Program Protocols
Summary of Notable Changes
Chapter
Change
1-9
Version 1.1 – Submitted (May 19, 2014)
Chapter
Change
1-9
Chapter 2, Section III. F
Review for Completeness: Included PAMS PIN step as part of the Program Manager’s process for the SBL, NCR and NEP programs.
Chapter 2, Section III. G
Task Order Creation and Assignment: Reorganized section to clarify the steps taken for each program and included information on additional steps taken.
Chapter 3, Section C
Chapter 4, Sections IV. & V.
Purchase Order Generation and EAF Contractor Invoicing: Edited for clarity and completeness.
Chapter 5, Section VII.
Chapter 6, Section II.B
Chapter 6, Section II.C & D
Sections C. Spot-Checking Reviews and D. Finalizing the Review were combined into Section C.
Chapter 6, Section II.D
Section III.D
The Finalizing the Review section was clarified to state that the extent to which ERs receive a second review by the Program Manager is program specific in ERMS or non-ERMS. This is now in Section II.C & III.C.
Chapter 6, Section IV
ER Review Tracking: This is a new section that provides more information regarding the Application Tracking process and Site Visit Monitoring.
Chapter 7, Section III
Process For Completing Applications Converted to Exempt. This Section was moved to Chapter 9, Section VII.
Chapter 8, Section I
Chapter 8, Section I
Tier 2 Updated Guidance Document was included as an attachment.
Version 2.0 – Submitted (June 16, 2014)
Chapter
Change
All
Version 2.0 of the Program Protocols is amended to include the processes as they have been adopted and operationalized by ICF’s team.
Version 2.1 – Submitted (July 17, 2014)
Chapter
Change
All
Version 2.1 was updated to align with the steps outlined in the attached EA CEST Work Process Steps. However, those steps were agreed upon with DCA and captured as of 06/26/14. Some steps and responsibilities have evolved since then. Pending DCA approval of changes to the work process steps, differences are noted in the attachment.
All
Several Office 365 field names were updated and new ICF staff names added.
Chapter 2, Section II, 3, D
Task Order Creation and Assignment process was modified to reflect more current ICF procedures.
Chapter 2, Section III, 3
Application Intake process for LRRP is now included.
Chapter 5, Section II
Chapter
Change
All
Reorganized the document to align with the steps outlined in the EA CEST Work Process Steps, and Tier 2 ERR ERMS Work Process Steps. The document is now organized chronologically, and includes ERMS and Non-ERMS sections at most points in the process.
All
All
Modified titles of Chapters to ensure consistency with work flow process
Chapter 1 Section B
Tranche 2 Programs included
Point of Contact Process Steps included
Chapter 6
Chapter 8, Section C
Appendices
Formerly attachments. Changed to better align with flow of the document
Appendix F
Appendix G
Version 3.1 - Submitted (January 2, 2015)
All
Chapter I
Point of Contact Process Steps revised
Chapter 8
Formerly Appendix C
Calculating ERMS/non-ERMS Daily Tier 2 Tally removed as it is no longer applicable.
Appendix D.3, VIII
Appendix H
Appendix F
Attachments to DL
Version 3.2 - Submitted (April 1, 2015)
All
Chapter 1 Section II.B.
Tranche 2 Programs added.
Chapter 4 section I
Chapter 5
Appendix F
Version 3.3 - Submitted (August 1, 2015)
All
Chapter 4, Section II
Added discussion of the Floodplains and Wetlands Protection Work Process Steps
Chapter 6,
Section III
Chapter 8
Updated list and names of various reports to match current usage.
Chapter 9
Version 4.0 - Submitted (February 1, 2016)
All
All
All
Chapter 6, Section III.B.1.
Updated process for submission of public notices for review and issuance of Task Orders
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
Version 4.1 – Submitted (August 5, 2016)
Figure 8
Replaced public notice example due to emergency publication language change.
Chapter 6 Section III.B.2
Revised publication task order process as process now occurs in ERMS.
Figure 9
Replaced task order example as process now occurs in ERMS.
Chapter 9
Appendix E
All
Chapter 7 Section I.A
Added Protocols for invoices with regard to invoice summaries and portal invoice tracking
Chapter 9
Version 5.0 – Submitted (June 1, 2017)
All
Chapter 7 Section I.A
Added Protocols for invoices with regard to invoice summaries and portal invoice tracking
Chapter 9
Version 5.0 – Submitted (June 1, 2017)
All
Chapter 7 Section I.A
Added Protocols for invoices with regard to invoice summaries and portal invoice tracking
Chapter 9
Version 5.0 – Submitted (June 1, 2017)
All
Chapter 7 Section I.A
Added Protocols for invoices with regard to invoice summaries and portal invoice tracking
Chapter 9
Version 5.0 – Submitted (June 1, 2017)
All
Chapter 7 Section I.A
Added Protocols for invoices with regard to invoice summaries and portal invoice tracking
Chapter 9
Version 5.0 – Submitted (June 1, 2017)
All
Chapter 7 Section I.A
Added Protocols for invoices with regard to invoice summaries and portal invoice tracking
Chapter 9
Version 5.0 – Submitted (June 1, 2017)
All
Chapter 7 Section I.A
Added Protocols for invoices with regard to invoice summaries and portal invoice tracking
Chapter 9
Version 6.0 – Submitted (February 25, 2019)
All
PURPOSE
This document captures the steps the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has established for managing Environmental and Historic Preservation Reviews for Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds granted to assist in the State’s recovery from Superstorm Sandy.
This version of the document captures DCA approach to completing the program manager role in the environmental review process, as well as interactions with program staff. Because these roles are evolving over time, this document is updated periodically to reflect the changing roles. As management responsibilities change, and as DCA approves refinements in the protocols to be followed, DCA will update the document and review for approval. The summary of Notable Changes table on the preceding pages will aid DCA in quickly identifying areas where the protocols have been adjusted, and will ensure that there is a permanent record of key changes in the protocols followed for managing the process.
This document does not focus on the protocols followed by the Environmental Assessment Field Contractors (EAF Contractors) who actually conduct the reviews, although their protocols are provided in attachments to this document. It does, however, capture information about the points at which the EAF Contractors’ activities and the DCA process intersect, including task order assignments, submission of EAF Contractor environmental reviews, and EAF Contractor payments.
In many places, DEP has established checklists, guidelines, and protocols that guide the current process. When appropriate, this Protocol Guide references those documents as attachments; the files are available in the Document Libraryand sent to DCA Correspondence folder and posted on the date of this document’s publication.
Certain Programs, such as the Flood Hazard Risk Reduction (FHRR) as well as certain applications within the Housing Mortgage and Finance Agency (HMFA), did not utilize EAF Contractors for some projects. While those projects still existed separate protocols were listed in this document governing their processes. Since non-EAF Contractor projects no longer exist in the program those separate protocols have been removed from this document.
How to use this document
This version of the document captures the use of the Task Order Process, this process was put in place to accommodate the large volume of reviews that were coming in when the program was established. The number of reviews have since decreased and with the change of Program Manager of the EHP program from NJDEP to NJDCA some of the processes will be updated and/or elimated. Also, some of the roles, tiles and contacts will change as well, please contact Tonya House with any questions at Tonya.House@dca.nj.gov.
If your project is not task order oriented, please skip Chapter 2 in this document.
ROLES AND OTHER BASIC GUIDANCE
Roles
Currently, many DCA and some ICF staff have different roles and support multiple parts of the process. This document describes the tasks that must be accomplished based on role titles. These may not correspond with any individual’s actual job title, and some individuals may have different role titles DCAending on the type of activity being discussed.
Although there is not a direct one-to-one correspondence, DCA and ICF staff titles (and names, where appropriate) have been added adjacent to the DCA staff member whose role is closest to the one to be fulfilled by the named ICF staff member. ICF has maintined the role as project manager for the HMFA projects, only.
Terms used to describe key roles include the following:
· Program Supervisor (Nancy Diehl)
· Document Library and EIT Facilitator (Tonya House)
· Program Managers, (Tonya House and Judith Burton)
· Application Intake Coordinator (Tonya House and Judith Burton)
· ERR Assignment Coordinator (Tonya House and Judith Burton)
· TO Team (Judith Burton and Tonya House)
· Program Specialist (Tonya House)
· DCA Financial Manager (Anita Dupree)
· DCA QA Manager (Tonya House and Judith Burton). Second-Level reviewer who oversees the work of the QA Reviewers and provides second-level approvals as required.
· DCA QA Reviewer (Tonya House and Judith Burton). An individual at DCA who conducts reviews of environmental review records (ERRs).
Tier 2 ERR Team (Tonya House and Judith Burton).
Tier 2 ERR Coordinator (Tonya House and Judith Burton).
QA Reviewers (Tonya House and Judith Burton)
To ensure that a single individual is responsible for tracking the progress of each program, a Program Application Coordinator (PAC) is assigned to each program. The PACs are responsible for knowing the status of applications with their program and entering the information derived from their daily management and weekly status calls in Office 365 which forms the basis for the regular status reports that go to DCA.
· NEP: Tonya House
· LRRP: Tonya House
· SBL/NCR: Tonya House
· Flood Hazard Risk Reduction: Tonya House
· Lead Hazard: Tonya House
· Beach Replenishment: Tonya House
· LMI: Tonya House
· Energy Resiliency Board: Tonya House
· Other Tranche 2/3 Programs: to be determined as EAs and CESTs from other programs are assigned.
The DCA Program Managers remain the official points of contact for questions or issues that arise.
ERMS
While previously the Protocols for reviewing and processing environmental reviews were different for those programs that use the Environmental Review Management System (ERMS) and those that did not, all environmental reviews produced by Environmental Assessment Field Contractors (EAF Contractors) are now processed through ERMS.
Exempt, Categorically Excluded, Not Subject To (CENST), Re-evaluation Memorandum applications and Section 58.6 reviews for the Sandy Home Buyer Assistance Program are handled by DCA and are not discussed in this document.
Helpful Tips in ERMS
Once an environmental review is reviewed and approved in ERMS at each level, the user will receive a confirmation email and the environmental review will not go to the next level of review until the user clicks on the link in the confirmation email.
The preferred browser when using ERMS is Chrome, not Internet Explorer.
If a user needs access to more than one level, the user will need a separate email address and login information for each level.
For a complete overview of the levels within ERMS, see the attachment ERMS_Graphics. The basic flow of receiving and assigning environmental reviews within ERMS is as follows:
Level 1. EAF Contractor Preparer submits environmental review.
Level 2. EAF Contractor Point of Contact approves the ERR package in ERMS.
Level 3. DCA and ICF ERR Review Team (Principal) receives the completed environmental review, completes a quality control review, works with the EAF Contractor as necessary to refine the review, and once approved, releases the review to Level 5 DCA QA Manager.
Level 5. DCA QA Managers (Refer to Chapter 1, Section II: Roles and Terminology) assign to DCA QA team based on staff availability.
Level 4. DCA QA Reviewers (Refer to Chapter 1, Section II: Roles and Terminology) accept assignments from the QA Manager and perform reviews for completion and technical accuracy.
Level 5. DCA QA Manager does a high-level review for environmental review completion, not technical accuracy.
Level 6. DCA Program Manager (Coordinator) conducts a high-level review for completion of the environmental review. If there are no issues, he or she approves the environmental reviews.
File Naming Conventions
Establishing and using standard document naming conventions enhances consistency among EAF Contractors and improves clarity in compliance with ERR production and review.
· Appendix A provides the file naming conventions required for all EAF Contractor Documentation.
· Appendix B provides file naming conventions required for use within the Office 365 environment.
Terminology
Key terms are defined in the DCA ER Glossary provided in the attachments file
Linking The Protocols to the Work Process Steps
ICF and DCA have developed sets of Work Process Steps which identify the work flow in a step by step manner from receipt of an application to storage of the final ERR. These Work Process Steps are attached as Appendices E (ERMS EA/CEST) and F (Tier 2). (The Work Process Steps for Floodplains Protection and Wetlands Protection are set forth in Appendices G and H, respectively.) To aid in clarity of the Protocols and ensure that all steps identified by ICF and DCA in the EA/CEST and Tier 2 ERMS Work Process Steps have been appropriately captured in this document, references herein to the Work Process Steps are identified with a green bracket for the ERMS EA/CEST Work Process Steps (e.g., [Step 1.4]), and an orange bracket for the ERMS Tier 2 Work Process Steps (e.g., [Step 1.4]).
Change Management
ICF has developed a Change Management Plan (CMP) for the NJ DCA CDBG-DR Environmental & Historic Preservation Review Management Program. It aligns with best practices highlighted in the Project Management Institute’s (PMI) “A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge” and outlines a holistic approach for managing change. As processes shift, such changes will not be made without careful vetting and agreement. The CMP is the process we will use to reach consensus on changes.
· The Change Review Team follow the steps in Appendix I which illustrates the Change Request Workflow and provides an overview of how ICF and DCA route potential changes through the review process.
· Once approved, changes are added to the protocol document.
OVERVIEW OF THIS PROTOCOL DOCUMENT
This document is structured as follows:
· Chapter 2. Step 1: Application Intake. This chapter describes the process of receiving applications, logging them, and ensuring completeness.
· Chapter 3. Step 2: Task Order and Purchase Order Process. This chapter describes the process of developing and assigning task orders and purchase orders to allow EAF Contractors to commence work.
· Chapter 4. Step 3: EAF Contractor Environmental Review Process. This chapter details ICF and DCA interactions with the EAF Contractors as the EAF Contractors work on completing environmental reviews.
· Chapter 5. Steps 4 & 5: The Quality Review and Quality Assurance Process. This chapter describes the basic quality management processes that all Environmental Reviews undergo once they are returned from the EAF Contractor. This chapter discusses only the process; the content of each type of review is discussed in attachments.
· Chapter 6. ERR Finalization and DCA Quality Review Steps. This chapter describes the process that occurs once an ERR has been completed by the EAF Contractor and reviewed by QM team.
· Chapter 7. EAF Contractor Payment Process. This chapter covers the process of ensuring that contractors receive timely payments for work completed and accepted by DCA.
· Chapter 8. Reporting. This chapter describes the types of reporting that ICF provides to DCA.
· Chapter 9. Document Management and Records Retention. This chapter covers the process for management and retention of records produced for this project.
· Appendices: The following appendices are included at the end of the document:
Appendix A: Document and File Naming Conventions for New Jersey DCA Environmental and Historic Preservation Reviews.
Appendix B: Document and File Naming Conventions within the Office 365 Environment.
Appendix C: Using ArcGIS and Supporting Documentation to Confirm EAF Contractor Reviews.
Appendix D.1: Exempt & Categorically Excluded, Not Subject To (CENST). This appendix sets forth the process DCA follows when reviewing CENST environmental reviews.
Appendix D.2: Tier 2. This appendix lists the specific steps the Quality Assurance team takes when reviewing Tier 2 environmental reviews.
Appendix D.3: Environmental Assessment & Categorically Excluded, Subject To. This appendix lists the specific steps the Quality Assurance team takes when reviewing EA or CEST environmental reviews.
Appendix E: EA CEST ERMS Work Process Steps
Appendix F: Tier 2 ERMS ERR Work Process Steps
Appendix G: Floodplains Protection Work Process Steps
Appendix H: Wetlands Protection Work Process Steps
Appendix I: Change Management Workflow
Attachments (as distinguished from Appendices, which append this document), available in the Document Library/DCA HUD/ICF to DCA Correspondence folder provide the following additional information:
· 2.1_CEST_V2_3_3-17-15
· Attachment A ERR_Checklist
· CEST-EA_AdminProcForContractors
· Change Management Process Documents
· Contract Year Two Price Comparison EAF Contractors Prices Revised as of 08-13-2014
· DCASandy Commissioner-EHP ERR Daily Status Report
· DCA EA-CEST QA Checklist
· EA Guidance Document
· EAF Contractor Protocols Gannett-Fleming
· Eviron_Review_Completion_Form
· ERMS_Graphics
· NJDCA Guidance for EAs and CESTs June 1, 2015
· Protocol for Submission of EA/CEST/Exempt Documentation to DCA for Signature and Publication
· RREM Daily Report
· Sample Completed EA
· Sample Task Order Cost and Count spreadsheet
· Sample Berger TO Invoicing spreadsheet
· Tier2_NJDCA_Site_Specific_Review_Guidance
· Tier 2 Site Specific Review Form v. 1.5
· Tier 2 Guidance Document May 1, 2015
· Weekly Report on CEST and EA Pipeline
Chapter 2: Step 1 - Application Intake
1. OVERVIEW
This chapter describes the process through which applications are received and assigned to EAF Contractors for environmental review.
· Section II describes the intake process for Tier 2s
Section III describes LMI Mobile Home Projects at New Sites
· Section IV describes the intake process for EA/CESTs
1. Tier 2
1. Review Daily Inflow of ERMS-Based Applications [Step 1.1]
New Jersey DCAartment of Community Affairs (DCA) enters applicant information into the Sandy Integrated Recovery Operations and Management Systems (SIROMS), which serves as the system of record for documenting Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery fund obligations and expenditures. DCA receives applicant information through two processes: a daily spreadsheet and an automated data exchange between SIROMS and ERMS. Until February 25, 2015, the only programs using ERMS were the Homeowner Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, Elevation, and Mitigation program (RREM), and the Landlord Rental Repair Program (LRRP).
Review DCA SIROMS Report
Each evening, DCA emails a “DCA SIROMS Report” to the Application Intake Coordinator (Steve Sherman) and the Point of Contact (POC) (further explanation of the POC is located in Chapter 4, Section III). The report lists the individual applicant information received since the last report. The spreadsheet contains a list of the applications that are ready for review, and provides key data associated with each application.
The Application Intake Coordinator takes the following steps to review the DCA SIROMS Report and clean the data:
· Makes note of errors in the owner’s name or address in the comments field. However, the Application Intake Coordinator must not change the owner’s name or address.
Make note of typos in comments section of SIROMS Report (e.g., “Eat” Windsor Drive instead of “East Windsor Drive)
Make note of any discrepancies regarding owner’s name in the comment section of the SIROMS report – typically issues with hyphenated names or middle names (these can be verified by consulting other data sources such as tax records, right of entry forms)
· Renames the DCA SIROMS Report using the following convention: “date_program name_ (number of applications)_w_o feasibility” (e.g., 4-29-2014 RREM (32) w_o feasibility).
· Modifies the DCA SIROMS Report following the conventions described in Figure 1, including adding new columns and assembling a PAMS PIN number.
· Reviews the DCA SIROMS Report information, looking for any data that did not transfer properly, corrects errors in the spreadsheet, and notes any changes in the Comments column. Common corrections to look for include:
· PAMS pin that does not accurately reflect the project location
The unit is not within a building that has fewer than four housing units, but located in a multi-family dwelling such as an apartment or condo complex with common facilities. Row homes are acceptable as long as they have their own parcel and do not share common facilities such as a private parking lot
· Using the import log to see what applications did not migrate to ERMS
· Corrupt data/indecipherable characters
· Missing data/blank fields
· Missing a leading zero in a numeric field
· Faulty address (can be corrected by consulting other data sources such as tax records, right of entry forms)
· Confirms that the property is eligible for Tier 2 level of review by counting the number of housing units within the building to confirm that there are no more than four. If more than four housing units are within the building, application is pulled off the w_o feasibility report and sent to Tonya House and Judith Burton for further inspection. DCA and DCA are notified that the application will not undergo task out until the correct level of review is agreed upon by DCA and ICF.
Confirms the property address data by:
· Pulling up a property address in the ArcGIS mapping system using the PAMS PIN number
· Using that address to check the property in the state of NJ assessor’s records
· See Figure 2 for information about checking property addresses
· Use GoogleEarth in case the PAMS pin/ArcGIS fails
· Use GeoWeb to determine various Historic Preservation Zones
· If the data are corrupted or the property location information appears to be incorrect the Application Intake Coordinator takes one of two actions:
· Minor Issues. Most issues can be resolved using this method. If the issue is minor enough to be corrected without DCA input, the Application Intake Coordinator:
· Makes a correction in the spreadsheet
· Changes the information in ERMS
· NOTE: Owner Name or Address must never be changed in ERMS
· Significant Issues. If the issue cannot be corrected without DCA input, the Application Intake Coordinator emails DCA with a request that the information be corrected. Once the data corruption or locational issue problem is corrected, DCA includes the application on a future spreadsheet.
· The Application Intake Coordinator records each change made to the DCA SIROMS Report or ERMS in the Comments column of the DCA SIROMS Report Spreadsheet.
· Once all changes are made, the Application Intake Coordinator saves the file in Office 365, at ERR Reviews=>General Reference Library=> w_o Feasibility Spreadsheets.
Figure 1
Modifying the DCA SIROMS Report
Take the following steps to update the daily DCA SIROMS Report Spreadsheet:
· Add 9 columns at the end of the spreadsheet in columns AN-AR and insert the following headings:
PAMS PIN Number
Red Zone(s)
· Create the PAMS PIN Number by adding together municipal code, block & lot columns by using the formula =CONCATENATE (AK8,”_”, P8”_”, 08) which is preset in the spreadsheet. Simply copy the formula and drag it down column AN.
· Populate the Application ID column by copying column A into column AO.
· Populate the Owner’s Last Name column by copying column G into column AP.
· Populate the Property Address column by copying column H into column AQ.
NOTE: Use the copy and paste function instead of using formulas to “populate” the data. There are sometimes issues with older/free versions of Excel (i.e. Open Office) that sometimes will experience issues opening these formulas.
· Leave the Comment column in column AR unpopulated.
· Add an “R” at the end of the application IDs for all resubmitted applications, which is found in the daily intake report and crosschecked with information inside ERMS.
Figure 2
Using ArcGIS
· For new users an account setup is needed
· Within ArcGIS, search for NJDCA HUD Environmental review tool 3.0, save it to My Content, and click on Open
· Go to the left side and set layers to HUD Review Parcels Centroids, Historic Property Exemption Zone, and Archeological Site Grid
· Close layers
· Under Mapping (located at center at top of screen) click on Query Tool
· Go to Search by Parcel Using PAMS PIN ID
· Copy and paste the PAMS PIN ID located in column AN of the updated DCA SIROMS Report into the PAMS PIN query
If you have difficulty finding the property in ArcGIS:
· Check column AK “muni code” in the updated DCA SIROMS Report to make sure that there are 4 digits in the code. If it is missing a digit, add a zero to the front of the series and update the PAMS PIN number.
· Use the ArcGIS search feature (built into the map). The search bar is located on the top middle of the map application. Enter the address including the city and state. This will generally get you close to the location.
· Check tax records
· Use resources such as Googling the address and checking Google Earth, Google Maps, and Zillow.
· Be creative in attempts to crosscheck
If you are unable to validate the address in ArcGIS send an email to Kyei Baffour ( kyei.baffour@renewjerseystronger.org ) andTim Davis ( Tim.Davis@DCA.nj.gov ) noting the application ID number and informing them of the location issue. Make a note in the Comments field of the spreadsheet; “Additional field work will be required to verify address.”
Align ERMS and DCA SIROMS Report
Each evening, ERMS imports data from SIROMS and generates an email with an ERMS Import Activity Report attachment summarizing the day’s import activity. The Application Intake Coordinator takes the following steps to ensure that the data in the ERMS Import Activity Report match the data in the DCA SIROMS Report:
· Checks each application listed on the DCA SIROMS Report to verify that the application appears in the ERMS Import Activity Report.
· If the application appears in the ERMS Import Activity Report, updates ERMS to reflect any corrections made to the DCA SIROMS Report (See Figure 3 for tips about updating ERMS).
· If the application does not appear in the ERMS Import Activity Report,
· Notifies DCA by email so DCA can include the missing application(s) in a future extraction.
· Includes information about the missing applications in the Daily Report.
· Compares each application number on the DCA SIROMS Report to the Withdrawn Application List. If the application number is listed on the Withdrawn Application List (located in Office 365 under ERR Reviews general reference library. Withdrawn ) the Application Intake Coordinator takes the following steps:
· Makes a note in the DCA SIROMS Report Comments column, and highlights the line.
· Deletes the application from the DCA SIROMS Report.
· Emails DCA to alert them that a withdrawn application has been erroneously loaded into ERMS.
· Includes information about the withdrawn applications that were loaded into ERMS in the Daily Report.
· Note:
· The Application Intake Coordinator posts the updated list of withdrawn applications to Office 365 when received from DCA.
· Reviews the DCA SIROMS Report spreadsheet to identify resubmittals by:
· Reviewing the IDs in column A to identify any that end with a letter “R” or “T” or “F”.
· Cross-checking the import log for resubmittals. (Sometimes the “R” or “T” or “F” does not appear in the ID number on the SIROMS Spreadsheet).
· Including information about resubmitted applications in the Daily Report.
· The TO/EAF Contractor Management team checks resubmitted applications to determine whether they have previously been assigned to an EAF Contractor. If so, the TO/EAF Contractor Management team determines whether the EAF Contractor should be notified of the change, or if a stop-work order is needed, and previous ERR documents will be sent to the EAF Contractor assigned the Resubmittal.
· After reviewing the DCA SIROMS Report spreadsheet and ERMS Import Activity Report information, the Application Intake Coordinator coordinates with the DCA Program Manager via e-mail. They discuss any outstanding issues with the applications provided by DCA and resolve those issues with DCA.
Once the ERMS/DCA SIROMS Report comparison and revisions are complete, the Application Intake Coordinator saves the spreadsheet in Office 365, ERR Reviews General Reference Library.
Figure 3
Updating Data in ERMS to Correspond with Corrected DCA SIROMS Report Data
To update data in ERMS, take the following steps:
· Log into ERMS, go to the Project Pending task order list.
· Enter the Application ID number into the Search by Application ID box and click on Submit.
· Cross-check the corrected metadata from the feasibility spreadsheet making sure the ERMS information is also accurate.
· Never change Applicant Name or Applicant Address in ERMS.
To ensure that changes in ERMS save correctly, be sure to take the following steps after making your corrections:
· Go to the rehabilitation and reconstruction check boxes. One will be checked “yes” or “no” and the other will be blank. For the one that is blank, add the appropriate CHECK (i.e., if rehabilitation is Yes, reconstruction should be No; if rehabilitation is No, reconstruction should be Yes.)
· Go to the footprint checkbox and CHECK “N/A”.
· If something is missing you will get an error message in red at top of page and will need to re-enter the correct data and re-save, following these guidelines.
Review For Accuracy and Completeness [Step 1.2]
The Application Intake Coordinator reviews each application for completeness by taking the following steps:
Check Documentation for Completeness. The Application Intake Coordinator ensures that all of the documentation the EAF Contractor will need to complete the review was provided with the application.
Check for Consistency. The Application Intake Coordinator opens each document in the folder and reviews to ensure that the homeowner’s name and address, the application number, and the description of work are consistent throughout. This ensures that all documents are for the correct application.
Check Right of Entry Form. The Application Intake Coordinator reviews the Right of Entry (ROE) form to see if the information on the form matches the information in ERMS. If the ROE is missing or the signature at the end of the ROE is missing, the Application Intake Coordinator highlights the application, and makes a note of the discrepancy on the SIROMS report.
After reviewing each application, the Application Intake Coordinator reports missing information to DCA if the application is missing a required item, or if the item provided is for the wrong application. The Application Intake Coordinator will send an email to DCA to request a correction. If there is a discrepancy between the spreadsheet and ERMS the email will include the Application ID with an explanation of what was found. Responses can be received from SIROMS or from other personnel at DCA.
NOTE: If additional information is required, the application is not tasked out and will remain in the queue until the missing information is provided.
LMI Mobile Home Projects at New Sites
As part of the Low and Moderate Income (LMI) Homeowners Rebuilding Program[footnoteRef:2], it is anticipated that in addition to rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing mobile homes, some applications will involve mobile homes being rehabilitated, moved, or reconstructed on sites other than their original location. This type of activity falls outside the scope of the tiered Environmental Assessment applications. Mobile home projects occurring on a different site than the one currently occupied will require a higher level of review under NEPA. When such applications are identified, they should be tasked out as the appropriate higher level of review, e.g., CEST. [2: For further discussion of mobile homes, see Comment 26 to Action Plan 2 (Substantial Amendment 7).]
DCA may advise DCA that a project involves a mobile home at a new location. The Intake Coordinator will need to screen incoming applications to determine whether the activity involves a new site. Confirmation of the PAMS PIN and tax card address will assist in this determination. If the application documents are unclear, contact Tim Davis so that he can request clarification from DCA.
EAF contractorshave been advised to screen for new locations and to identify such applications to DCA if they are incorrectly tasked out as a Tier 2.
1. EA/CEST
EAs and CESTs tasked out on or after February 25, 2015, are tasked out and completed in ERMS. Applications prior to that date have been uploaded into ERMS as pre-ERMS reviews since they did not follow the task out process. The process outlined below covers ERMS.
1. Application Intake: Review Daily Inflow of Applications [Step 1.1]
The Application Intake Coordinator reviews the daily inflow of applications to ensure that all applications are appropriately recorded and moved rapidly to the task order assignment process. The Application Intake Coordinator receives applications in slightly different ways DCAending upon the program.
1. Small Business Grant Forgivable Loan (SBL),Neighborhood Community Revitalization (NCR), and Energy Resilience Bank (ERB) Programs
The DCA Program Manager (Tonya House and Judith Burton) and the TO/EAF Contractor Management team (Tonya House and Tim Davis) receive the project application and supporting documentation via an email from the Economic Development Authority (EDA), or a system-generated email sent when EDA loads an application into the Document Library.
Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP)
The DCA Program Manager (Tonya House and Judith Burton) and the TO/EAF Contractor Management team receive a project application and a blank score sheet from DCA. The TO/EAF Contractor Management team logs the date that the application materials were received in the NEP program tracker.
NEP applications undergo a two-part intake process – a NEP review, and then an environmental review intake.
· NEP Review. NEP takes the following steps:
· Invites the DCA Program Manager to attend a meeting to discuss and score the applications. The DCA Program Manager reviews and scores the applications, and participates in the NEP meeting.
· If the application is approved in the NEP meeting, NEP collects the materials required for the DCA application from the applicant and uploads the materials to the Document Library, DCA NEP folder.
· Environmental Review Intake. When an application passes the NEP Review, NEP uploads the materials to the Document Library and notifies DCA
State Revolving Fund (SRF) Blue Acres (BA) and Flood Hazard Risk Reduction (FHRR)
The DCA Program Manager and the TO/EAF Contractor Management team receive the project application and supporting files via an email from the DCA PM (Dave Caulfield) internally and receive the location of the supporting documentation via a system-generated email sent when DCA loads an application into the Document Library. Intake downloads the application and supporting documentation from the Document Library and uploads it to ERMS.
Housing Mortgage and Finance Agency (HMFA)
Upon receipt of application materials from developers, HMFA uploads application packages to the Document Library and notifies ICF of the upload. ICF downloads the materials, reviews the project materials for completeness, and makes a determination of the level of review required.
Review Application Data for Accuracy and Completeness [Step 1.2]
For all programs, the appropriate DCA Program Manager and the TO/EAF Contractor Management team review the application for completeness. The steps the DCA Program Manager and the TO/EAF Contractor Management team take include the following:
· Check Documentation for Completeness. The DCA Program Manager and TO/EAF Contractor Management team ensure that all of the documentation the EAF Contractor will need to complete the review was provided with the application. This includes:
· Application
· Appendix
· Pictures
· Supporting documents
· Check for Accuracy. The DCA Program Manager and the TO/EAF Contractor Management team open each document in the folder and review to ensure that the property owner’s name and address, the application number, and the description of work match throughout. This ensures that all documents are for the correct application.
· Report Missing Information. If any information is missing, the DCA Program Manager and the TO/EAF Contractor Management team take the following actions:
· Within three days of receiving the application materials the TO/EAF Contractor Management team and the DCA Program Manager send an email identifying the missing elements to the agency that supplied the application.
· Wait for submission of the missing pieces before proceeding.
Follow up with the agency to obtain the required information.
· Once the agency submits additional documentation, the TO/EAF Contractor Management team and the DCA Program Manager repeats the check for completeness and consistency.
· If the missing information is not supplied within two weeks, the application is rejected. To complete the rejection, the TO/EAF Contractor Management team and DCA Program Manager sends an email to return the incomplete application to the originating agency with an explanation of why the application is being rejected.
· Confirm Receipt of a Complete Application. The DCA Program Manager and the TO/EAF Contractor Management team confirm receipt of a complete application via email to the agency that supplied the application, and indicate that the application will be tasked out. The TO/EAF Contractor Management team logs the date that the application is found to be complete in the EA/CEST tracking spreadsheet.
Determine Appropriate Level of Review [Step 1.3]
The DCA Program Manager and the TO/EAF Contractor Management team determine the level of review that is required for the complete application based on the requirements found in 24 CFR Part
Level Of Review Errors
If, while reviewing the ERR, the assigned reviewer determines that the level of review is inaccurate, (e.g. a Tier 2 should actually be reviewed as a CEST) the ICF Quality Managers immediately discuss and coordinate the status of the ERR to ensure that it continues to move through the appropriate level of review.
58.34 through 58.37 (see 24 CFR PART 58 Regulations). The level of review is documented on the task order in ERMS. If the appropriate level of review is not clear, the TO/EAF Contractor Management team consults the Program that submitted the review.
For ERMS reviews, TO/EAF Contractor Management team must fill out a Determination of Level of Review form in ERMS. This form includes a project description, initials of the person making the determination and a reason for the initial determination. This must be done in order to complete an ERMS Task Order.
Enter Data in ERMS [Step 1.4]
1. ERMS
The Application Intake Coordinator creates a new project and enters basic data for the application into ERMS. This information will make up the “Project Details” page in ERMS. To enter the data, the Application Intake Coordinator takes the following steps:
· Clicks the “Create Project” button on the left column
· Manually inserts data from the Application:
· Agency Name
· CDBG-DR Program Type
Chapter 3: Step 2 – Task Order And Purchase Order Processes
1. OVERVIEW
The task order development process for primary and secondary Task Orders both occur in ERMS although require different Task Order templates; the purchase order process is identical regardless of the program or work involved. This chapter describes both the task order and purchase order processes in the following sections:
Section II: ERMS describes the primary task order development process for ERMS applications
Section III: Task Orders for Additional Work describes the task order development process for secondary Task Order
Section IV: Purchase Order Generation describes the process for generating purchase orders for ERMS applications
ERMS
The TO/EAF Contractor Management team receives the Daily Report sent by the Application Intake Coordinator. This report notifies the TO/EAF Contractor Management team that applications are ready to be tasked out to an EAF Contractor.
The TO/EAF Contractor Management team takes the following steps to create a task order:
· Determine which EAF Contractor to assign the application based on rotation [Step 2.1]
· Generate task order in ERMS [Step 2.2]
· From the Home screen press the “Projects Pending Task Order” button
· Press the “Task Order Manager” button located on the left column
· Press the “Create EA/CEST Task Order” button
· Fill in the following fields:
· Task Order Number
· Contract Number (choose from the drop down menu)
· CDBG-DR Program (choose from the drop down menu)
· Identify the applications that will be assigned to the task order by checking the box located next to the application number
· Fill in the following fields
· Contractor Assigned To (choose from the drop down menu)
· Duration of Work
· Fill in the total amount in the first field
· In the large box, enter “dollar amount per application X the number of applications”
· Press the “Submit” button,
· Once the Task Order has been created and submitted, email Application Intake Coordinator, DCA PM, Tim Davis, and Elaine Adams. The email serves as a notification of what task orders have been created and to request the Application Intake Coordinator to send the appropriate application information to the assigned EAF Contractor.
· For Tier 2 reviews, the Application Intake Coordinator emails the EAF Contractor the w_o feasibility spreadsheet(s) and any applications that correspond to their task order. For applications that have been resubmitted to DCA due to a change in construction intent or an inability to comply with project conditions and a Tier 2 has already been completed, the files from the original Tier 2 review, including but not limited to any SHPO consultation, will be provided to the EAF Contractor doing the resubmitted review.
For EA/CEST reviews, the Application Intake Coordinator emails the EAF Contractor notifying them that they have received a new EA or CEST in ERMS and to confirm the task order before they can start working.
The DCA Program Manager (Level 6) will need to review and approve the task order in ERMS in order for the system to send the notification to the EAF Contractor [Step 2.3]
Once ERMS sends the notification email to the EAF Contractor indicating that a task order has been assigned, the EAF Contractor must review the task order in ERMS [Step 2.6] and “Reject” or “Accept” the task order in ERMS [Step 2.7].
· Rejection. If the EAF Contractor rejects the task order, the TO/EAF Contractor Management team either selects another EAF Contractor or revises the task order, DCAending upon the reason for rejection. An EAF Contractor may reject a task order in ERMS if the number of reviews or price per review (in the price line) is incorrect. In this case the TO/EAF Contractor Management team will revise the necessary items and re-submit to the EAF Contractor.
· Acceptance. If the EAF Contractor accepts the task order, ERMS will generate an email notifying the DCA Program Manager (Level 3) that the task order has been accepted. At this time, the task order is fully executed and the EAF Contractor can assign the application to a preparer to begin work [Step 3.1].
Task Orders for Additional Work
Certain tasks require a supplemental task order to cover additional labor or costs. These include:
Archaeological surveys
Key Information For Creating Task Orders
· Task Order tracker
Tetra Tech: A84678
Gannett Fleming: A84679
· 8-step and 3-step wetlands analysis
· Lead-based paint and asbestos testing
· Publishing
· Any other additional work required for the Environmental Review
When a supplemental task order is required, the EAF Contractor prepares a statement of work and an estimate of the cost of the additional work. The EAF Contractor sends the estimate to the TO/EAF Contractor Management team and the DCA Program Manager for approval.
Specialized Secondary Task Orders - when a SOW needs to be reviewed to confirm the level of effort for a SOW (e.g., LBP inspection) the SOW will be sent to the in-house expert before the task order is drafted. Then, when the task order is drafted, a task order number will be assigned. This does not change the normal procedure in which a task order number is assigned when the task order is drafted.
.
Non-ERMS reviews had secondary task orders are uploaded into ERMS by the Task Order Management. For ERMS reviews, theTask Order creation process will follow the same steps as described in Chapter 3, Section III. After the Task Order is executed by DCA and EAF Contractor, the TO/EAF Contractor Management Team will take the following steps:
· Click “Task Order Manager” button on the left tab
· Click “Add Additional Task Order” button in the middle of the screen
· Add in basic Task Order tracking information
· Task Order Type
· Task Order Number
Purchase Order Generation
Although the purchase order generation process is not reflected in the ERR Work Process Steps documents (See Appendix E and F), it is a key aspect of successful EAF Contractor management and takes place in conjunction with the task order generation process.
When the TO/EAF Contractor Management team assigns a task order, which is executed by DCA and an EAF Contractor, they notify the Accounting Lead (Elaine Adams) via email with the task order and supporting documentation attached.
The TO/EAF Contractor Management team emails the following documentation to the Accounting Lead:
PDF of executed task order
Quotes for required public notice costs, and specialized services costs (SOW)
The Accounting Lead takes the following steps to generate the purchase order request package:
Prepares a purchase order request form
Obtains the National Objectives from the program that submitted the reviewand generates the SSHIP expense report (Allocation report) based on expenditures and national objectives associated with the application id’s on the specific task order
Attaches a PDF of the executed task order
Prepares a hard copy purchase order request package for Kim McEvoy to sign daily or weekly.
Nancy Deihl signs the purchase order request form, and in turn, Elaine Adams scans and sends the purchase order request package electronically to DCA.
Once DCA approves the purchase order request package, DCA sends an email with the approved purchase order to the EAF Contractor, and Elaine Adams.
The Accounting Lead (Elaine Adams) will then take the following steps:
Upload the approved purchase order Task Order Management=>Purchase Orders
Update the Task Order Cost and Count summary spreadsheet (See Sample TO Cost and Count Spreadsheet)
Update the EAF Contractors’ Invoice summary tracker spreadsheet
Attach a hard copy of the approved purchase order to the hard copy of the certified purchase order request package. (All hard copies of purchase order request packages that are generated and certified are housed at DCA.)
The Accounting Lead uploads the certified purchase order request package into the financial record.
Chapter 4: Step 3 - EAF Contractor Environmental Review Process
1. EAF Contractor Protocols and Guidance
Once the EAF Contractor has accepted a task order, the task order is fully executed and the EAF Contractor has the authorization to undertake an environmental review. EAF Contractors have established protocols for processing applications that they use internally to navigate the environmental review process. These protocols vary by firm, and can be found in the following attachments:
· EAF Contractor Protocol CDM-Smith
· EAF Contractor Protocol Dewberry
· EAF Contractor Protocol Gannett-Fleming
· EAF Contractor Protocol Tetra Tech
These protocols evolve as needed and as DCA/ICF provides new guidance or updates existing guidance.
Following these protocols, the EAF Contractor completes the ERR following the steps listed in the box below.
Steps for EAF Contractor ERR Completion
Tier 2 ERMS ERR Work Process
ERMS EA/CEST Work Process
Assign each application to a preparer [Step 3.2a]
Conduct Tier 2 ERR assessment [Step 3.3]
Review and submit Tier 2 ERR via ERMS [Step 3.4]
· Review task order in ERMS [Step 2.6]
· Accept task order via ERMS [Step 2.7]
· Conduct 5 day consultation determination and email to DCA PM and ICF [Step3.1]
· Conduct assessment in ERMS [Step 3.3]
· Prepare request for the release of funds (PDF) in ERMS [Step 3.4]
· Prepare English and Spanish publication notices [Step 3.5]
· (Publication detailed in Section III.C. below)
· Complete & upload ERR documentation in ERMS [Step 3.15]
Guidance to the EAF Contractors on how to prepare ERRs for Tier 2s, CESTs and EAs is provided by the Tier 2 Guidance Document and the NJDCA Guidance for EAs and CESTs, included in the Attachments to these Protocols. Guidance for non-EAF Contractors preparing ERRs for HMFA and FHRR are provided in their own Guidance Documents. When these Guidance Documents are updated, the location on the Document Library should be emailed to DCA, who will then forward the location to NJEIT so they can upload the documents to ERMS.
Consultation
As the EAF Contractors conduct EA/CEST reviews, certain situations require reviews or consultations with Federal or New Jersey state agencies (e.g., historic preservation, coastal zones, endangered species, air quality and wild and scenic rivers).
Within 5 days of receiving a task order to perform an EA/CEST, the EAF Contractor reports to the TO/EAF Contractor Management team what consultations and specialized studies (including Tribal consultation, sole source aquifers, bats, lead-based paint, asbestos, floodplains, wetlands, or archeology) will be necessary for the ERR. The TO/EAF Contractor Management team emails the DCA PM and adds the information into the EA/CEST Tracking spreadsheet. Consultations and specialized studies, including but not limited to Tribal consultations, are tracked in the EA/CEST Tracking spreadsheet. If the EAF Contractor determines that multiple and/or time-sensitive consultations are required, then the TO/EAF Contractor Management team will initiate coordination with the DCA PM and the EAF Contractor in order to facilitate management of the schedule for completion of the ERR.
For SRF only – before the 5 day consultation determination, EAF Contractor should coordinate with SRF (DCA) Water Archaeologist as to what Historic Preservation consultation has already been conducted. While SRF program will conduct its own Historic Preservation consultations, each EAF Contractor remains responsible for making the determination regarding the need for Tribal notification/consultation.
Within 10 days of receiving a task order to perform an EA/CEST, the EAF Contractor will submit statements of work for any required specialized studies identified during the 5 day consultation determination period.
The Work Process Steps for Floodplains Protection and Wetlands Protection are set forth in Appendices G and H, respectively. References to the Floodplains Protection and Wetlands Protection steps are in purple, e.g. [Step 0.0]. If it is determined that a Floodplains Protection or Wetlands Protection analysis (5 step/8 step and 3 step/8 step, respectively) is necessary, the EAF Contractor submits a SOW detailing the proposed additional work to the TO team. [Step 3.1]
DCAcreates a TO for the EAF Contractor to complete the needed analysis and sends it to the DCA PM for approval. [Step 3.2] The DCA PM reviews, signs, scans and emails the TO back to the TO team. [Step 3.3] DCA then emails the approved TO to the EAF Contractor for signature. [Step 3.4] The EAF Contractor returns the fully executed TO back to DCAand begins work. [Step 3.5 and Step 4]
For 8 step analyses only, the EAF Contractor prepares and submits a draft Early Notice to DCA for approval. [Step 5.1] Upon approval, the EAF Contractor prepares both English and Spanish Early Notices and sends them to DCA. [Step 5.3] DCA sends both versions to DCA to post to the DCA website for a 15 day public review period. [Step 5.4] Posting to the DCA website coincides with the EAF Contractor publishing the notices in an English and Spanish newspaper, covering the geographic region of the project. [Step 5.5] Publication usually takes place on Fridays.
On the Tuesday following the close of the comment period, 17 days after publication for an EA and 10 days for a CEST, DCA requests from the EAF Contractor affidavits of publication [Step 5.6] and DCArequests DCA Sandy Communications (Lisa Ryan) and DCA Secretary for the Assistant Commissioner (Deonna Russell) to provide any comments received in response to the public notice. If the project is an EDA project, a request for any comments is also sent to Erin Gold at EDA. If public comments are received, DCA advises DCA and DCA sends the comments to the EAF Contractor to prepare responses for inclusion in the ERR. [Step 5.7] If no public comments are received, DCA advises the EAF Contractor so the no comment email from DCA can be included in the ERR. [Step 5.8]
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW - Point of contact portal
The Point of Contact (POC) system is an email address (NJERRQUESTIONS@ICFI.COM) that is used to answer inquiries concerning the ERR review process and to filter information about application status updates. The purpose of the POC system is to allow ICF to accurately manage individual applications throughout the entire process while ensuring that up-to-date, accurate guidance is issued to all interested parties. The POC portal is to be utilized by EAF Contractors, Agency officials (DCA, DCA, SHPO) and internal ICF staff. All inquiries should come into this email address (rather than being sent to individuals at DCA, DCA, or ICF) except for 1) special Toxics considerations and 2) SSA screening questions are sent directly to Tim Davis ( Tim.Davis@DCA.nj.gov ) with NJERRQUESTIONS@ICF.COM copied for tracking purposes. Since August 1, 2018, the POC Portal is only used by ICF for HMFA projects.
DCA has instituted a POC system in which all EHP related questions or status updates need to include the DCA archive email EHPDisasterRecovery@DCA.nj.gov in the copy line. This is used by DCA to document any questions and communicate to DCA team members status of projects. Since August 1, 2018, all EHP related communications must copy and include all the following team members:
Email Archive - EHPDisasterRecovery@DCA.nj.gov
Kim McEvoy - Kim.McEvoy@DCA.nj.gov
Tim Davis - Tim.Davis@DCA.nj.gov
Tonya House - Tonya.House@DCA.nj.gov
Elaine Adams - Elaine.Adams@DCA.nj.gov
Dennis Reinknecht - Dennis.Reinknecht@DCA.nj.gov
Chris Pettit (HMFA Projects only) - Chris.Pettit@icf.com
The types of inquiries likely to be submitted to the ICF NJERRQUESTIONS email address and the DCA archive email address EHPDisasterRecovery include, but are not limited to, the following:
General policy related questions (e.g., wetlands, floodplains, multifamily, etc.)
Application specific questions (e.g., is an 8-step review required in this situation?)
Application status questions
POC Team:
Chris Pettit (POC Manager)
At the end of each business day, ICF and DCA will perform a Quality Assurance check to make sure all inquiries have been properly logged and make sure all outstanding responses receive timely responses. On a weekly basis ICF will perform a brief audit of the week’s portal activity, which will include identifying any recurring issues for discussion with the ICF and/or DCA management teams.
1. Point of Contact Process Steps For Policy Questions
The Point of Contact Process Steps that follow are used to streamline the lines of communication between all EAF Contractors, Agency officials, DCA and ICF.
Requestors are to send all project-related questions for Tier 2s, EA/CESTs, Invoice and Purchase Orders and all Action Plan programs to the DCA copy list and include the email archive address ( EHPDisasterRecovery@DCA.nj.gov ). HMFA projects would also include the ICF NJERRQUESTIONS email address in the copy list. The DCA/ICF POC Team monitors email traffic to this address throughout the business day. If the inquiry comes in to the wrong place/person, the email should be forwarded to the appropriate agency and still include the copy list for tracking. Members of the POC Team will forward it to the appropriate party if the inquiry can be answered by a third party.
Once a question is received, it is processed as follows:
The ICF POC Team logs each question into their Office 365 tracking system (located at Environmental and Historic Preservation Reviews=>POC Tracking List) upon receipt.
The POC Team tasks each question out to the appropriate party to develop a response.
The assigned responder answers the question by responding directly to the requestor, with a copy to DCA email archive EHPDisasterRecovery@DCA.nj.gov .
If any responses issued affect other groups/personnel (e.g., the DCA review team), the POC Team informs the affected parties.
Once questions are completely answered, the POC Team records a copy of the full email chain in the administrative record.
The POC Team tracks all questions submitted to ensure that a timely answer is provided. If a response is delayed, the POC Team follows up with the person to whom the question was assigned as needed.
Point of Contact Process Steps For Filtering
The Point of Contact system is used as a general information filtering system for application status. Information that pertains to the status of an application will be sent to the DCA POC copy list including the EHPDisasterRecovery@DCA.nj.gov email and for HMFA projects would also include the ICF email NJERRQUESTIONS@ICFI.COM so that the information can be recorded on the EA/CEST Tracking Lists. The types of information likely to be recorded to the EA/CEST Tracking Lists include, but are not limited to, the following:
Requests for specialized studies or consultation (e.g., wetlands 8-step)
Letters of withdrawal from DCA or DCA
Events that would delay the submission of the application
Chapter 5: Steps 4 and 5 – The Quality Review and Quality Assurance Process
1. OVERVIEW OF THE QUALITY Review AND QUALITY Assurance PROCESSES
This chapter describes the process for making ERR review assignments and the process for completing initial quality assurance reviews and quality management reviews. It covers the process from the point at which an EAF Contractor submits a completed environmental review to the point the DCA Quality Manager signs off on the ERR and confirms it’s accuracy. If the project is an HMFA project then the ICF Quality Assurance Review staff will be inserted into this review process. This chapter covers the following topics:
Section II. Tier 2 Quality Review/Assurance Protocols. This section describes the initial review and quality assurance process when using ERMS.
Section III. EA/CEST ERR Review Protocols This section describes the initial review and quality assurance process when using ERMS.
Tier 2 Quality REVIEW / Assurance PROTOCOLS
This section outlines the protocols for reviewing EAF Contractor submissions for Tier 2 reviews. All Tier 2 level ERR reviews are received and reviewed through ERMS.
1. Process for Making Quality Review Assignments
Site Visit Monitoring
The DCA QA Staff is informed by the EAF Contractor of their Site Visit schedule for an environmental review, if applicable. The DCA QA staff will monitor those site visits while the environmental review is in progress with the EAF Contractor to ensure completeness of reviews and accuracy of data collected. This information helps to inform the quality of the environmental review when is it submitted and reviewed by DCA.
The EAF Contractor completes the environmental review within ERMS at Level 1 (Preparer) [Step 3.3]. The EAF Contractor Point of Contact (Level 2) submits the Tier 2 form and all supporting documentation (e.g., photographs, maps, and coordination letters) in PDF format by uploading the files into the ERMS system and “signing off” [Step 3.4] Once the EAF Contractor “signs off,” ERMS releases the review from Level 2 to DCA at Level 3 (Principal).
Each morning and afternoon, the DCA Tier 2 ERR Team checks Level 3 ERMS, “Projects Awaiting Review” for any new environmental reviews that were received from the EAF Contractors at Level 2 [Step 4.1]. When ERRs are received, the Tier 2 ERR Team assesses initial ERR Reviewer availability [Step 4.2] and assigns both an initial ERR Reviewer and a DCAQuality Management Reviewer [Step 4.3].
The Application Intake Coordinator confirms with the Tier 2 ERR Coordinator the number of environmental reviews received in ERMS which are included in the daily Status Report email that is sent to DCA staff [Step 4.4].
The DCATier 2 ERR Coordinator records receipt of the ERR from the EAF Contractor, . Data recorded in the EA/CEST tracking spreadsheet includes:
Date EAF Contractor Submitted ERR for Review
ERR Review Assigned Date
ERR Reviewer Assigned To
Emails the ERR Reviewers their assigned application IDs
Tracks the progress of these assignments throughout the day
Follows up with any outstanding assignments as needed
Initial Quality Review
When Tier 2 ERR Reviewers receive their application assignments, they conduct completeness and technical accuracy reviews as described in Appendix D.2[Step 4.5], complete the Tier 2 Checklist [Step 4.6], and submit the checklist to the QM Reviewer via email [Step 4.7]. The review timeframe for Tier 2 reviews is 1 day and therefore any coordination needed with the DCA QA staff or PM is usually conducted over the phone.
The specific actions the ERR Reviewers take once a review is complete DCAend upon the results of the initial review.
1. Incomplete or Technically Inaccurate Reviews
If the information in a submitted environmental review is incomplete or technically inaccurate, the ERR Reviewer
Identifies the specific issues in the reviewer’s checklist;
Changes the status of the ERR to “Issues” ;
Informs the Quality Manager.
3. Complete and Technically Accurate Reviews
If the ERR Reviewer finds that the information in a submitted environmental review is complete and technically accurate, the reviewer:
Completes the reviewer’s checklist;
Changes the status of the ERR to “Reviewed”;
Informs the Quality Manager.
Quality Assurance Review
When the ERR Reviewer informs the Quality Manager that an initial ERR review has been completed, the Quality Manager reviews the ERR Reviewer’s checklist for the application [Step 5.1].
1. Incomplete or Technically Inaccurate Reviews
If the ERR Reviewer indicated that there are “Issues”, the QM reviewer confirms that the ERR Reviewer’s assessment of the issues is complete and accurate. If so, the following steps are required to formally reject the ERR:
The QM reviewer (Level 3) rejects the ERR and records the stated reason (s) for rejection in ERMS.
The QM reviewer also records the Date ERR Returned to EAF Contractor for Revision in the EA/CESt tracking spreadsheet [Step 5.1A].
The POC (Level 2) Rejects the ERR in ERMS [Step 5.1B].
Once ERMS returns the ERR to the EAF Contractor, the EAF Contractor Point of Contact re-assigns the ERR to the preparer [Step 5.1C], the Preparer revises the Tier 2 ERR as needed (Level 1) [Step 5.1D], and the EAF Contractor reviews and re-submits the ERR in ERMS (Level 2) [Step 5.1E].
Once the ERR is re-submitted, the ERR Reviewer (Level 3) re-reviews the ERR and repeats the steps outlined in Chapter 5.II.B (Initial Quality Assurance Review) to ensure that all corrections were made appropriately [return to Step 4.5].
5. Complete and Technically Accurate Reviews
If the ERR Reviewer indicatesthat the EAF-completed ERR is complete and accurate, the Quality Manager confirms that the ERR Reviewer’s assessment is correct. If so, the Quality Manager takes the following actions [Step 5.2]:
Approves the Tier 2 ERR in ERMS (Level 3). After approval,
ERMS System Notifications sends the QM reviewer an email with a link to confirm the approval. Once the QM confirms the approval, a second email is generated stating that the application was submitted successfully.
This email must be sent to the EAF Contractor under ERR Process Completion Documents in the ERR Reviews tab and changes the ERR Review Status to “QA Completed” in the EA/CEST tracking spreadsheet.
EA/CEST ERR REVIEW PROTOCOLS
This section outlines the protocols followed for conducting quality reviews for EA/CESTs produced by EAF Contractors. Applications tasked out before February 25, 2015, were tasked out and reviewed outside of ERMS. Upon completion all ERRs were uploaded into ERMS. ERRs tasked out on or after February 25, 2015, are processed in ERMS. Any ERR’s that were performed outside of ERMS have beenupload into ERMS as pdf files and designated “Pre-ERMS”.
A. ERMS Process for Making Quality Review Assignments
The EAF Contractor completes the environmental review within ERMS at Level 1 (Preparer). The EAF Contractor Point of Contact (Level 2) uploads the RROF form and ERR supporting documentation (e.g., photographs, maps, and coordination letters) in PDF format into the ERMS system and “signs off” [Step 3.15]. Once the EAF Contractor “signs off,” ERMS releases the review from Level 2 to ICF and DCA at Level 3 (Principal) and Level 4 (Coordinator). ERMS emails Level 3 informing that an ERR is ready for review.
Upon receipt of the ERMS email, the ICF ERR Assignment Coordinator:
· Reviews Level 3 ERMS “Projects Awaiting Review” for any new EA/CESTs that were received from the EAF Contractors at Level 2.
· For each ERR submitted, checks to make sure all the correct forms and supporting documentation are included.
· Sends an email to the ERR Review team identifying any ERRs that need to be assigned out for review.
The ERR Assignment Coordinator assesses initial Reviewer availability [Step 4.1], and assigns the review to the initial ERR Reviewer [Step 4.2].
The ERR Assignment Coordinator assigns each ERR package received to an ERR Reviewer by taking the following steps:
Checks ERMS to determine what reviews need to be assigned. .
Sends an email to the assigned reviewers listing the application IDs that were assigned and providing a link to the ERR files, as well as al link to the EA/CEST Reviewers’ Checklist.
The ERR Assignment Coordinator sends a separate email to Program Managers and QA staff to ensure that they are aware that the EAF Contractor approved an ERR for review [Step 4.3].
B. Initial Quality Review
When Initial ERR Reviewers receive their application assignments, they log into ERMS, search for their assignments by Application ID number, and conduct completeness and technical accuracy reviews as described in Appendix D.3 (or Appendix D.1 for Exempt or CENST) [Step 4.4]. They then provide a summary of findings in the ERR Reviewers’ Checklist and provide their findings in an email to the Quality Manager.
If the information in a submitted environmental review is incomplete or technically inaccurate, the ERR Reviewer:
· Identifies the issues, provides a summary of findings in the checklist.
· Changes the ERR Review Status in the EA/CEST tracking spreadsheet to “Issues.”
· Emails the Quality Manager that the ERR is ready for a quality assurance review.
If the information in a submitted environmental review is complete and technically accurate, the ERR Reviewer:
Provides a summary of findings in the checklist,
Changes the ERR Review Status in the EA/CEST tracking spreadsheet to “Reviewed”
Emails the Quality Manager that the ERR is ready for a quality assurance review.
Simultaneously, the PM conduct quality assessment reviews and compile comments [Step 4.5], and email the comments to the QM team [Step 4.6]. QA reviewers and PMs complete their reviews and provide comments within 3 business days to the EAF Contractor.
C. Quality Assurance Review
When the Initial ERR Reviewer enters “Issues” or “Reviewed” into tracking spreadsheet, it indicates that the initial ERR review is complete and ready for the Quality Manager’s review. The Quality Manager also will receive an email from the ERR Reviewer. The Quality Manager:
Reviews the Initial Reviewer comments and the DCA consolidated comments [Step 5.1].
Within 4 business days of submittal by the EAF Contractor, coordinates discussion with DCA PM and DCA QA [Step 5.2], if needed.
Within 5 business days of the date the EAF Contractor submits the environmental review, consolidates QA comments (if needed) [Step 5.3] and sends comments (if any) to the EAF Contractor for resolution [Step 5.4] with a copy to all of the individuals listed in the DCA Notification list in the box below.
Notification List
EAF Contractor
1. Incomplete or Technically Inaccurate Reviews
If the review indicates that the ERR is incomplete or technically inaccurate, the Quality Manager then works with the EAF Contractor, to revise the ERR as follows:
ERMS
· The QM manager (Level 3) rejects the ERR and records the stated reason (s) for rejection in ERMS [Step 5.4].
· The POC (Level 2) Rejects the ERR in ERMS.
· The EAF Contractor modifies the ERR and uploads it to ERMS [Step 5.5].
· The EAF Contractor prepares the SOW (PDF) for publication (for non-exempt ERRs). CESTs that convert to exempt status do not require publication or public review [Step 5.6].
· The QM Manager records the Date ERR Returned to EAF Contractor for Revision, Due Date of Revised ERR From EAF and changes the ERR Review Status to EAF Contractor Revising in Office 365
· Once the ERR is re-submitted, [Step 5.7] the ERR Assignment Coordinator notifies the Quality Manager Reviewer (Level 3) (Initial Quality Review) to ensure that all corrections were made appropriately made. [return to Step 5.1]
The Quality Manager tracks the progress of these steps in Office 365, including documenting telephone calls and emails, and recording issues as they occur by:
Adding the “Date ERR Returned to EAF for Revision;”
Adding the information to the EA-CEST Status Comment in Office 365, Unified Tracking;
Changing the status of the ERR to “EAF Contractor Revising” to indicate that the ERR is being revised by the EAF Contractor;
Adding the date the EAF Contractor returned the corrected ERR to the appropriate field in Office 365
The Quality Manager verifies that the updated ERR package is uploaded to ERMS, and the QA review process is restarted.
7. Complete and Technically Accurate Reviews
The Quality Manager determines within 4 business days of receiving the EAF Contractor’s original Environmental Review materials whether the information is complete and technically accurate. The QA review includes 2 days for the Initial Review, 2 days for the QM review, 2 days for revisions and 2 days for confirming the reviews and sending the “AOK” email. The Quality Manager must:
Approve the ERR in ERMS (Level 3) [Step 5.8]
· ERMS System Notifications sends the QM an email with a link to confirm the review. Once the review is confirmed, a second email is generated stating that the application was submitted successfully. This email must be uploaded onto Office 365 under ERR Process Completion Documents in the ERR Reviews tab.
Email a Process Completed (“AOK”) message to the EAF Contractor, with copy to the TO/EAF Contractor Management Team and the individuals listed in the Notification List above.
The “AOK” email indicates ERR Review approval and concludes the ERR QM Review process.
The Quality Manager documents this assessment of the ERR review by taking the following steps in Office 365:
Changes the ERR Review Status to “QA Completed”
Adds the “Date ERR Passed Review”
Chapter 6: ERR Review Finalization And DCA Quality Review Steps
1. Overview
This section describes the final steps in the ERMS review processes.
Section II: Tier 2 describes the final submission in ERMS, and the quality review steps DCA will undertake.
Section III: EA/CEST describes the specific close-out steps required for EA/CESTs which are conducted inside and outside of ERMS, (EA/CEST Steps 6-9). These steps include:
Submission to DCA
Public Review
ERR Finalization.
Tier 2
After approval of an ERR by the QM Manager described in Chapter 5.II.C (Step 5.2), the review passes to DCA for quality assurance reviews.
1. Obtaining Approval
1. Complete and Technically Accurate Reviews
After the QA Team determines that the review is complete and technically accurate (as described in Chapter 5.II.D2 – Step 5.2), it passes through the following review steps:
DCA QA Manager assigns the ERR to the DCA QM Reviewer (Level 5) [Step 5.3]
The DCA QA Reviewer reviews the ERR (Level 4) [Step 5.4] and approves it in ERMS [Step 5.5].
The DCA QA Manager reviews the ERR (Level 5) [Step 5.6] and approves it in ERMS [Step 5.7].
The DCA PM reviews the ERR (Level 6) [Step 5.8] and approves it in ERMS [Step 5.9].
Incomplete or Technically Inaccurate Reviews
If at any point the DCA quality assurance process identifies deficiencies, the DCA staff member rejects the ERR in ERMS.
This triggers a “cascading rejection” from the level of the DCA staff member who performs the rejection (at Level 4, 5 or 6) through Level 1 (the EAF Contractor Preparer).
Reject at Level 4 [Steps 5.4A through 5.4F]
Reject at Level 5 [Steps 5.6A through 5.6G]
Reject at Level 6 [Steps 5.8A through 5.8H]
After performing the Level 3 rejection step [Steps 5.4B, 5.6C or 5.8D], the rejection is noted in EA/CEST tracking spreadsheet.
Once the EAF Contractor Preparer corrects the ERR and re-submits it in ERMS, the ERR Reviewer (Level 3) re-reviews the ERR and repeats the steps outlined in Chapter 5.II.B (Initial Quality Assurance Review) to ensure that all corrections were made appropriately [return to Step 4.4].
Additional DCA Quality Control
In addition to approving each ERR in ERMS, the DCA Program Manager checks a small percentage of ERRs for completeness. For each file that is reviewed, the Program Manager checks to ensure that the following documents are present in the file.
Environmental Review forms, (see Items in ERR Checklist)
Maps and related supporting documentation
Copies of Public Notices, when required for wetlands 8-step
Consultation letters, as necessary (e.g., SHPO, NJ Natural Heritage Program, toxics clearance from DCA staff)
Site photographs
Affidavits of Publications
If the Program Manager identifies any quality issues, he/she returns the environmental review to the DCA QA Reviewer for correction.
EA/CEST
After the ERR QA Review process is complete (as described in Chapter 5.III.D.2), DCA and the EAF Contractor take a series of steps to finalize the ERR. These include:
Obtaining DCA signatures
Finalizing the ERR
1. Obtaining DCA Signature For EAs/CESTs
If not already provided, the day after the ERR review is complete the EAF Contractor emails the DCA signature package (Figure 4) components, including the EA/CEST, RROF, and public notices (English is required, and Spanish only if it is available) [Step 6.1]. As described in section III. B.1. below, when the public notice is submitted and approved by ICF/DCA, the TO/EAF Contractor Management team submits the notice to the PM for approval. The notice, once approved, is sent to the EAF Contractor who is then requested to obtain newspaper quotes and submit the SOW for publication. The TO/EAF Contractor Management team reviews the DCA signature package [Step 6.2] and prepares a transmittal memo from Nancy Deihl to Michael Simon ( Michael.Simon@dca.nj.gov ) and Nicholas Smith-Herman ( Nicholas.Smith-Herman@dca.nj.gov ) at DCA which provides a brief description of the review and requests the DCA Commissioner’s signature on the CEST or EA as the responsible entity [Step 6.3].
The memo will:
Request that DCA return the wet signature CEST or EA to DCA so the public notice can be published and the required public comment period may commence;
Inform DCA of the comment period dates so DCA can post the CEST or EA, the Notice of Intent to Request Release of Funds (NOI-RROF), and when applicable, the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and/or floodplain notices and other supporting documentation on the DCA webpage;
Request that DCA send any comments received to the DCA Program Manager within 24 hours after the close of the comment period;
Inform DCA that DCA will notify DCA when Commissioner Richman can sign the “Request for Release of Funds and Certification” (HUD form 7015.15)(Figure 5) and submit it to HUD so the request can go through the mandatory HUD objection period (see, 24 CFR Part 58); and
Inform DCA of the requirement to send DCA a copy of the HUD form 7015.15 signed by Commissioner Oliver and of the Authority to Use Grant Funds (AUGF)(Figure 6) form signed by HUD.
The TO/EAF Contractor Management team attaches the following items to the memo:
The CEST or EA;
The NOI-RROF and, when applicable, the FONSI and/or floodplain notice, in English and Spanish if it is available; and
The completed HUD Form 7015.15, ready for signature.
After receiving the transmittal memo information from the TO/EAF Contractor Management team, the DCA PM reviews the transmittal memo and signature package [Step 6.4] and signs, scans, and emails the transmittal memo to the TO/EAF Contractor Management team [Step 6.5]. The TO/EAF Contractor Management team emails the signed transmittal memo and signature package to DCA, with a copy to the DCA POC copy list that should include DCA PM, ICF POC (if HMFA), Tonya House and Judith Burton, and Tim Davis, and Tonya House [Step 6.6].
After the TO/EAF Contractor Management team provides the transmittal memo and signature package, Tonya House prints and sends the transmittal memo and signature package to the DCA Mailroom [Step 6.7], The DCA mailroom then hand carries the transmittal memo and signature package to DCA [Step 6.8].
Once DCA has completed its review and obtained the Commissioner’s signature, it emails the signed EA/CEST/CEST-to-Exempt form to the DCA PM and the ICF TO/EAF Contractor Management team [Step 6.10]. The TO/EAF Contractor Management team adds the executed EA/CEST to the application’s “Project Files” in ERMS. [Step 6.12]
Figure 4 – First DCA Signature Package (EA/CEST)
Figure 5 - RROF
Figure 6 - AUGF
Implementing Required Publication Processes
Once DCA signs off on the ERR package, a three-step process is required to ensure that the information is published appropriately. These steps, described below, include:
Preparing for publication by obtaining the needed documentation for publication and providing it to DCA.
Developing the publication task order to authorize the EAF Contractor to undertake the needed publication tasks.
Implementing the required publication process – a task carried out by the EAF Contractor.
1. Preparing for Publication
To expedite the publication process, the EAF Contractor may now submit the proposed English notice and SOW for publication prior to submission of the ERR for review. This facilitates approval of the notice and issuance of a Task Order for publication prior to approval of the ERR. No later than 2 days after delivery of the transmittal memo (Figure 7) and signature package for DCA signature, DCA initiates the publication of the NOI-RROF for CESTs, the combined FONSI and NOI-RROF (Figure 8) for EAs, and when applicable, the floodplain analysis publication. Once the English notice has been submitted, ICF/DCA reviews the notice and approves it [Step 3.6], following which the EAF Contractor submits the approved notice to the English and Spanish language newspapers for quotes for inclusion in the SOW [Step 3.7].
The EAF Contractor provides a SOW to DCA. DCA reviews the SOW and creates a TO for publication, which is then signed by DCA, and sent to the EAF Contractor for execution. Two business days (e.g., Wednesday if publishing Friday) before publication occurs, DCA emails the EAF Contractor requesting the Spanish translation of the public notice. DCA then confirms that the TO for publication is in place, verifies the correct newspapers have been selected, confirms that the EA/CEST signature package was sent to DCA, and then follows up with DCA on the signature status of the CEST or EA, reminding DCA that the document must be signed off by the date of publication. Once DCA confirms that DCA has signed the CEST or EA, DCA then uploads the CEST or EA and other supporting documentation to the Document Library for posting to the DCA website. The DCA TO/EAF Contractor Management team uploads the documents as follows:
For NEP, RREM, LRRP, SRF, HMFA, BA, LMI and FHRR projects, in the “DCA DCA NEP, Projects to be Posted on DCA Website” folder
For SBL ERB and NCR projects, in the “DCA EDA, Projects to be Posted on EDA and DCA Website” folder.
The DCA TO/EAF Contractor Management team also confirms that DCA has posted the CEST or EA and other supporting documentation to the DCA website at the beginning of the public comment period. If documentation is missing from the DCA website, DCA will notify DCA and the DCA PM.
Figure 7 – Transmittal Memo
Developing the Publication Task Order
When publication preparations are complete, the DCA TO/EAF Contractor Management team begins the process of developing a publication task order. The creation and execution of task orders now occur within ERMS. Steps in that process include the following:
The EAF Contractor submits a SOW via email of the costs to publish the notices in the English and Spanish newspapers.
The TO/EAF Contractor Management team prepares a task order for publication (Figure 9) in ERMS based on the SOW provided by the EAF Contractor and uploads the corresponding SOW to ERMS [Step 3.8].
The TO/EAF Contractor Management team submits the draft task order and the SOW in ERMS to the DCA Program Manager for review and confirmation [Step 3.9].
The DCA Program Manager reviews and confirms the task order in ERMS.[Step 3.10].
The EAF Contractor receives the pending task order and executes/confirms the task order in ERMS [Step 3.12].
At this point, the task order is fully executed; however, the EAF Contractor cannot publish until the CEST or EA is signed by DCA.
Once the TO/EAF Contractor Management Team receives the signed task order, they
Upload the signed task order into ERMS [Step 3.13].
Figure 9 – Final Notice Publication TO
Implementing the Required Publication Process
After all approvals are received and the task order is final, the EAF Contractor sends the publication packet to newspapers for publication [Step 7.1]. The EAF Contractor also must email the DCA PM and a copy of the material that is published to confirm that the newspaper published the correct notice narrative [Step 7.2]
Public Review Process
The TO/EAF Contractor Management team redacts personal information and uploads the following documents to t