27-29 Cleanup Grant Updates

Comment From: Carly Michiels, WPPA

12/14/25 @ 10:25 PM

Attachments:

Comment From: jeff stern

12/14/25 @ 10:03 PM

The proposed change to limit staff time for grant administration is appropriate and the limit proposed is fair. However to extend the staff limit to other aspects of reimbursable expenses is unfair to larger organizations that have internal expert s...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Ali Cochrane

12/14/25 @ 6:00 PM

Please see attached file.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Katie Byrnes

12/14/25 @ 2:23 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: John McCorkle

12/13/25 @ 9:17 AM

Comment 1: The Proposed ORAG Scorecard Scoring Framework Appears to Minimize Scores For Risk to Human Health and the Environment

In the new ORAG Scoring Framework, similar to the 2025-2027 framework, it is clear that the critically important goal t...↓o incorporate scoring elements to prioritize sites to reduce health burdens to vulnerable populations and overburdened communities has been achieved. However, the specific scoring approach proposed appears to weigh the location of a site (relative to highly impacted communities) too heavily relative to the actual risk associated with a cleanup project. This appears inconsistent with a goal of reducing risks to human health and the environment overall, and to in particular to those communities that may score just below the threshold in the proposed scoring matrix. For instance, a community ranking an "8" in the equitable distribution scoring categories would receive zero points for those category items (of 40 possible points). This could create scenarios in which sites with high risks to human health and the environment as determined by SHARP scoring would receive no funding, even if they do rate relatively high in Equitable distribution scores; while sites with low risks that are located in a "9" scoring category are prioritized even though ability to reduce the cumulative risk to impacted communities could be lower.

A more appropriate scoring framework could include, in Category 3, some proportion of points available for rankings of less than 9 rather than the current "all or nothing" approach, similar to other scoring categories. Additionally, in Scoring Category 2, "Critical" and "High" risk sites could be weighed much more heavily – these are sites where efforts can "move the needle" for communities much more effectively, and often include sites with sediment or surface water issues that transcend census tracts and impact entire communities that rely on bodies of water that fall outside of those tracts.

Comment 2: Numerical Scoring using the SHARP Tool Appears Unclear

The SHARP reports that I have reviewed have several scores presented on their dashboards. These scores are typically depicted as "Critical," "High", "Medium", and "Low"; with specific media scores of a letter (from A to D) and a single number (from 1 to 4). In the 2025-2027 ORAG scoring criteria, scores were assessed on the overall risk of "Critical," "High," "Medium," or "Low." It is unclear to me how these values can be translated into the numerical score shown in the new proposed ORAG scoring framework. Where are the new numerical rating points (from 0 to 3,500 as described in this update document) shown on the SHARP report and how are they derived?

No attachments

Comment From: Ben Howard

12/12/25 @ 3:59 PM

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the 2027-29 Cleanup Grant Updates. Please see the attachment for the Port of Bellingham comments.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Adam LeMieux

12/12/25 @ 3:49 PM

The Port of Everett appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed 2027–29 Cleanup Grant Updates. We offer the following comments:

1. Ensure Fishing Areas are Adequately Prioritized
Many port-related cleanups occur in navigable waters, riv...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Maggie Yuse

12/12/25 @ 12:14 PM

Please see attached memo. Thank you.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Robert Healy

12/12/25 @ 10:53 AM

Please see uploaded comment letter. A hard copy has been mailed to Ecology headquarters.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Joan Sieverkropp

12/10/25 @ 2:39 PM

Grant County agrees with prioritizing Eastern Washington projects for at least 25% of the funds from the new oversight Remedial Action grant budget. This ensures that projects east of the Cascades are funded and ensures a statewide cleanup program. ...↓

While Grant County agrees with limiting reimbursement of recipients for administration to 10% of the grant or $100,000, whichever is less, the County believes staff time to perform work that would otherwise be done by a consultant or a sub consultant should be allowed on a case by case basis because it saves money for both for the State and the recipient. For example, Grant County has hired a permanent in-house technician who was able to make pipe repairs and perform many other tasks that would have otherwise required a consultant to drive to the clean-up site to take readings and monitor the system. For example, during July through September 2025, the technician and landfill laborers performed necessary work and Grant County charged about $5,830. Please see the attachment for the description of work and associated cost. In most instances, the Grant County employees performed the work in a minimal amount of time. On the other hand, if the consultant had to drive to the grant site, they would charge transportation costs, labor for travel, and labor to perform the actual work. In some instances, the consultant would have likely had to stay for several days while monitoring the system, which would have resulted in per-diem and lodging costs as well. The consultant would also charge several hours each day for the project. Depending on which consultant employee performs the work, the consultant would charge an hourly rate between $133 to $193. Please note that Grant County only charges a minimal amount for administration.

While Grant County sees the value in limiting Remedial Action Grant funding for recipients that have at least some funding available for extension into the next biennium, giving zero points to recipients who may only have a small amount of funds available for the next biennium, seems harsh. Instead of only including scoring tiers of 8 and 0 points, it would be beneficial to include an additional tier for potential recipients who may only have funding left for less than a year.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Snohomish County Airport Anonymous

12/04/25 @ 2:48 PM

Category 1.3
7 points: JARPA is required and in hand for the project. (Comment, all permits in hand should also be listed here due to no barrier to conduct the work.)
3 points: Required permits are in process. (Comment, move this to 5-point categor...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Test Test

11/25/25 @ 5:02 PM

Just testing to see the user experience.

No attachments