded research, such as the articulation of research questions (including literature review); development of research design, data collection and analysis plans; data collection (including ethnographic data), analysis of data; submission of publication-quality research reports; and presentations on findings

Regular communication with HUD staff on all project deliverables, as required by HUD’s substantial involvement under the cooperative agreement

Consulting with experts on any aspect of the research as needed to bring expertise to enhance the research team’s knowledge in critical areas, such as identification of resilience factors or requirements attached to diverse disaster assistance, and so on

Consulting with key informants Creating and coordinating a multi-disciplinary expert panel that brings together physical or biological scientists, social scientists, and practitioners (e.g., land use planners or insurance professionals, etc.) (including honoraria for expert panel members)

Meeting regulatory requirements for research, such as Institutional Review Board approval

Project management activities, including the requirements of HUD’s project management system (Opening Meeting, Management and Work Plan and Budget, Quality Control Plan, and Quarterly Progress Reports) and regular communication with HUD staff for monitoring purposes

Bibliography

Abrams, Jesse B., Melanie Knapp, Travis B. Paveglio, Autumn Ellison, Cassandra Mosely, Max Nielsen-Pincus, and Matthew S. Carroll. 2015. Re-envisioning community-wildfire relations in the U.S. West as adaptive governance. Ecology and Society 20(3): 34.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07848-200334.

Arensberg, Conrad M. 1954. The community-study method. American Journal of Sociology 60(2):109-124.

Alexandre, Patricia M., Susan I. Stewart, Miranda H. Mockrin, Nicholas S. Keuler, Alexandra D.

Syphard, Avi Bar-Massada, Murray K. Clayton, and Volker C. Radeloff. 2016. The relative impacts of vegetation, topography and spatial arrangement on building loss to wildfires in cases studies of California and Colorado. Landscape Ecology 31:415-430.

Fairbrother, Peter, Bernard Mees, Meagan Tyler, Richard Phillips, Yoko Akama, Susan Chaplin, Keith Toh, and Vanessa Cooper. 2014. Effective communication: Communities and bushfire final project report. Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre. Australia, ISBN: 978-0-9925684-0-5.

Headwaters Economics. Wildfires destroy thousands of structures each year.

https://headwaterseconomics.org/natural-hazards/structures-destroyed-by-wildfire/

National Interagency Fire Center. Wildfires and Acres. Total Wildland Fires and Acres (1983- 2020) https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/statistics/wildfires

CALFIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). N.D. Top 20 Most Destructive California Wildfires. https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/t1rdhizr/top20_destruction.pdf

Cecire, Michael H. and Jaroscak, Joseph V. 2020. The Community Development Block Grant’s Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) Component: Background and Issues. Congressional Research Service R46475

Cobian-Iñiguez, Jeannette, Michael Gollner, and Crystal Kolden. 2020. How do we solve the “Wicked Problem”?: the State of Fire Science in California. https://frg.berkeley.edu/how-do-we-solve-the-wicked-problem-the-state-of-fire-science-in-california/

Edgeley, Catrin M. and Travis B. Paveglio. 2017. Community recovery and assistance following large wildfires: The case of the Carlton Complex Fire. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 25 (2017): 137-146.

Hessburg, Paul Francis, Susan J. Prichard, R. Keala Hagmann, Nicholas Adam Povak. 2021.

Wildfire and climate change adaptation of western North American forests: a case for intentional management. Ecological Applications 31(3):e02432.10.1002/eap.2432

Kramer, Anu H., Miranda H. Mockrin, Patricia M. Alexandre, Susan I. Stewart, and Volker C.

Radeloff. 2018. Where wildfires destroy buildings in the US relative to the wildland-urban interface and national fire outreach programs. 2018. International Journal of Wildland Fire 27, 329-341. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF17135.

Kramer, Anu H., Van Butsic, Miranda H. Mockrin, Carlos Ramirez-Reyes, Patricia M.

Alexandre, and Volker C. Radeloff. 2021. Land Use Policy 107 105502.

McCaffrey, Sarah. 2015. Community Wildfire Preparedness: a Global State-of-the Knowledge Summary of Social Science Research. 2015. Current Forestry Reports 1: 81-90.

Mendez, Michael, Genevieve Flores-Haro, Lucas Zucker. 2020. The (in)visible victims of disaster: Understanding the vulnerability of undocumented Latino/a and indigenous immigrants.

Geoforum 116 (2020): 50-62.

Mockrin, Miranda H., Susan I. Stewart, Volker C. Radeloff, and Roger B. Hammer. 2016.

Recovery and adaptation after wildfire on the Colorado Front Range (2010-12). International https://headwaterseconomics.org/natural-hazards/structures-destroyed-by-wildfire/ https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/statistics/wildfires https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/t1rdhizr/top20_destruction.pdf https://frg.berkeley.edu/how-do-we-solve-the-wicked-problem-the-state-of-fire-science-in-california/ https://frg.berkeley.edu/how-do-we-solve-the-wicked-problem-the-state-of-fire-science-in-california/

Journal of Wildland Fire 25, 1144-1155.

Parks, S.A. and J.T. Abatzoglou. 2020. Warmer and drier fire seasons contribute to increases in area burned at high severity in western US forests from 1985 to 2017. Geophysical Research Letters,47, e2020GL089858. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089858

Paveglio, Travis B., Cassandra Moseley, Matthew S. Carroll, Daniel R. Williams, Emily Jan Davis, and A. Paige Fischer. 2015. Categorizing the Social Context of the Wildland Urban Interface: Adaptive Capacity for Wildfire and Community “Archetypes.” Forest Science April 2015: 298-310.

Paveglio and Edgeley. 2017. Community diversity and hazard events: understanding the evolution of local approaches to wildfire. Natural Hazards 87:1083-1108.

Pinchot Institute for Conservation. 2002. An Introduction to the National Fire Plan: History, Structure, and Relevance to Communities. http://npshistory.com/publications/fire/national-fire-plan-2002.pdf.

Pyne, Stephen. 1997. Fire in America: A Cultural History of Wildland and Rural Fire.

University of Washington Press: Seattle, Washington.

Rodriguez Mendez, Sandra, Matthew S. Carroll, and Keith A. Blatner. 2003. Smoke on the Hill:

A Comparative Study of Wildfire and Two Communities. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 18(1):60-70.

Schoennagel, Tania, Jennifer K. Blach, Hannah Brenkert-Smith, Philip E. Dennison, Brian J.

Harvey, Meg A Krawchuk, Nathan Mietkiewicz, Penelope Morgan, Max A. Moritz, Ray Rasker, Monica G. Turner, and Cathy Whitlock. 2017. Adapt to more wildfire in western North American forests as climate changes. PNAS 114(18): 4582-4590.

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1617464114.

Weber, Keith T., Rituraj Yadev, Jonah Davis, Kindra Blair, John Schnase, Mark Carroll, Roger Gill. N.D. Geography of Wildfires Across the West. N.D. NASA Recover Presentation.

https://giscenter.isu.edu/research/Techpg/nasa_RECOVER/pdf/GeographyWildfires.pdf.

Radeloff, Volker C., David P. Helmers, H. Anu Kramer, Miranda H. Mockrin, Patricia M.

Alexandre, Avi Bar-Massada, Van Butsic, Todd J. Hawbaker, Sebastian Martinuzzi, Alexandra D. Syphard, and Susan I. Stewart. 2018. Rapid growth of the US wildland-urban interface raises wildfire risk. Proceedings of the National Academic of Sciences.

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1718850115.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Block Grant Assistance. 2019.

Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) Policy Guidance for Grantees 2019. https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/CDBG-DR-Policy-Guide.pdf

U.S. Departments of Interior and Agriculture. 2014. The National Strategy: The Final Phase in https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089858 http://npshistory.com/publications/fire/national-fire-plan-2002.pdf http://npshistory.com/publications/fire/national-fire-plan-2002.pdf http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1617464114 https://giscenter.isu.edu/research/Techpg/nasa_RECOVER/pdf/GeographyWildfires.pdf http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1718850115 https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/CDBG-DR-Policy-Guide.pdf the Development of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy.

https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/documents/strategy/strategy/CSPhaseIIINationalStrategy Apr2014.pdf.

[1] https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/strategy/thestrategy.shtml Accessed October 12, 2021 [2] These numbers probably overstate amounts granted for wildfire recovery. For instance, a closer look at the 2003 grant of $10.4 million to California shows that it was used in different places for recovery from earthquake, flooding, and wildfire.

[3] These very large fires seem unprecedented to us because of decades of fire suppression in American forests, but very large fires are not foreign to the western ecosystem when viewed over centuries.

[4] Information on wildfires is more readily available from California, but the pattern is not unique to California. Climate change has caused forests and other wildlands to get drier across the west. Parks and Abatzoglu (2020) show that increased severity of wildfires and acreage burned also has been documented in the Pacific Northwest and the Southwest.

[5] California Department of Insurance (DOI) Fact Sheet: Impact of Wildfires on Insurance Non- Renewals and Availability and other DOI sources. We have not found the underlying reports or data analyses. See http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0100-press-releases/2019/upload/nr063_factsheetwildfire.pdf.

Changes from Previous NOFO.

Not Applicable. This is a new NOFO.

Definitions.

a. Standard Definitions

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination to overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunities, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all program participant’s activities and programs relating to housing and urban development.

Assistance Listing number refers to the publicly available listing of Federal assistance programs managed and administered by the General Services Administration, formerly known as the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA). Assistance Listing is a unique number assigned to identify a Federal Assistance Listings, formerly known as the CFDA

Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) is the person authorized to submit applications on behalf of the organization via Grants.gov. The AOR is authorized by the E-Biz point of contact in the System for Award Management. The AOR is listed in item 21 on the SF- 424.

https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/documents/strategy/strategy/CSPhaseIIINationalStrategyApr2014.pdf https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/documents/strategy/strategy/CSPhaseIIINationalStrategyApr2014.pdf https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/strategy/thestrategy.shtml

Consolidated Plan is a document developed by states and local jurisdictions. This plan is completed by engaging in a participatory process to assess their affordable housing and community development needs and market conditions, and to make data-driven, place-based investment decisions with funding from formula grant programs. (See 24 CFR part 91 for HUD’s requirements regarding the Consolidated Plan and related Action Plan).

Contract means, for the purpose of Federal financial assistance, a legal instrument by which a recipient or subrecipient purchases property or services needed to carry out the project or program under a federal award. For additional information on contractor and subrecipient determinations, see 2 CFR 200.331.

Contractor means an entity that receives a contract as defined above and in 2 CFR 200.1.

Deficiency is information missing or omitted within a submitted application. Examples of deficiencies include missing documents, information on a form, or some other type of unsatisfied information requirement. Depending on specific criteria, deficiencies may be either Curable or Non-Curable.

Curable Deficiencies may be corrected by the applicant with timely action. To be curable the deficiency must:

Not be a threshold requirement, except for documentation of applicant eligibility;

Not influence how an applicant is ranked or scored versus other applicants; and Be remedied within the time frame specified in the notice of deficiency.

Non-Curable Deficiencies cannot be corrected by an applicant after the submission deadline.

Non-curable deficiencies are deficiencies that, if corrected, would change an applicant’s score or rank versus other applicants. Non-curable deficiencies may result in an application being marked ineligible, or otherwise adversely affect an application’s score and final determination.

Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no population bears a disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or from the execution of federal, state, and local laws; regulations; and policies. Meaningful involvement requires effective access to decision makers for all, and the ability in all communities to make informed decisions and take positive actions to produce environmental justice for themselves.

DUNS Number is the nine-digit Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Number System identification number assigned to a business or organization by Dun & Bradstreet and provides a means of identifying business entities on a location-specific basis.

E-Business Point of Contact (E-Biz POC) A user registered as an organization applicant who is responsible for the administration and management of grant activities for his or her organization.

The E-Biz POC is likely to be an organization's chief financial officer or authorizing official. The E-Biz POC authorizes representatives of their organization to apply on behalf of the organization (see Standard AOR and Expanded AOR). There can only be one E-Biz POC per DUNS Number.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-24/subtitle-A/part-91 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR031321e29ac5bbd/section-200.331 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200

Eligibility requirements are mandatory requirements for an application to be eligible for funding.

Expanded Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) An AOR is a member of your organization authorized by the EBiz POC to submit applications in Grants.gov on behalf of the organization. An applicant user with the Expanded AOR role is authorized to submit any applications on behalf of the organization and has privileges that allow the user to modify organization-level settings in Grants.gov.

Federal Financial Assistance means assistance that entities received or administer in the form of:

1. Grants;

2. Cooperative agreements (which does not include a cooperative research and development agreement pursuant to the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986, as amended (15 U.S.C. 3710a)).

3. Loans;

4. Loan guarantees;

5. Subsidies;

6. Insurance;

7. Food commodities;

8. Direct appropriations;

9. Assessed and voluntary contributions; and

10. Any other financial assistance transaction that authorizes the non-Federal entity's expenditure of Federal funds.

11. Federal financial assistance does not include amounts received as reimbursement for services rendered to individuals as described in section 200.502(h) and (i). (2 CFR 200.1)

Federal award, has the meaning, depending on the context, in either paragraph (i) or (ii) of this definition:

1. (i) The Federal financial assistance that a recipient receives directly from a Federal awarding agency or a subrecipient receives indirectly from a pass-through entity, as described in 2 CFR §200.101; or

ii. The cost-reimbursement contract under the Federal Acquisition Regulations that a non- Federal entity receives directly from a federal awarding agency or indirectly from a pass- through entity, as described in 2 CFR §200.101.

2. The instrument setting forth the terms and conditions. The instrument is the grant agreement, cooperative agreement, other agreement for assistance covered in paragraph (2) of the definitions of Federal financial assistance in 2 CFR §200.1, and this NOFO, or the cost-reimbursement contract awarded under the Federal Acquisition Regulations.

3. Federal award does not include other contracts that a Federal agency uses to buy goods or services from a contractor or a contract to operate Federal Government owned, contractor operated facilities (GOCOs).

4. See also definitions of Federal financial assistance, grant agreement, and cooperative agreement in 2 CFR 200.1.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200/subpart-F/subject-group-ECFRfd0932e473d10ba/section-200.502 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200 http://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200

Grants.gov is the website serving as the Federal government’s central portal for searching and applying for Federal financial assistance throughout the Federal government. Registration on Grants.gov is required for submission of applications to prospective agencies unless otherwise specified in this NOFO.

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, defines an HBCU as: “…any historically black college or university that was established prior to 1964, whose principal mission was, and is, the education of black Americans, and that is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association determined by the Secretary of Education to be a reliable authority as to the quality of training offered or is, according to such an agency or association, making reasonable progress toward accreditation.” HBCUs offer all students, regardless of race, an opportunity to develop their skills and talents.

Non-Federal Entity (NFE) means a state, local government, Indian tribe, Institution of Higher Education (IHE), or non-profit organization that carries out a federal award as a recipient or subrecipient.

Point of Contact (POC) is the person who may be contacted with…