2018 Solicitation, review, and ranking process for oversight remedial action grants

Local governments provided information on cleanup projects within their jurisdiction following Ecology’s solicitation requests in February and March 2018. 
 
This information helped us determine a project’s eligibility and funding priority for a Remedial Action Grant (RAG). It also allowed us to document all projects in the Model Toxics Control Accounts Ten-Year Financing Report 2018 and identify some projects in Ecology’s 2019–21 biennial budget request to the Governor.
 
For local governments, responding to the request offered two benefits: it’s an opportunity to alert Washington state to your cleanup funding needs over the next ten years, and you can more efficiently finalize your grant application if the Legislature funds the project.
 
The information we received from local governments — both their total funding need and cleanup site information — was “self-reported.” This means that, in most cases, we did not require or provide documentation that supports their solicitation responses. Ecology’s cleanup project managers reviewed the solicited information and updated any self-reported data with more current or additional information we knew about the site.

Cleanup project managers also provided Ecology-specific information. For example, we noted whether Ecology had assigned a cleanup project manager to oversee the cleanup, which is one component of a project’s readiness to proceed. After cleanup project managers completed their review, Ecology’s regional section managers reviewed the applications and requested funding amounts.

We grouped all projects into three categories according to the funding priorities outlined in the RAG rule, WAC 173-322A-210.

• Priority #1: Extended grant agreements. Oversight remedial action grants and loans under an existing extended grant agreement are first priority under the rule. For the 2019–21 Biennium, this category did not include any projects, because Ecology has not entered into any extended grant agreements at this time.
• Priority #2: Site assessment grants and other remedial action grants and loans for previously funded projects, provided substantial progress has been made. This category includes any ongoing projects that have been receiving RAG funding. Site assessments are not a grant category that were considered for funding for the 2019–21 Biennium.
• Priority #3: Remedial action grants and loans for new projects.

Scores were based on both the local governments’ self-reported information supplied in the application and Ecology’s cleanup project manager review. Ecology assigned scores to the eight funding priority factors based on responses to specific questions, depending on the type of grant for which a local government was applying. Response options were limited to radio buttons, checkboxes, and short comment fields, which allowed for straight comparison. The responses received scores ranging from 0 – 3 points depending on the point value of the individual question. The eight funding priority factors were then normalized so each equaled 1.0. 
 
For example, if a project under Factor #1 (described below) received 27 out of 27 possible funding priority factor points, it received 1.0 total point. If it received 20 out of 27 possible funding priority factor points, it received 0.74 of a point.

Factor #1: The threat posed by the hazardous waste site to human health and the environment. (27 possible funding priority factor points: 27/27 = 1.0 total point possible)

2.0	Uncontained contaminants
2.1	Contaminants that exhibit high mobility
2.2	Highly permeable soil or site is within a floodplain
2.3	Acutely toxic contaminants
2.4	Impact to water resources used for crop irrigation
2.5	A drinking water well or sole-source aquifer is within one mile of site boundaries
2.6	A designated sensitive environment or fishery resource is within one mile of site boundaries
2.7	A well head protection zone is within one mile of site boundaries
2.8	Surface and groundwater impacts and (only one applies):
	Serves 4,999 people or fewer (1 point)
	Serves more than 5,000 people (2 points)
	Serves more than 10,000 people (3 points)
	Unknown or none of the above apply (0 points)
Note:	Factor #1 was titled 2.0 - 2.8 in the 1921 Opportunity Evaluation Scorecard.

Factor #2: The hazardous waste site land reuse potential. (36 possible funding priority factor points: 36/36 = 1.0 total point possible)

4.0	Located within an incorporated city, town or urban growth area designated under RCW 36.70A.110
4.1	Vacant, abandoned, or underutilized former industrial or commercial facility
4.2	Availability of urban infrastructure (water, sewer, other utilities, public transit)
4.3	Meets the goals of local government planning documents at the time of redevelopment
4.4	Opportunity for significant fish/wildlife habitat restoration and/or other conservation benefits
4.5	Considers climate change projections (sea-level rise, extreme weather events, wildfires, etc.)
4.6	Identified purchaser, developer, operator, or lessee when redeveloped
4.7	Incorporates other sustainability measures (LEED certification, stormwater/flood management, low-water landscaping, etc.)
4.8	Only one applies:
	Does not provide public access/public benefit (0 points)
	Mixed use (both public access/public benefit and private) (2 points)
	Solely provides a public access/public benefit (park, museum, library) (3 points)
4.9	Only one applies:
	Does not preserve or provide affordable housing (0 points)
	Preserves affordable housing stock when redeveloped (1 point)
	Provides some additional affordable housing stock when redeveloped (2 points)
	Solely provides affordable housing stock when redeveloped (3 points)
4.10	Does this project demonstrate a clear vision for future use of the property?
4.11	MTCA Method A or B cleanup (3 points); unknown cleanup method (1 point)
Note:	Factor #2 was titled 4.0 - 4.11 in the 1921 Opportunity Evaluation Scorecard.

Factor #3: The local government is a prospective purchaser of a brownfield property within a Redevelopment Opportunity Zone. (3 possible funding priority factor points: 3/3 = 1.0 total point possible)
Note: Factor #3 was titled 5.0 in the 1921 Opportunity Evaluation Scorecard.

Factor #4: The ability of the grant to expedite cleanup of the hazardous waste site. (6 possible funding priority factor points: 6/6 = 1.0 total point possible)

6.0	Only one applies:
	Can't start without funds (3 points)
	Started but can't be expeditiously completed without additional funds (3 points)
	Stopped, and it can't continue without funds (3 points)
	None of the above apply (0 points)
6.1	Has the applicant provided documents or information demonstrating that a lack of local funding or ability to obtain financing is significantly delaying the cleanup and subsequent use, sale, or redevelopment of the site?
Note:	Factor #4 was titled 6.0 – 6.1 in the 1921 Opportunity Evaluation Scorecard.

Factor #5: The readiness of the applicant to start and complete the work. (51 possible funding priority factor points: 51/51 = 1.0 total point possible)

7.0	The cleanup demonstrates a readiness to proceed based on below conditions met (0=0; 3-12=1; 15-24=2; 27-36=3):
7.0	Obtained legal access to the site
7.0	Contracts are in place to launch (such as public works)
7.0	Environmental consultant is hired
7.0	Required state, local, or federal permits are in hand
7.0	Order or decree is signed
7.0	Order or decree is in process
7.0	A local executive or legislative body has acted (such as approvals from city council or port commission, etc.)
7.0	Matching funds are secured and ready to be spent, if local match or non-state funding is being used
7.0	Draft workplans are complete
7.0	Local government/staff project manager identified
7.0	All potentially liable persons (PLPs) have been identified
7.0	All PLPs have been notified
7.1	Ecology cleanup manager (site manager) assigned
7.1	Public comment period scheduled or completed
7.1	Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study complete
7.3	Section manager discussed a proposal or potential scope of work with applicant
Note:	Factor #5 was titled 7.0 – 7.3 in the 1921 Opportunity Evaluation Scorecard.

Factor #6: The ability of the grant to leverage other public or private funding. (15 possible funding priority factor points: 15/15 = 1.0 total point possible)

8.0	A public/private partnership is in place
8.0	Local infrastructure project(s) are planned to serve the redeveloped area (public transit, roads, etc.)
8.0	The recipient has a large local investment that reduces match or expands the scope of work beyond that funded by the grant
8.0	The recipient has submitted grant applications for other funding
8.0	Other grants they would receive are contingent upon this funding
Note:	Factor #6 was titled 8.0 in the 1921 Opportunity Evaluation Scorecard.

Factor #7: The distribution of grants throughout the state and to various types and sizes of local governments. (3 possible funding priority factor points: 3/3 = 1.0 total point possible)
Based on the geographic distribution of potential projects in this solicitation, we gave an additional point to projects in eastern Washington and small, rural communities in southwest Washington to ensure a statewide distribution of funded projects and a distribution to varying sizes and types of governments.
Note: Factor #7 was titled 9.0 in the 1921 Opportunity Evaluation Scorecard.

Factor #8: The hazardous waste site is located within a highly impacted community. (5 possible funding priority factor points: 5/5 = 1.0 total point possible)
This was calculated using EPA’s 2017 EJScreen tool analysis.
Note: Factor #8 was titled 10.0 in the 1921 Opportunity Evaluation Scorecard.

Final Score on the EAGL Evaluation Summary form is the sum of total points possible in Factors 1 through 8.
 
Rank on the EAGL Evaluation Summary form reports how the project’s Final Score ranked. Regardless of Final Score, however, previously funded projects rank higher than new projects.
 
Total Score is not a weighted value for each funding priority factor of 1.0 total point possible because EAGL could not calculate that. The Total Score reported on the EAGL Evaluation Summary form, therefore, is a sum of all values entered for the responses to questions in the Evaluation Scorecard without weighting applied.