v3 phase two national disaster resilience competition 6.25. final corrected.pdf

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Community Planning and Development

National Resilient Disaster Recovery Phase TWO

FR-5800-N-29A2

Application Due Date: 10/27/2015

H04396 Stamp

FR-5800-N-29A2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Funding Opportunity Description. I.

Award Information. II.

Eligibility Information.

Eligible Applicants. A.

Cost Sharing or Matching. B.

Other. C.

III.

Application and Submission Information.

Obtaining an Application Package. A.

Content and Form of Application Submission. B.

Application Submission Dates and Times. C.

Intergovernmental Review. D.

Funding Restrictions. E.

Other Submission Requirements. F.

IV.

Application Review Information.

Criteria. A.

Review and Selection Process. B.

Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates. C.

V.

Award Administration Information.

Award Notices. A.

Administrative and National Policy Requirements. B.

Reporting. C.

VI.

Agency Contact(s). VII.

Other Information. VIII.

Appendix. IX.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Community Planning and Development

Initial

FR-5800-N-29A2

14.272 10/27/2015

Today’s Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) publication provides information and instructions for the CDBG-NDR Phase 2 competition and marks the beginning of Phase 2. The requirements for applicants eligible to apply under Phase 2 are contained in Section III A. Eligible Applicants of this NOFA and in HUD’s FY2014 NOFAs for Discretionary Programs General Section expressly incorporated. HUD will award CDBG-NDR funds at the end of Phase 2. All awarded funds shall assist eligible CDBG-NDR activities.

Through today’s publication, HUD is making available approximately $999,108,000 in assistance.

Additional Overview Information:

On February 19, 2014, HUD published a General Section to the Department’s fiscal year 2014 NOFAs for Discretionary Programs. The General Section contains requirements for applicants to HUD’s competitive grant programs. However, many of these requirements are duplicative of regulations governing the Community Development Block Grant program, which apply to the use of CDBG-NDR grants unless modified by a waiver or alternative requirement. For ease of administration, HUD has expressly incorporated only those portions of the General Section relevant to the competitive award of funds. Applicants must meet all of the applicable requirements of the General Section in addition to the requirements of this NOFA to be considered and to receive funding. HUD hereby incorporates and makes applicable only those requirements of the General Section and the Technical Correction to the General Section expressly listed and made applicable in paragraph 2 below.

The full title of the General Section is General Section for Fiscal Year 2014 Discretionary Programs. It can be found on Grants.gov and on HUD's Funds Available webpage at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal /HUD?src=/program_offices/administration/grants/fundsavail. The Technical Correction to HUD’s Notice General Section to the Department's Fiscal Year 2014 NOFAs for Discretionary Programs is available at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=2014-gensec-tc.pdf.

1. Applicable Requirements of the General Section (as modified by the Technical Correction to the General Section).

Only the following requirements of the General Section (as modified by the Technical Correction) apply, as may be modified or supplemented by this NOFA. Other requirements of the General Section are superseded by the requirements applicable to the use of Community Development Block Grant funds as modified by waivers and alternative requirements applicable to Public Law 113-2.

III. Eligibility Information (specified subsections only).

A. Registration in SAM prior to application submission.

C. Other Requirements and Procedures Applicable to All Programs (specified subsections only).

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements.

Program Office:

Funding Opportunity Title:

Announcement Type:

Funding Opportunity Number:

Primary CFDA Number:

Due Date for Applications:

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/administration/grants/fundsavail.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/administration/grants/fundsavail.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=2014-gensec-tc.pdf

2. Threshold Requirements (specified subsections only).

a. Ineligible Applicants. Applicants must satisfy only those threshold requirements identified in this NOFA.

b. Resolution of Civil Rights Matters.

3. Other Requirements (specified subsections only).

a. Outstanding Federal Debts.

d. False Statements.

e. Do Not Pay Website Review.

f. Code of Conduct.

h. Conflicts of Interest.

VI. Application and Submission Requirements (incorporated in its entirety).

V. Application Review Information (specified subsections only).

C. Reviews and Selection Process.

1. Threshold Requirements.

2. Corrections to Deficient Applications.

3. Rating Panels.

4. Rating.

5. Ranking.

6. Selection for Funding.

VI. Award Administration Information (specified subsections only).

A. Award Notices (specified subsections only).

1. Negotiation.

2. Adjustments to Funding.

3. Funding Errors.

4. Performance and Compliance Actions of Funding Recipients.

B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements (specified subsections only).

2. Equal Access to HUD-assisted or HUD-insured Housing.

5. Procurement of Recovered Materials.

8. OMB Administrative Requirements and Cost Principles.

11. Compliance with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub.

L.109-282) (Transparency Act), as amended.

12. Compliance with Section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Pub. L. 110-417), (Section 872).

VIII. Other Information (specified subsect ions only).

C. Executive Orders and Congressional Intent (Executive Order 13132, Federalism).

D. Section 102 of the HUD Reform Act.

E. Section 103 of the HUD Reform Act.

Additional Overview Information:

1. Incorporation of the General Section. HUD publishes a General Section each fiscal year that contains mandatory requirements for all applicants to HUD’s competitive grant programs including this NOFA.

Applicants must meet all of the requirements of the General Section in addition to the requirements of this NOFA to be considered and to receive funding. The full title of the General Section is General Section for Fiscal Year 2014 Discretionary Programs. It can be found on Grants.gov and on HUD's Funds Available webpage at http://portal.hud.gov /hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices /administration/grants /fundsavail.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/administration/grants/fundsavail

2. OMB Approval Number(s): 2506-00203

I. Funding Opportunity Description.

A. Program Description and Requirements.

A. Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery – Summary: This NOFA will award supplemental disaster recovery CDBG funds competitively for resilient recovery activities. The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (PL 113-2) included funds for disaster recovery from major disasters declared under the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 4121 et seq.) in 2011, 2012, and 2013. HUD has not previously allocated such funds competitively, instead employing Federal agency data available for all eligible jurisdictions to allocate funds applying formula methods. At this time, HUD has allocated approximately $14 billion, by formula and to Rebuild by Design projects, and has determined that the data available for the earliest disasters, in particular, does not credibly represent additional current unmet needs (beyond those for which HUD has already allocated funding by formula) to support such a formula allocation method for the remaining funding. No other reasonably current data sources common to all possible eligible jurisdictions exist. Because the law directs that CDBG-DR assistance must flow to the most impacted and distressed areas with unmet recovery and revitalization needs related to the effects of a covered major disaster, HUD decided that a competition framework would work best to elicit the data needed to inform allocation choices and ensure that the unmet disaster recovery and revitalization needs of communities around the country are appropriately considered.

HUD has six goals for this competition. First, to fairly allocate remaining PL 113-2 CDBG disaster recovery funds. Second, to create multiple examples of local disaster recovery planning that applies science-based and forward-looking risk analysis to address recovery, resilience, and revitalization needs.

Third, to leave a legacy of institutionalizing in as many states and local jurisdictions as possible the implementation of thoughtful, innovative, and resilient approaches to addressing future risks. Fourth, to provide resources to help communities plan and implement disaster recovery that makes them more resilient to future threats or hazards, including extreme weather events and climate change, while also improving quality of life for existing residents and making communities more resilient to economic stresses or other shocks. Fifth, to fully inform and engage community stakeholders about the current and projected impacts of climate change and to develop pathways to resilience based on sound science. Sixth, to leverage investments from the philanthropic community to help communities define problems, set policy goals, explore options, and craft solutions to inform their own local and regional resilient recovery strategies. As with all CDBG assistance, the priority is on serving low- and moderate-income people.

This CDBG-NDR competition bears some similarities to other federal programs that address disaster recovery and threat and hazard mitigation. This similarity (and the distinctions noted below) is deliberate.

The similarity allows states and local governments to invest CDBG-NDR funds to support or fill gaps to address unmet needs inaccessible or unaffordable to other federal programs, and for which insurance and state, local, and other resources are unavailable. In addition, any similarity in program structure will enable lessons learned from this competition to potentially be transferable to other federal programs. The distinctions, on the other hand, spring from the CDBG nature of the funding source, as directed in the Congressional appropriation. Among major disaster recovery programs, CDBG is notable in its statutory focus on determining and meeting the unmet needs of vulnerable lower-income people and communities and targeting the most impacted and distressed areas. CDBG is also singular in its ability to consider a wide range of local community development objectives related to recovery and economic revitalization, including integrally related resilience objectives. HUD intends that the most successful proposals in this competition will take advantage of these CDBG similarities and distinctions to envision and implement recovery projects that serve multiple purposes and position recovering communities for a prosperous and more resilient future. To ensure programs harmonize and do not duplicate benefits, HUD is requiring all applicants to describe how they consult with or coordinate with funders of other proposed recovery and applicants to describe how they consult with or coordinate with funders of other proposed recovery and resilience investments in the most impacted and distressed target area and region. The CDBG context also leads naturally to requiring resilience elements within recovery projects because it creates stability.

Reducing current and future risk is essential to the long-term economic well-being of communities and businesses. When a disaster chills local and regional economies, investments in anchor projects to reduce risk and stimulate economic revitalization can be an essential part of any disaster recovery.

Why should you apply for this competition? One of the key lessons of the Rebuild by Design process is that, when federal, state, local and philanthropic goals align, community capacity and innovation can leapfrog forward. This NOFA replicates many of the innovations that RBD piloted, including the value of a two-phased approach, and close partnership with philanthropy. [More information about the Rebuild by Design process and innovative design proposals is available at www.rebuildbydesign.org.] HUD is confident that every state and local government honestly and wholeheartedly participating in the risk and idea framing process in Phase 1 will benefit from the effort and emerge with a better understanding of the risks it faces today and in the future, what resilience issues to consider in making major public investments, and how to enhance resilience to extreme events and climate change.

Acting as an independent but supportive partner to HUD for the National Disaster Resilience Competition, the Rockefeller Foundation has convened resilience workshops around the country during Phase 1 that offered every state and eligible local government applicant a wide range of information and expertise to help communities understand resilience and identify their various threats, hazards, economic stresses and other potential shocks, including those resulting from climate change. The resilience workshops provided eligible applicants tools and concepts that helped them identify and assess their situation, engage with their communities, choose resilience building opportunities, and respond to Phase 1.

Rockefeller again is offering targeted support to Phase 2 applicants to help them develop and refine their project proposals.

The Rockefeller Foundation’s philanthropic and intellectual investments aim to help poor and vulnerable people by increasing the resilience of communities. The Foundation does this by helping people and communities prepare for, withstand, and emerge stronger from acute shocks and chronic stresses. The Rockefeller Foundation—and any other philanthropic organizations that might become involved—acts independently on these matters and not under HUD’s direction. The Rockefeller Foundation will not represent HUD and cannot give technical answers about how to respond to the NOFA.

Throughout the competition, applicants are urged to integrate environmental planning into the overall effort to the fullest extent possible. One of the cornerstones of the statutorily required environmental review process is public input. With attention, effective public input in Phase 1 and Phase 2 can contribute to the fulfillment of an applicant’s environmental review, including environmental justice responsibilities.

Applicants should also be aware that, to the extent Federal agencies may be involved in the environmental or historic preservation reviews for their proposed project, such as when other Federal funding would be combined with CDBG funding, applicants should look to engage these Federal agencies to coordinate these reviews under the Unified Federal Review (UFR) process. The UFR process is a recently established interagency effort to unify and expedite reviews for disaster recovery projects and HUD Responsible Entities are encouraged to participate in this coordination effort. Further, the required benefit-cost analysis (BCA) for Covered Projects (see Appendix H) both informs and is informed by the environmental review.

Any Applicant considering a project in the waters of the United States see www.epa.gov/cleanwaterrule for further details on applicability is strongly encouraged to conduct a permit pre-application meeting with the US Army Corps of Engineers prior to submitting a project proposal to it as part of the environmental permitting process. Integrating competition planning, environmental review, and the BCA requirements into consultation and input efforts will result in a better plan, faster completion of environmental review post-award, and a BCA more informed by all stakeholders.

The NOFA provides an overview of the competition process, including a brief time-line of when http://%20www.epa.gov/cleanwaterrule

The NOFA provides an overview of the competition process, including a brief time-line of when HUD intends to make awards. This is followed by a summary of the competition details, and then by the rating and ranking factors for Phases 1 and 2. Appendices provide additional details and instructions for applicants, as follows:

Appendix A – Program and Post-Award Requirements (requirement) Appendix B – List of Qualified Counties (informational) Appendix C – Phase 1 and Phase 2 Partner Letter (sample) Appendix D – Phase 2 Partner Agreement Terms (requirement) Appendix E – Phase 2 Instructions for Requesting Waivers (requirement) Appendix F – Phase 1 and Phase 2 Certifications (requirement) Appendix G – Phase 1 and Phase 2 Most Impacted and Distressed and Unmet Recovery Needs Criteria and Instructions (requirement) Appendix H – Phase 2 Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance for Covered Projects (guidance) Appendix I – Phase 1 and Phase 2 Consultation Summary (requirement) Appendix J – Phase 1 and Phase 2 Crosswalk Checklist (Table of Contents) (required submission)

Two-Phase Competition

Too often when designing a project to meet one exigent disaster recovery need, such as a damaged or destroyed sewer system, a community fails to consider other important needs the project could meet, or purposes it could serve. This is in part due to the rushed nature of disaster response and recovery, but also because too few community planning models exist to properly frame all the issues a project can and needs to solve. While your application must demonstrate a logical link to addressing Unmet Recovery Needs from the past disaster (also known as the “tie-back to the Qualified Disaster”), this NOFA instructs an Applicant to consider the full range of its community development objectives, and to design CDBG-DR projects to function well through reasonably foreseeable future conditions, including those related to climate change. Grantees are encouraged not to rebuild to meet past needs or threats, but to design recovery projects to create a more vital, resilient community for the present and future, taking into consideration changing threats and hazards, including those due to climate change. Moreover, particular emphasis should be given to the current and anticipated needs of vulnerable populations. The goal is to have projects that allow a community to withstand and recover more quickly from all future extreme events, shocks, or stresses.

Designing projects without putting substantial thought and effort into framing the complete range of unmet needs may lead to ineffective or wasteful use of scarce resources. Designing recovery solutions to be resilient only for threats and hazards related to the past disaster can leave a community vulnerable to negative effects from future extreme events related to other threats or hazards. When all risks are identified among other vulnerabilities during the project framing and design, project implementation can enhance protection and save lives, maximize the utility of scarce resources, and revitalize the community long after the recovery projects themselves are complete.

HUD s used Applicant responses to the Phase 1 factors (including a long-term commitment under Factor

5) to select evidence-driven proposals best positioned to result in effective, innovative and compliant resilient recovery projects. At the end of Phase 2, HUD will select projects that best achieve the goals of the competition. Note that in rating Phase 2 submissions, HUD will provide more points to applications from communities that commit to or demonstrate taking actions to improve long-term community resilience. In addition, HUD only invited an applicant to Phase 2 if it has at least committed to taking a permanent resilience-enhancing action.

Human understanding of complex problems often benefits from iterative thinking, in which a basic initial understanding grows as additional viewpoints or aspects are considered. Few problems confront us with more complexity than the effects of past, present, and future disasters on the interdependent physical, social, and economic aspects of human settlements and their greater surrounding environments, especially when that greater environment is changing. This competition is structured iteratively to guide each when that greater environment is changing. This competition is structured iteratively to guide each applicant through broad consideration in Phase 1 and reconsideration at a more granular level of detail in Phase 2 of its disaster recovery needs, vulnerabilities, stakeholder interests, resilience and other community development objectives, and investment alternatives.

Further, communities do not stand alone. A disaster affecting one community affects its neighbors.

Frequently, vulnerabilities for flooding, storms, and fires have regional risks and solutions. Protecting a community from threats and hazards often requires cooperation with neighboring jurisdictions, not just during response, but also throughout the protection, prevention, mitigation, and recovery, as well as through revitalization, maintenance, and evaluation process.

Standing at the beginning of Phase 1, 180 days for Phase 1 might have seemed like a long time.

Experience tells us this is barely enough time for gathering partners, conducting the required analysis, identifying and consulting with stakeholders, agreeing on an idea, making a commitment, drafting competition narratives and other responses, and carrying out the required citizen participation on the draft materials before submitting the application. Even a community that has already embarked on this work was likely to find the time-frame challenging.

Without the framing effort in Phase 1, 120 days for Phase 2 would be an impossibly short time for you to come up with and propose a specific major disaster recovery project and agree to enter into the long-term commitments expected of the highest scoring applications under this NOFA. Building on the work of Phase 1, applicants invited into Phase 2 will have fewer than 105 days to draw a compelling project and commitments out of their Phase 1 work, publish a draft submission to meet the required citizen-participation-before-submission-to-HUD that is a CDBG hallmark, and prepare a summary of comments before submitting the application to HUD for scoring.

You will begin your application considering the Unmet Recovery Needs (URN) in your most impacted and distressed (MID) areas. As you work through responses to the competition factors, you will need to not only consider that area’s needs, and existing and desired level of resilience, you will be asked to consider interdependency on a wider scale, and how regional needs and objectives and vulnerabilities can also be met in your overall NDRC proposal area.

Phase 1: Framing Unmet Recovery Needs, Vulnerabilities and Community Development Objectives (Closed). During Phase 1 (the framing phase) of this National Disaster Resilience Competition, applicants consulted with stakeholders, and comprehensively frame the recovery needs, relevant risks and vulnerabilities (current and future), and related community development opportunities in its target geographic area. Every fundable application had to first demonstrate a logical link, or tie-back, to addressing Unmet Recovery Needs stemming from the effects of the community’s presidentially declared major disaster from 2011, 2012, or 2013. The other objectives, needs, or issues a project would address were unique to the Applicant’s community. For example, a community that suffered a flood might want to offer flood buyouts and property acquisition in the most impacted and distressed areas, followed by restoration of a wetland to limit future flooding and provide a nature preserve or recreation area. A community that lost housing and a road during a mudslide might not only want to construct housing in a safer area for survivors but also to find a financing mechanism for affected ownstream businesses to survive the effects of the last event and be prepared for and recover more quickly from future hazards.

Once the community framed the recovery need(s), identified current and future risks and vulnerabilities and noted community development opportunities, the applicant had to identify and seek commitments from the public and private partners it needs to develop and implement a solution, and develop a high level implementation idea. The applicant’s responses in Phase 1 described this framing process and its results, identified the partners and other resources, and described the resulting resilient recovery concept or idea.

Phase 2: From Framing to Implementation. In the second phase of the competition (the implementation phase), the highest scoring applicants from the first phase are invited to fully articulate a resilience-enhancing disaster recovery or revitalization project or program that addresses as many of the Phase 1 identified risks, vulnerabilities, and community development opportunities as feasible and compete for implementation funding. The best projects will demonstrate how the proposal or project will help the community recover from the effects of the covered disaster, advance community development objectives such as economic revitalization AND improve the community’s ability to absorb or rapidly recover from the effects of a future extreme event, stress, threat, hazard, or other shocks. The proposed Phase 2 project may be a pilot for the overall Phase 1 solution, may be limited to the CDBG-NDR-eligible portion of a Phase 1 concept that would benefit a larger geography than the most impacted and distressed target area, or a stand-alone portion of a project idea envisaged in Phase 1 that may take years or decades to completely realize. In any case, the Phase 2 project must not be contingent on actions outside the scope of the project to provide a defined level of protection against the threat(s) and hazard(s) identified, meet a CDBG-NDR national objective, or comply with requirements of this NOFA, including Appendix A. The applicant will be asked to explain how the Phase 2 proposal arises logically from the Phase 1 framing.

In Phase 2, each applicant will complete a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) for any Covered Project(s).

Although the required completion of a BCA is new to CDBG-DR, Rebuild by Design competitors completed BCAs and the analysis process helped improve the final proposals. FEMA and DOT also employ BCAs in reviewing applications for major projects, and cost efficiency analysis is employed in reviews of environmental impact and consideration of alternatives. This CDBG-NDR BCA will provide a sense of the cost efficiency of the proposal, but the BCA score will not be used alone to determine soundness of approach. HUD recognizes that the benefits and costs may be difficult or impossible to comprehensively quantify, but, regardless of a proposed project’s scale, HUD will not fund any Phase 2 activities for which the benefits to the applicant’s community and to the United States as a whole are not demonstrated by the evidence submitted to justify the costs. Appendix H provides guidance on completing an acceptable BCA. Note that quantifying or otherwise accounting for social and ecological benefits and costs is a critical component, as is consideration of all related resources, including leverage, and the benefits and costs of long-term commitments under Factor 5.

Some of the resources provided to CDBG grantees to support completion of the environmental reviews required under 24 CFR part 58 may also be useful sources of information for a benefit-cost analysis.

Consideration of these resources at an early stage may help speed the required environmental reviews.

Applicants are strongly encouraged to integrate general and project planning with the environmental review process, and should coordinate these reviews under the Unified Federal Review (UFR) process, where possible and as appropriate. The applicant can use public outreach meetings not only to seek Phase 1 planning input and Phase 2 project comments or to meet the consultation requirement of this NOFA, but also to inform the public about environmental effects of different design approaches or of a proposed project and its alternatives. Examples of required outreach include scoping for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), notices and evaluation in compliance with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 (the 8-step decision process for floodplain management and wetlands protection), and consultation for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The applicant should have an engagement plan that includes strategies to ensure that vulnerable and under served populations are involved in the planning and decision-making processes. This informs decision-makers of the widest possible range of needs and options. Meaningful engagement and participation ensures the highest probability of success for all stakeholders.

In both phases, HUD is requiring thoughtful, evidence-based practice, incorporating consideration of the latest findings regarding the range of possible effects of climate change and other risks on the target geography during the useful life of any proposed project. Many of the communities eligible to apply have already been subject to repetitive or increasingly severe disaster events and their community and regional plans, built environment, building codes, and design/construction practices may not yet have adjusted to enhance community resilience to expected threat(s) and hazard(s) based on the best available data and science. Planning for an investment in a structure or improvement intended to endure and remain in service through its useful life must involve detailed consideration of the context in which the structure will be placed: the expected intensity and frequency of wind, rain, fire, flooding, snow loads, earthquake, drought conditions, and effects of climate change, for example and as relevant, should all influence community investment and policy decisions.

States and local governments are strongly encouraged to take or commit to resilience-enhancing actions to protect their communities from threat(s) and hazard(s), as well as to ensure the useful life of their projects under changing conditions, including future risk caused by climate change. Taking or committing to actions will enhance the competitiveness of Phase 1 and 2 proposals. HUD only invited an applicant to Phase 2 if it has at least committed to taking a permanent resilience-enhancing action, and HUD will award points in Phase 2 to applicants that have or will implement significant resilience-enhancing action(s), such as updating state and local building codes, zoning, hazard mitigation, consolidated or comprehensive plans (including area-specific plans), and other ordinances or matters within the span of control of the Applicant and public sector Partners. Such improvements may include coordination or merger of local plans or requirements in a way that will clearly enhance resilience, such as hazard mitigation assessments and plans incorporated into forward-looking comprehensive plans updated to consider future impacts from climate change. Only significant updates made or major actions taken after the date of the Qualified Disaster may be considered in responding to Factor 5. If such changes are planned for completion within one year of grant award, you may include them in this factor only if you also submit as an attachment to your application a hard commitment to complete the changes by a specified date (see the Long-term Commitment Factor of Phase 2 for detail). Applicants must identify leveraging funds to pay for costs attributable to any portion of a proposed project (including any mitigating action) that is not necessary to meet Unmet Recovery Needs in the most impacted and distressed area resulting from a Qualified Disaster.

Eligible Applicants. Eligible applicants in Phase 1 were states with Qualified Disasters and units of general local government who received CDBG-DR funding from HUD for disasters occurring in 2011-2013 (including grantees under prior disaster recovery supplemental funding)—a total of 67 potential applicants (See Appendix B for a List of Eligible Applicants). HUD is setting aside $181,000,000 for applications serving Hurricane Sandy Qualified Disasters in the States of New York and New Jersey and in New York City due to the catastrophic level of damage caused in those areas from Hurricane Sandy and tropical storms in 2011. Note that HUD reserves the right to fund applications out of rank order to ensure geographic diversity of funding. For the same reason, HUD also reserves the right to partially fund an application(s). To ensure HUD has complete understanding on how to scale down projects, each Phase 2 applicant must identify any phasing or scalability inherent in its proposal. Those invited to submit applications for Phase 2 should develop proposals with scalable options to the degree possible and practicable, and must ensure that each component proposed for CDBG-NDR funding has independent utility.

Successful completion of Phase 1 was a threshold requirement for eligible applicants for Phase 2.

Summary of Competition Details. For Phase 1, HUD sought applications from the 67 eligible applicants.

The NOFA includes criteria and deadlines for both this initial “framing” phase and the later “implementation” phase of the competition. Applicants had approximately 180 days from the NOFA publication to complete the framing process and to submit initial proposals stating in general terms the applicant’s vulnerability(ies), issue(s), community development objectives, team (meaning the Applicant, all partners and any other supporting entities), required threshold items, known obstacles, substantial consultation and citizen engagement (particularly with affected and vulnerable populations), and general information about unmet recovery needs (as defined in more detail in the sections below).

After the 180 day deadline, HUD reviewed, rated and provided detailed comments on each initial application that met all threshold requirements. Then HUD ranked the applications by score and selected the qualifying applicants for Phase 2 application round.

Phase 1 Applicants that are not invited to continue to Phase 2, but have met all thresholds, submitted

Phase 1 Applicants that are not invited to continue to Phase 2, but have met all thresholds, submitted a complete application, and demonstrated unmet disaster recovery needs in Phase 1 by scoring at least 15 of the Phase 1 Need Factor points and at least 65 of the overall Phase 1 points, will be invited by HUD to submit an Action Plan for Disaster Recovery (see Authority section below for discussion of the Action Plan requirement) in accordance with an allocation Notice published in the Federal Register after the invitation. This Action Plan may include CDBG-DR activities totaling up to $2.5 million (for applicants that are not current CDBG-DR grantees under P.L. 113-2) or $500,000 (for applicants that are current grantees under P.L. 113-2) or the total amount of demonstrated unmet needs, whichever is less, and may include reimbursement for planning and general administration costs associated with completion of the Phase 1 application (unless these were indicated as leverage in the application), subject to applicable limitations in Appendix A. HUD will award up to $30 million to such Applicants. Any reserve pool funds not awarded at this stage will be allocated in a similar manner following Phase 2 to any applicants meeting the same criteria based on Phase 2 submission information and point minimums.

After HUD provides comments on the initial Phase 1 submissions, each continuing applicant will have approximately 120 days in Phase 2 to develop a final submission. HUD will consider Soundness of Approach, Needs, Capacity, Leverage, and Long-term Commitment at this phase. Note that leverage in this phase may include traditional financial and in-kind contributions, but must also include the applicant undertaking supporting actions locally (e.g., building code updates, executive orders, zoning revisions, comprehensive and mitigation plan linkages, inter-agency partnerships, financing mechanisms, or completing and adopting a forward-looking community-wide resilience assessment and plan) that will better position the Applicant to be more resilient to future threat(s) and hazard(s).

Following submission of the Phase 2 applications, HUD and federal agency partners will review, rate, and rank the applications in accordance with the published criteria. HUD will then determine and announce Phase 2 awards. HUD will consider for funding any complete Phase 2 application that meets all thresholds and receives at least 75 percent of the total points available in Phase 2.

The applicable post-award requirements are included in Appendix A to this NOFA. These post-award grant management requirements are, insofar as feasible, identical to those imposed under the Notices published for grants made under the formula P.L. 113-2 allocations.

B. Authority.

The funding authority for CDBG-NDR grants under this NOFA is provided by the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-2, signed into law January 29, 2013) (Appropriations Act) which made available $16 billion in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and housing, and economic revitalization in the most impacted and distressed areas resulting from a major disaster declared pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) (Stafford Act), due to Hurricane Sandy and other eligible events in calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013. All capitalized terms in this NOFA are defined in the Definitions section or later in the document.

On March 1, 2013, the President issued a sequestration order pursuant to section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as amended (2 U.S.C. 901a), and reduced funding for CDBG-DR grants under the Appropriations Act to $15.18 billion. To date, a total of approximately $14.1 billion has been allocated -- $13 billion in response to Hurricane Sandy, and Tropical Storms Irene and Lee, $514 million in response to disasters occurring in 2011 or 2012, and $654 million in response to other 2013 disasters. The Appropriations Act requires funds to be awarded directly to a State or unit of general local government (hereinafter, local government), and the term “grantee” (as defined below) refers to any jurisdiction receiving a direct award from HUD.

To comply with statutory direction that CDBG-NDR funds be used for disaster-related expenses in the most impacted and distressed areas related to the Qualified Disaster, HUD is requiring that applicants address unmet needs in counties identified by HUD as “most impacted and distressed,” as identified in Appendix G, or use other data approved by HUD in Appendix G to demonstrate that the proposed in Appendix G, or use other data approved by HUD in Appendix G to demonstrate that the proposed target area is most impacted and distressed as a result of the effects of the Qualified Disaster.

The Appropriations Act requires funds to be used only for specific disaster recovery related purposes. The law also requires that prior to the obligation of CDBG-DR funds, a grantee shall submit a plan detailing the proposed use of funds, including criteria for eligibility and how the use of these funds will address disaster relief, long-term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and housing, and economic revitalization in the most impacted and distressed areas. This plan is an Action Plan for Disaster Recovery (Action Plan).

For Applicants selected to move on to Phase 2, the Applicant’s Phase 1 and Phase 2 submissions for this competition together constitute an Action Plan as required under P.L. 113-2. Appendix A of this Notice implements other requirements of the Appropriations Act and terms of the grant.

This Notice also applies elements of the Hurricane Sandy Task Force’s Rebuilding Strategy to support grantee efforts to build back stronger and more resilient through integrating comprehensive planning and investment in meaningful efforts in their recovery and revitalization. The Task Force was established by Executive Order 13632 (published in the Federal Register at 77 FR 74341) to: (1) ensure government-wide and region-wide coordination was available to assist communities make decisions about long-term rebuilding, and (2) develop a comprehensive rebuilding strategy.

The Appropriations Act requires that funds be expended within two years of the date HUD obligates funds to a grantee, and funds are obligated to a grantee upon HUD’s signing of a grantee’s CDBG-DR grant agreement. In its Action Plan, a grantee must demonstrate how funds will be fully expended within two years of obligation and HUD must obligate all funds not later than September 30, 2017. For any funds that the grantee projects will not be expended by the deadline and that it desires to retain, the grantee must submit a letter to HUD, in accordance with requirements of Appendix E and not less than 30 days in advance of the deadline, justifying why it is necessary to extend the deadline for a specific portion of funds. Phase 2 applicants must submit extension requests with their applications if the project schedule submitted for Factor 3 extends beyond 24 months from award.

Allowable costs for CDBG-NDR funds under this appropriation include only those necessary expenses to meet the unmet recovery needs of the most impacted and distressed target area(s), but once the necessary tie-back is established for a project, it may be designed to also meet other community development objectives and economic revitalization needs, including greater resilience to negative effects of climate change. Under this competition, HUD is, however, awarding points for leverage, long-term commitment, and regional coordination. The most competitive proposals will bring other resources and commitment to bear to enhance resilience beyond the most impacted and distressed target areas with unmet recovery needs (MID-URN target areas) allowed for the CDBG-NDR fund source.

C. Definitions.

For purposes of the CDBG-NDR program, the following definitions of key terms apply. As needed, other definitions relevant to specific thresholds and rating factors will be provided in those sections of the NOFA. In general, terms are defined as they are under the CDBG program, either for entitlements or States, as applicable.

1. Applicant. Applicant means one of 40 States and local governments identified by HUD as an “eligible applicant” and invited to Phase 2 of this competition, submits certifications required of applicants by this NOFA, agrees to serve as the entity responsible for implementing the activities identified in the application, and, if selected for an award, signs the Grant Agreement.

2. CDBG, CDBG-DR, CDBG-NDR. CDBG means the annual Community Development Block Grant program as authorized by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and its regulations as codified in 24 CFR part 570. CDBG-DR refers to grants previously made pursuant to one of several emergency supplemental CDBG appropriations, as administered by HUD under requirements published in a series of Federal Register Notices. In the abbreviation, “DR” refers to “disaster recovery.” CDBG-NDR refers to the funds for which you are competing under this NOFA.

In the abbreviation, “NDR” refers to “national disaster resilience”.

3. CDBG funds. CDBG funds is a defined term at 24 CFR 570.3, and includes any CDBG-DR funds and CDBG-NDR funds. The terms CDBG-DR funds and CDBG-NDR funds are terms referring grant funds made available by CDBG-DR or CDBG-NDR awards, respectively.

4. Covered Project. A major infrastructure project having an estimated total cost of $50 million or more (including at least $10 million of CDBG–DR or CDBG-NDR funds), or benefiting multiple counties.

Additionally, two or more related infrastructure projects that have a combined total cost of $50 million or more (including at least $10 million total of CDBG–DR, or CDBG-NDR funds) must be designated as major infrastructure projects.

5. Grantee. An Applicant that receives a CDBG National Disaster Resilience award directly from HUD to carry out an activity to address an Unmet Recovery Need. The term Grantee does not include subrecipients. An Applicant becomes a Grantee after the grant agreement is signed by HUD. The Grantee is the sole entity that will have access to HUD’s Line of Credit Control System (LOCCS) through the Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting (DRGR) system to draw down CDBG-NDR funding. Under P.L.

113-2, although Partners may assist in carrying out CDBG-NDR projects, the Grantee remains legally and financially accountable for the use of all funds and amay not delegate or contract to any other party any inherently governmental responsibilities related to management of the funds, such as oversight, policy development, and financial management (Also see Appendix A).

6. Livability Principles. Livability principles jointly adopted by HUD, EPA and DOT to support federal neighborhood and community development initiatives. The Livability Principles are as follows: provide more transportation choices; promote equitable, affordable housing; enhance economic competitiveness; support existing communities; coordinate and leverage federal policies and investment; and value communities and neighborhoods. For further information, see http://sustainabl ecommunities.gov./.

7. Most Impacted and Distressed. This term is defined in Appendix G. The term will not be capitalized throughout this NOFA. This term is sometimes shortened to “MID.”

8. Partner. Partner means a State, unit of local government, a nonprofit entity, a private developer, a financial institution, or other entity chosen by the Applicant to assist the Applicant in applying for funding or in carrying out a funding award or project under this NOFA, and which submits a letter of intent to assist in that capacity, and which may be referenced by the Applicant for purposes of demonstrating additional capacity for planning, design, financing, or implementation in applying for funding under this NOFA. See section on submission requirements to demonstrate commitment of Partner.

9. President’s Climate Action Plan. In June 2013, the Administration released the President’s Climate Action Plan, a series of executive actions to (1) Cut Carbon Pollution in America, (2) Prepare the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change, and (3) Lead International Efforts to Combat Global Climate Change and Prepare for its Impacts. For full text of the plan and further detail, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/climate-change .

10. Resilience Guidelines of Sandy Task Force The two overarching infrastructure-related goals of the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force were to ensure all Federal actions, policies, and resources work together to foster a quick and effective recovery from Hurricane Sandy and to encourage investment in systems and assets that ensures the region is better prepared to both withstand and recover from future disasters. The Task Force created Infrastructure Resilience Guidelines to lead to decisions that better protect communities and ensure wise investment of scarce public resources. The seven guidelines are: (1) Comprehensive Analysis; (2) Transparent and Inclusive Decision Process; (3) Regional Resilience; (4) Long-Term Efficacy and Fiscal Sustainability; (5) Environmentally Sustainable and Innovative Solutions;

(6) Targeted Financial Incentives; and (7) Adherence to Resilience Performance Standards. http://portal .hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=hsrebuildingstrategy.pdf.

http://sustainablecommunities.gov./ http://sustainablecommunities.gov./ http://www.whitehouse.gov/climate-change http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=hsrebuildingstrategy.pdf http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=hsrebuildingstrategy.pdf

11. Project. A project is an activity or a group of integrally related activities designed to accomplish one or more specific community development objectives in whole or in part. Note that “project” is not a term defined in the CDBG program regulations, which describe eligible “activity” types, although it is defined under the environmental review regulations at 24 CFR 58.2(a)(4). For the purposes of this NOFA, a focus on projects rather than activities better integrates program requirements with the terminology and requirements related to environmental review and the benefit-cost analysis, each of which consider the positive and negative effects of an integrally related set of actions. Adopting this definition is part of an overall strategy in this NOFA to encourage use of the terms compatible with environmental review requirements and ensure more comprehensive planning consideration and faster launch post-award.

12. Qualified Disaster. A “qualified disaster” is a major disaster declared pursuant to the Robert T.

Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) due to Hurricane Sandy and other eligible events in calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013. See Appendix B for a list of Qualified Disasters.

13. Resilience. The ability to anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to changing conditions and withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly from disruptions.(For purposes of this NOFA, an “incident,” “stress,” or “shock” is a disruption similar to but less severe than a Presidentially declared major disaster or emergency.