ALERT: All Ecology business operations are closed for furlough on Sept. 25. All offices remain closed to walk-in service due to COVID-19.
Local governments who applied for an Safe Drinking Water Action Grant in 2018 can use the information on this page to understand their final score, rank, and total score in EAGL, Ecology's Administration of Grants and Loans system.
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.
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 five 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 five funding priority factors were then normalized so each equaled 1.0.
For example, if a project under Factor #1 (described below) received 30 out of 30 possible funding priority factor points, it received 1.0 total point. If it received 20 out of 30 possible funding priority factor points, it received 0.67 of a point.
Factor #1: The threat posed by the hazardous waste site to human health and the environment. (30 possible funding priority factor points: 30/30 = 1.0 total point possible)