quality assurance process nepa assignment ... - transportation
TRANSCRIPT
Quality Assurance Process
State DOTs CE Processes Scan
Approvals Delegated to “Districts” by other Assigned State DOTs
Detailed Review Fall 2019
Kelly Dunlap Leading Effort
NEPA AssignmentProcess ReviewCalifornia Participant:
Jennifer Gillies, Chief, Office of Biological Studies
Scan of State DOTs NEPA CE Processes
• Most states do combine the equivalent of our CE Form and CE Checklist- Preliminary Environmental Study Form
• Some states have different forms for local assistance (off-system) versus capital (on-system) projects
• Most states have shortened forms/processes for certain CEs, mostly “c list” CEs
• Mass DOT has a combined CE form that also has a section for reevaluation to ease the future process
NEPA Assignment (23 USC 327) Approvals Delegated to “Districts” by State
tate EISs EAs CEs Section 4(f) What Agency Coordination is Delegated to District/Field?
Other Notes
California None Routine All De MinimisProgrammatics
Review Individual
All—HQ has Section 106 PA role
Texas None None All None HQ has Section 106 PA role and active role in Section 7 consultation
In an effort to streamline, HQ reviews technical studies; parallel HQ/District QA reviews
Florida None None Some None HQ involved in mitigation aspects of Section 7 consultation; HQ has Section 106 PA role
Alaska None None Some None HQ reviews submittals for Section 7; Section 404 individual permits approved by HQ other 404s HQ reviews
Ohio None None Some None HQ does all federal agency consultation, permits
Legal review of complex EAs and EISs, including the Feasibility Study and/or Alternative Evaluation Report
Utah None None Some None UnclearArizona (applying)
None None Some None Unclear—draft application just says “ADOT”
Lake and Streambed Alteration Notification
Quality Improvements
Caltrans & California Department of Fish and Wildlife Joint Mission Statement
Environmental professionals collaborating to create a thriving California ecosystem; one that enhances the lives and mobility of its citizens while protecting and
preserving the state's abundant natural resources.
Process is Owned by both AgenciesPartnership Agreement
LEAN 6-SIGMA PROGRAM | CALTRANS
August 2019
The Imperative
• Driving Forces• New U.S. Infrastructure Spending • Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB1) • Permitting Task Force (AB 1282 )• GO Biz (Governor’s Office of Business and Economic
Development) and Lean Six Sigma
• Planned increases in projects will increase our current project delivery and permitting efficiency needs
2
LEAN 6-SIGMA PROGRAM | CALTRANS
• Problem: 51% of 1600 Notification Applications were deemed incomplete by CDFW; requiring rework and schedule delays.
• Goal: 95% first-pass application acceptance
• Improvements:Standardized ChecklistPeer Review of all 1600 NotificationsPermit Coordinator Units/PositionsEarly Coordination and Pre-application MeetingsCDFW Office Hours Formal Incomplete Letters from CDFWTraining Modules
Lean Six Sigma Project Summary
LEAN 6-SIGMA PROGRAM | CALTRANS
• Control Phase• September 2018 – never ending
• Shift to Automate Data Pull• Strengthen data from both agencies being targeted
• Current Rate is 80% • Goal is still 95%
Lean Six Sigma Continuous Improvement
LEAN 6-SIGMA PROGRAM | CALTRANS
Thank You!
5
LEAN 6-SIGMA PROGRAM | CALTRANS
Categorical Exclusions: Promoting Innovation on Design Build Projects
Environmental Process SubcommitteeAugust 6, 2019
SCDOT’s Design Build Program
Project Examples
SC 277 NB over Interstate 77
US 1 over Interstate 20 Bridge Replacement and Interchange Improvements
Challenges
• Large PSA• Up front costs potentially higher but savings on design
changes that impact PSA later• Public Involvement• Need a champion at FHWA• Ensuring range of alternatives qualify for processing as CE• Resource agency coordination (environmental constraints)
Lessons Learned• Be sure prep team is clear and on board with approach
• Clear entire PSA for environmental consequences
• Clearly state in RFP what expectations are from DB teams
Benefits• Allows for multiple alternatives • Provides DB contractor flexibility with design options• Promotes innovation and best value• Potentially reduces need for a re-evaluation
Questions?Chad C. LongSCDOT – Director of Environmental [email protected]
Will McGoldrickSCDOT – Design Build [email protected]