purpose · web view2019/11/01 · there are sometimes issues with older/free versions of excel...

NEW JERSEY DCAENVIRONMENTAL AND HISTORICPRESERVATION REVIEWS

PROGRAM PROTOCOLS

NOVEMBER 1, 2019

VERSION 6.1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW......................................................................................................................12

I. PURPOSE......................................................................................................................................12

II. How to use this document............................................................................................................12

III. ROLES AND OTHER BASIC GUIDANCE..............................................................................12A. Roles............................................................................................................................13B. ERMS.........................................................................................................................14C. File Naming Conventions............................................................................................15D. Terminology................................................................................................................15E. Linking The Protocols to the Work Process Steps......................................................15F. Change Management...................................................................................................15

IV. OVERVIEW OF THIS PROTOCOL DOCUMENT................................................................17

CHAPTER 2: STEP 1 - APPLICATION INTAKE................................................................................19

I. OVERVIEW..................................................................................................................................19

II. Tier 2..............................................................................................................................................19A. Review Daily Inflow of ERMS-Based Applications [Step 1.1]..................................19

1. Review DCA SIROMS Report..........................................................................................192. Align ERMS and DCA SIROMS Report..........................................................................22

B. Review For Accuracy and Completeness [Step 1.2]...................................................24

III. LMI Mobile Home Projects at New Sites...................................................................................25

IV. EA/CEST.......................................................................................................................................25A. Application Intake: Review Daily Inflow of Applications [Step 1.1]........................25

1. Small Business Grant Forgivable Loan (SBL),Neighborhood Community Revitalization (NCR), and Energy Resilience Bank (ERB) Programs..........................................................252. Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP)...................................................................263. State Revolving Fund (SRF) Blue Acres (BA) and Flood Hazard Risk Reduction (FHRR)

264. Housing Mortgage and Finance Agency (HMFA)............................................................26

B. Review Application Data for Accuracy and Completeness [Step 1.2]...................26C. Determine Appropriate Level of Review [Step 1.3]...............................................27D. Enter Data in ERMS [Step 1.4]...............................................................................27

1. ERMS................................................................................................................................28

CHAPTER 3: STEP 2 – TASK ORDER AND PURCHASE ORDER PROCESSES.........................29

I. OVERVIEW..................................................................................................................................29

Table of Contents February 25, 2019

II. ERMS.............................................................................................................................................29

III. Task Orders for Additional Work..............................................................................................30

IV. Purchase Order Generation.........................................................................................................32

CHAPTER 4: STEP 3 - EAF CONTRACTOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS............33

I. EAF Contractor Protocols and Guidance..................................................................................33

II. Consultation..................................................................................................................................34

III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW - Point of contact portal.........................................................35A. Point of Contact Process Steps For Policy Questions.................................................36B. Point of Contact Process Steps For Filtering...............................................................37

CHAPTER 5: STEPS 4 AND 5 – THE QUALITY REVIEW AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCESS...................................................................................................................................................37

I. OVERVIEW OF THE QUALITY Review AND QUALITY Assurance PROCESSES........37

II. Tier 2 Quality REVIEW / Assurance PROTOCOLS................................................................37A. Process for Making Quality Review Assignments......................................................37B. Initial Quality Review..................................................................................................38

1. Incomplete or Technically Inaccurate Reviews.................................................................392. Complete and Technically Accurate Reviews...................................................................39

C. Quality Assurance Review..........................................................................................391. Incomplete or Technically Inaccurate Reviews.................................................................392. Complete and Technically Accurate Reviews...................................................................40

III. EA/CEST ERR REVIEW PROTOCOLS..................................................................................40A. ERMS Process for Making Quality Review Assignments..........................................40B. Initial Quality Review..................................................................................................41C. Quality Assurance Review..........................................................................................41

1. Incomplete or Technically Inaccurate Reviews.................................................................422. Complete and Technically Accurate Reviews...................................................................43

CHAPTER 6: ERR REVIEW FINALIZATION AND DCA QUALITY REVIEW STEPS..............44

I. Overview........................................................................................................................................44

II. Tier 2..............................................................................................................................................44A. Obtaining Approval.....................................................................................................44

1. Complete and Technically Accurate Reviews...................................................................442. Incomplete or Technically Inaccurate Reviews.................................................................44

B. Additional DCA Quality Control......................................................................45

III. EA/CEST.......................................................................................................................................45A. Obtaining DCA Signature For EAs/CESTs.................................................................45


B. Implementing Required Publication Processes...........................................................501. Preparing for Publication...................................................................................................502. Developing the Publication Task Order............................................................................523. Implementing the Required Publication Process...............................................................53

C. Public Review Process.................................................................................................53D. Responding to Comments and Requests Related to Environmental Review Public Notices...............................................................................................................................58E. Finalizing the ERR......................................................................................................60

CHAPTER 7: EAF CONTRACTOR PAYMENT PROCESS..............................................................63

I. EAF Contractor Invoicing...........................................................................................................63A. Protocols for Reducing the Timeframe of the Invoicing Backend Process.................63

II. Voucher Approval.........................................................................................................................64

CHAPTER 8: REPORTING....................................................................................................................66

I. DCA Status Reports......................................................................................................................66A. DCA Briefing Reports.................................................................................................66B. On-Going Reporting and Record-Keeping..................................................................71C. EA/CEST Report.........................................................................................................73D. Overdue Report............................................................................................................73

CHAPTER 9: DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT AND RECORDS RETENTION..............................75

I. State of New Jersey Document Library Files................................................................................76

II. NJDCA V: Drive and Image Drive Files....................................................................................76

III. ERMS Files....................................................................................................................................79

IV. ICF Shared Drive Files.................................................................................................................79

V. ICF Office 365 Files......................................................................................................................79

VI. Paper Documentation in the NJDCA Offices.............................................................................79

VII. At the Completion of the Contract......................................................................................80

APPENDICES............................................................................................................................................81

APPENDIX A: DOCUMENT AND FILE NAMING CONVENTIONS FOR NEW JERSEY DCA ENVIRONMENTAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEWS..............................................82

APPENDIX B: DOCUMENT AND FILE NAMING CONVENTIONS WITHIN THE OFFICE 365 ENVIRONMENT.......................................................................................................................................84


APPENDIX C: USING ARCGIS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION TO CONFIRM EAF CONTRACTOR REVIEWS.....................................................................................................................84

APPENDIX D.1: EXEMPT & CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED, NOT SUBJECT TO (CENST).87

I. OVERVIEW OF EXEMPT AND CENST.................................................................................87

II. PROCESS FOR COMPLETING APPLICATIONS INITIALLY DETERMINED AS EXEMPT OR AS CENST............................................................................................................87

APPENDIX D.2: TIER 2...........................................................................................................................88

I. OVERVIEW OF TIER 2.............................................................................................................88

II. SITE SPECIFIC FINDINGS.......................................................................................................88

III. CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL..............................................................................................89

APPENDIX D.3: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT & CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED, SUBJECT TO.............................................................................................................................................90

I. OVERVIEW OF EA and CEST..................................................................................................90

II. SUMMARY INFORMATION....................................................................................................90

III. PART I REVIEW.........................................................................................................................91

IV. PART II: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST..............................................91

V. PART III: 58.6 CHECKLIST......................................................................................................91

VI. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................92

VII. PROCESS FOR COMPLETING APPLICATIONS CONVERTED TO EXEMPT (ONLY CEST)...............................................................................................................................92

APPENDIX E: EA CEST ERMS WORK PROCESS STEPS...............................................................92

APPENDIX G – FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION WORK PROCESS STEPS.................................101

APPENDIX H – WETLANDS PROTECTION WORK PROCESS STEPS.....................................103

APPENDIX I –CHANGE MANAGEMENT WORK FLOW.............................................................106


SUMMARY OF NOTABLE CHANGESVersion 1.0 – Submitted (April 17, 2014)

Chapter Change1-9 All chapters submitted for initial DCA review. Version 1.1 – Submitted (May 19, 2014)

Chapter Change1-9 Revisions/edits made to address DCA

comments on Version 1.0. 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 Consultation: Included additional information

on consultations that the EAF Contractors conduct as part of their environmental review

process.Chapter 4, Sections IV. &

V.Purchase Order Generation and EAF

Contractor Invoicing: Edited for clarity and completeness.

Chapter 5, Section VII. DCA Status Reports: Added descriptions for additional reporting and record-keeping

activities. Chapter 6, Section II.B “Incomplete Environmental Reviews” was

renamed “Quality Assurance Check of Environmental Reviews.”

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.DThe 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.

NJ DCA Protocols v. 6.0 February 25, 2019

6

Chapter 8, Section I Summary of Information section was removed.

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 ChangeAll 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 Outstanding/Overdue Report section was

significantly modified.

Version 3.0 - Submitted (October 1, 2014)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 Updated Office 365 field names; added ICF staff names.

All Modified titles of Chapters to ensure consistency with work flow process

Chapter 1 Section B Tranche 2 Programs included


7

Chapter 4 Section IV Environmental Review

Policy Questions

Point of Contact Process Steps included

Chapter 6 Steps in ERMS and Non-ERMS finalization process included

Chapter 8, Section C Outstanding/Overdue Report section was significantly modified.

Appendices Formerly attachments. Changed to better align with flow of the document

Appendix F Revised to reflect current implemented process

Appendix G Included Tier 2 Work Flow Process Steps Version 3.1 - Submitted (January 2, 2015)

All Updated Office 365 field names; added ICF/DCA staff names.

Chapter I Change Management Process addedChapter 4 Section IV

Environmental Review Policy Questions

Point of Contact Process Steps revised

Chapter 8 Thumbnails of various reports addedFormerly Appendix C Calculating ERMS/non-ERMS Daily Tier 2

Tally removed as it is no longer applicable. Appendix D.3, VIII The NJDCA Environmental and Historic

Preservation Reviews Reevaluation Process added

Appendix H Change Management Work Flow Steps included

Appendix F EA/CEST Work Flow Steps revisedAttachments to DL Change Management documents added

DL/ICF to DCA CorrespondenceVersion 3.2 - Submitted (April 1, 2015)All Updated Office 365 field names; and ICF/DCA

staff names.Chapter 1 Section II.B. Tranche 2 Programs added.

Chapter 4 section I ERMS EA/CEST Work Process Steps added.Chapter 5 ERMS EA/CEST process added.Chapter 6 Aligned Finalization with Tier 2s and

EA/CESTs.Appendix F Added EA/CEST Work Process Steps to

ERMS.Version 3.3 - Submitted (August 1, 2015)


8

All Updated Office 365 field names; and ICF/DCA staff names.

Chapter 4, Section II Added discussion of the Floodplains and Wetlands Protection Work Process Steps

Chapter 6, Section III

Figures 4-15, Document Screen Shots added.

Chapter 8 Updated list and names of various reports to match current usage.

Chapter 9 Added discussion of Flood Hazard Risk Reduction Program.

Version 4.0 - Submitted (February 1, 2016)All Updated Office 365 field names; and ICF/DCA

staff names.All Removed non-ERMS from most sectionsAll Updated Programs under review

Chapter 2, Section III Added LMI Mobile Homes at New SitesChapter 6, Section III.B.1. Updated process for submission of public

notices for review and issuance of Task Orders

Chapter 9 Added HMFA to the discussion of non-EAF Contractor reviews

Chapter 10 Added DMRR ChapterAppendix E Updated ERMS Work Process Steps to reflect

CR43Version 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 Revised text to remove all mention of HMFAAppendix E Revised the EA/CEST Work Process Steps

Version 5.0 – Submitted (June 1, 2017)All Removed non-ERMS from remaining sections

Chapter 7 Section I.A

Added Protocols for invoices with regard to invoice summaries and portal invoice tracking

Chapter 9 Removed Chapter 9 since it discussed Non-EAF FHRRVersion 5.0 –

Submitted (June 1, 2017)

All Removed non-

Version 5.0 – Submitted (June 1, 2017)

All Removed non-ERMS from remaining sections


9

ERMS from remaining sections

Chapter 7

Section I.A

Added Protocols for invoices with

regard to invoice

summaries and portal invoice

trackingChapte

r 9Removed Chapter 9

since it discussed Non-

EAF FHRR

Chapter 7 Section

I.A

Added Protocols for invoices with regard to invoice

summaries and portal invoice tracking

Chapter 9 Removed Chapter 9 since it discussed Non-EAF FHRR

Version 5.0 – Submitted (June 1,

2017)All Removed non-


Chapter 7

Section I.A

Added Protocols for invoices with

regard to invoice


trackingChapte



EAF FHRR



Chapter 7 Section

I.A




Version 5.0 – Submitted (June 1,

2017)All Removed non-


Chapte Added



Chapter 7 Section

I.A




10

r 7 Section I.A

Protocols for invoices with

regard to invoice


trackingChapte



EAF FHRR


Version 6.0 – Submitted (February 25, 2019)

All

Chapter 7 Section I.A


11

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW

I. 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.


12

II. 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 [email protected].

If your project is not task order oriented, please skip Chapter 2 in this document.

III. ROLES AND OTHER BASIC GUIDANCE

A. 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)

o EAF Contractor Management Team (Tonya House and Judith Burton)

Document Library and EIT Facilitator (Tonya House) Program Managers, (Tonya House and Judith Burton)

o Application Intake Coordinator (Tonya House and Judith Burton)

o ERR Assignment Coordinator (Tonya House and Judith Burton)

o 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.


13

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 Blue Acres: Tonya House RREM: Tonya House State Revolving Fund: Tonya House Flood Hazard Risk Reduction: Tonya House Lead Hazard: Tonya House Beach Replenishment: Tonya House Unsafe Structures Demolition: Tonya House LMI: Tonya House Housing Mortgage Finance Agency: 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.

B. 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.


14

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.

C. 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.

D. TERMINOLOGY


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.

15

Key terms are defined in the DCA ER Glossary provided in the attachments file

E. 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]).

F. 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.


16

IV. 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.


17

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 24 CFR PART 58 Regulations Attachment A ERR_Checklist CEST-EA Statutory Review Guidance Document 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 DCA ER Glossary DCA Tier 2 QA Checklist EA CEST Process Flow Chart_061814 EA Guidance Document EAF Contractor Protocols CDM-Smith EAF Contractor Protocols Dewberry ERMS EAF Contractor Protocols Dewberry Non-ERMS EAF Contractor Protocols Gannett-Fleming EAF Contractor Protocols Tetra Tech Eviron_Review_Completion_Form ERMS Applications Passed QA Review ERMS_Graphics LRRP Daily Report 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 Completed Exempt and CENST Sample Completed Tier 2 Review Sample Task Order Cost and Count spreadsheet Sample Berger TO Invoicing spreadsheet Tier2_NJDCA_Site_Specific_Review_Guidance


18

Tier 2_Review Form v. 1.4 Tier 2 Site Specific Review Form v. 1.5 Tier 2 Guidance Document May 1, 2015 Weekly Report on CEST and EA Pipeline


19

CHAPTER 2: STEP 1 - APPLICATION INTAKE I. 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

II. TIER 2

A. 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).

1. 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.


20

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 Extra spaces in the field 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


21

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 ERMSNOTE: 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.


22


Figure 1Modifying 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 NumberApplication ID Owner’s Last NameProperty AddressCommentGreen ZoneArcheological Zone Scope of WorkRed 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.

23

2. 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).


Figure 2Using ArcGIS

Open up ArcGIS, in Google Chrome only. 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 queryIf 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 ([email protected]) andTim Davis ([email protected]) 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.”

24

mailto:[email protected]


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:

DCA/DCA periodically updates the list of withdrawn applications.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


25

Office 365, ERR Reviews General Reference Library.

B. 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.


Figure 3Updating 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.

26

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.

III. LMI MOBILE HOME PROJECTS AT NEW SITES

As part of the Low and Moderate Income (LMI) Homeowners Rebuilding Program1, 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. 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.

IV. 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

1 For further discussion of mobile homes, see Comment 26 to Action Plan 2 (Substantial Amendment 7).


27

into ERMS as pre-ERMS reviews since they did not follow the task out process. The process outlined below covers ERMS.

A. 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.

2. 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


28

3. 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.

4. 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.

B. 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 Right of Entry form (ROE) 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.


29

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.

C. 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 ErrorsIf, 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.

D. ENTER DATA IN ERMS [STEP 1.4]


30

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- Date of Application submittal to DCA- CDBG-DR Program Type- Application ID- National Objective- Applicant Name- Business/Project Name- Address- EAF Contractor- Project Description- Project Cost/Funding Amount


31

CHAPTER 3: STEP 2 – TASK ORDER AND PURCHASE ORDER PROCESSES

I. 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

II. 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 NumberOriginal Task Order AssignedContract 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


32

Contractor Assigned To (choose from the drop down menu)Duration of WorkContract line item number under Method of PaymentFixed Cost of This Task (Not To Exceed)

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].


33

III. TASK ORDERS FOR ADDITIONAL WORK

Certain tasks require a supplemental task order to cover additional labor or costs. These include:

Archaeological surveys 8-step and 5-step floodplain analysis

Key Information For Creating Task Orders Task Order tracker List of EAF Contractors and contract numbers:

Tetra Tech: A84678 Gannett Fleming: A84679 Dewberry: A84671 CDM Smith: A84680 EAF Contractor Contract Year Price Sheet Comparison

8-step and 3-step wetlands analysis Lead-based paint and asbestos testing Publishing Phase I or Phase II Environmental Site Investigation 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.Once approved by DCA, the TO/EAF Contractor Management team prepares a task order based on the estimate created by the EAF Contractor following the task order creation process found in Chapter 3, Section III. .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:


34

Click “Task Order Manager” button on the left tab Click “Add Additional Task Order” button in the middle of the screen

o Add in basic Task Order tracking information Task Order Type Task Order Number Original Task Order Date Agency National Objective CDBG-DR Program Contractor Assigned Cost Duration of Work

O Attach PDF of executed Task Order

IV. 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


35

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

I. 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


36

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

Review task order in ERMS [Step 3.1]

Accept task order via ERMS [Step 3.2]

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


37

should be emailed to DCA, who will then forward the location to NJEIT so they can upload the documents to ERMS.

II. 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


38

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]

III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW - POINT OF CONTACT PORTAL

The Point of Contact (POC) system is an email address ([email protected]) 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 ([email protected]) with [email protected] 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 [email protected] in the copy line. This is used by DCA to


39




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 - [email protected] Kim McEvoy - [email protected] Tim Davis - [email protected] Tonya House - [email protected] Elaine Adams - [email protected] Dennis Reinknecht - [email protected] Chris Pettit (HMFA Projects only) - [email protected]

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 Invoice and Purchase Order correspondence

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.

A. 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 ([email protected]). HMFA projects would also include the ICF NJERRQUESTIONS email address in the copy list. The


40




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 [email protected] .

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.

B. 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 [email protected] email and for HMFA projects would also include the ICF email [email protected] 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


41




I. 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.

II. 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.

A. PROCESS FOR MAKING QUALITY REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS

Site Visit MonitoringThe 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


42

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 QM Reviewer Assigned

The Tier 2 ERR Coordinator: 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

B. 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.


43

2. 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.

C. 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].


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].


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,


44

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.

III. 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:


45

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:


46

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

Email Archive - [email protected]

Kim McEvoy - [email protected]

Tim Davis - [email protected]

Tonya House - [email protected]

Elaine Adams - [email protected]

Dennis Reinknecht - [email protected]

Chris Pettit (HMFA Projects only) - [email protected]

EAF Contractor HMFA Notifications: also include MFA Notifications:

Chris Pettit, Idanis Peter-Diaz, Teresa White

EDA Notifications: include Liza Nolan


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:


47



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 365The Quality Manager verifies that the updated ERR package is uploaded to ERMS, and the QA review process is restarted.


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]


48

o 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”


49

CHAPTER 6: ERR REVIEW FINALIZATION AND DCA QUALITY REVIEW STEPS

I. 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 Publication Public Review ERR Finalization.

II. 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.

A. OBTAINING APPROVAL


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].


50


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].

B. 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 Tax Card information and/or proof of acreage Affidavits of Publications

If the Program Manager identifies any quality issues, he/she returns the environmental review to the DCA QA Reviewer for correction.

III. 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


51

Implementing required publication processes Completing the public review process, and Finalizing the ERR

A. 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 ([email protected]) and Nicholas Smith-Herman ([email protected]) 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;


52



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)


53


54

Figure 5 - RROF


55

Figure 6 - AUGF


56

B. 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


57

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

Figure 8 – Combined Public Notice (FONSI/RROF/FP)


58

2. 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


59

Upload the signed task order into ERMS [Step 3.13].

Figure 9 – Final Notice Publication TO


60

3. 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]

C. PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS

The TO/EAF Contractor Management team redacts personal information and uploads the following documents to the Document Library for posting to DCA’s website:

CEST or EA document (Figure 10)

Figure 10 – EA


61

Notices in English & Spanish (Figure 11)

Figure 11 – Spanish Combined Public Notice

Maps (Figure 12)


62

Figure 12 – Map Example (Toxics)


63

Consultation letters, as necessary (e.g., SHPO, NJ Natural Heritage Program, toxics clearance from DCA staff)(Figure 13)

Figure 13 – SHPO Consultation Form 2

Other supporting documentation

Once the notices are published, the public comment period begins [Step 8.1]. The TO/EAF Contractor Management team will contact the EAF Contractor requesting the affidavit of publication and copies of the notice from the newspaper (Figure 14) with a copy to the DCA Program Manager [Step 8.2]. The EAF Contractor is responsible for obtaining affidavits from the newspapers, referencing the appropriate application ID(s), and emailing them to ICF [Step 8.3]. Once received, the TO/EAF Contractor Management team reviews the affidavits to confirm that the affidavit is for the correct application [Step 8.4]. If the newspaper copy of the notice is not legible, then a copy of the actual notice is needed. The TO/EAF Contractor Management team prepares a transmittal memo and emails the memo, the RROF, the affidavit of publication, and copies of the notice as proof of publication, to the DCA PM for approval [Step 8.5]. The DCA PM reviews the transmittal memo and affidavit package [Step 8.6], and signs, scans, and emails the transmittal memo to ICF [Step 8.7].


64

Upon completion of the comment period, the TO/EAF Contractor Management team contacts DCA and EDA (if applicable) to inquire if any comments were received [Step 8.8]. The TO/EAF Contractor Management team notifies the EAF Contractor of the results and emails any comments to the EAF Contractor and DCA [Step 8.9]. If no comments are received, the TO/EAF Contractor Management team provides the EAF Contractor with the “no comments” email and the TO/EAF Contractor Management team emails the entire package (signed transmittal memo, affidavits, and notices) to the DCA PM, Tim Davis, and DCA (Michael Simon and Nicholas Smith-Herman) [Step 8.12].If comments have been received, the ICF Quality Manager discusses with the EAF Contractor whether there are any substantive comments that would change the outcome of the environmental review, or should be addressed in the environmental review [Step 8.10] If there are comments, the Quality Manager will initiate coordination with the DCA PM and the EAF Contractor in order to facilitate the modification or amendment of the ERR. [Step 8.11] The EAF Contractor then revises the EA/CEST to respond to the comments and resubmits the EA/CEST though ERMS. ICF reviews the revised EA/CEST using the process described in Chapter 5, Section 3.D.Once the ICF QM has approved the EAF Contractor’s changes, the TO/EAF Contractor Management team emails the entire package (signed transmittal memo, RROF, affidavits, and notices)(Figure 15) to the DCA PM, Tim Davis, and DCA (Michael Simon and Nicholas Smith-Herman) [Step 8.12]. This proof of publication allows DCA to mail the signed RROF form 7015.15 to HUD [Step 8.13]DCA sends the signed RROF to Kim McEvoy, Tim Davis, the DCA PM and the TO/EAF Contractor Management team [Step 8.14]. This allows the TO/EAF Contractor Management team to continue to track the progress of the ERR.

Figure 14 – Affidavit of Publication


65

Figure 15 – Second DCA Signature Package (RROF)


66

D. RESPONDING TO COMMENTS AND REQUESTS RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PUBLIC NOTICES

An email address has been added to the DCA website hosting Environmental Review Public Notices. The public and agencies can now use this address to submit email comments and/or requests for more information. This updated protocol has been prepared to ensure all parties (DCA, EDA, DCA, ICF, and EAF contractors) have the same understanding regarding the flow and handling of comments and/or requests that are received.

DCA

When an entity provides comments and/or requests more information about a project to the email address provided on the DCA website, DCA will ask DCA for the public commetns afte rthe comment period has ended. DCA will forward the public comments the same day it is received to DCA POC’s and copy the email archive. This process will occur regardless of when the comments or information request are received (e.g., if a comment is received 30 days after a 15-day public notice has published, it should still be forwarded to the DCA POC and email archive email address).

If an entity provides comments and/or requests more information from an email address at DCA other than that listed on the website, the entity will be directed to submit their comments and/or requests to the DCA website email address.

EDA

For EDA projects:

When an entity provides comments or requests more information about a project to EDA, EDA will forward the email that same day it is received to DCA will ask DCA for the public commetns afte rthe comment period has ended. DCA will forward the public comments the same day it is received to DCA POC’s and copy the email archive . This process will occur regardless of when the comments or information request are received (e.g., if a comment is received 30 days after a 15-day public notice has published, it should still be forwarded to the DCA POC and email archive email address).

In the event EDA inadvertently receives comments or requests related to non-EDA projects:

The commenter/requestor will be directed to the DCA website (http://www.nj.gov/dca/divisions/sandyrecovery/review/) to submit their comments or requests through the email address listed.


67

http://www.nj.gov/dca/divisions/sandyrecovery/review/





DCA

If an entity provides comments and/or requests more information directly to DCA, the entity will be directed to submit their comments and/or requests to the DCA website email address.

The DCA PM will coordinate with the EAF Contractor to respond to any comments and/or requests for more information.

The DCA PM will review and approve draft comment and/or request responses prepared by EAF Contractors, and coordinate with the EAF Contractors regarding their incorporation into the ERR.

Comments received after the comment period has ended will be reviewed by DCA, who may work with the EAF Contractor to determine whether or not the comments should be incorporated into the ERR and EA/CEST document.

o Regardless of the decision to include the comments, the EAF Contractor will support DCA in any response directly to the commenter.

ICF (HMFA projects only)

If an entity provides comments and/or requests more information directly to ICF, the entity will be directed to submit their comments and/or requests to the DCA website email address.

ICF will forward comments received at the [email protected] email address to the EAF Contractor and copy the DCA PM and the NJDCA Sandy Recovery Environmental Historical Preservation Program Director.

ICF will forward information requests received at the [email protected] email address to the DCA PM with a copy to the EAF Contractor and the NJDCA Sandy Recovery Environmental Historical Preservation Program Director. The EAF Contractor will prepare a response to the requester, which the DCA PM and ICF will review and approve.


68



ICF will review any draft comment and/or request responses prepared by the EAF Contractor. ICF will send the reviewed draft response to the DCA PM.

After the comment period has ended, ICF will email DCA (and EDA for all EDA projects), requesting written confirmation as to whether or not comments were received.

Comments received after the comment period has ended will be reviewed by ICF and DCA, who may work with the EAF Contractor to determine whether or not they should be incorporated into the ERR and EA/CEST document.

o Regardless of the decision to include the comments, ICF and/or the EAF Contractor will support DCA in any response directly to the commenter.

EAF Contractors

If an entity provides comments and/or requests more information directly to the EAF Contractor, the entity will be directed to submit their comments and/or requests to the DCA website email address.

The EAF Contractor will provide their recommendations to DCA and/or ICF regarding incorporation of any comments and/or requests into the ERR and EA/CEST document.

The EAF Contractor will draft any comment and/or request responses, and coordinate with ICF and/or the DCA PM regarding their incorporation into the ERR.

The EAF Contractor will NOT provide any commenting entity with the [email protected] email address.

E. FINALIZING THE ERROnce the ERR is final, the TO/EAF Contractor Management team adds the signed RROF, affidavits, and copies of public notices to the Project File in ERMS [Step 9.1]. The TO/EAF Contractor Management team then reviews the final ERR file and uses the ERR Completeness Checklist to verify that all required documents are included in the file [Step 9.2]. If the completeness checklist reveals that any documents are missing, the TO/EAF Contractor


69


Management team contacts the EAF Contractor to obtain the missing documents [Step 9.3]. The EAF Contractor is responsible for providing any documents missing from the file [Step 9.4]. Once the TO/EAF Contractor Management team has documented that the ERR is complete, the team prepares the ERC form for the ERR in MS Word [Step 9.5]. The TO/EAF Contractor Management team emails the DCA PM the ERR file location in the Document Library and ERMS and attaches the ERC form for the DCA Program Manager’s review and signature [Step 9.6]. The DCA PM reviews, signs, scans, and emails the signed ERC form to the TO/EAF Contractor Management team [Step 9.7]. After receiving the signed ERC form the TO/EAF Contractor Management team adds the signed ERC form to the final ERR file in the Document Library or in ERMS. The TO/EAF Contractor Management Team downloads the ERMS ERR and uploads the package to the appropriate Final ERR folder in the Document Library [Step 9.9]. The TO/EAF Contractor Management team then emails the appropriate Agency, DCA, and EAF Contractor staff. All notifications must include the recipients listed in the text box [Step 9.10].

Notification List ALL Notificaiton are to include the

following DCA POC list Kim McEvoy,Tim Davis, Tonya House,

Elaine Adams, and Dennis ReinknectEA EAF Contractor NCR Notifications:

,EDA: Bruce Ciallela, Maciek Bury,

Blue Acres NotificationsDCA: Fawn McGee

Beach Replenishment Notifications: DCA Georgeann Gray

LMI Notifications: DCA: David Mazzucca

Flood Hazard Notifications: DCA: Rebecca Jones

SBL Notifications: EDA: Bruce Ciallella

HMFA Notifications: Chris Pettit Teresa White, Idanis Peter-Diaz

NEP Notifications: EDA: Maciak Bury DCA-NEP: Richard Montemore, Manuel Garcia, James Lordi, Jill Woolford and

LRRP Notifications:

DCA: Chris Trench

RREM Notifications:

DCA: David Mazzuca

USD Notifications: DCA: Dave Mazzucca

SRF Notifications: DCA: Eugene Chebra

Lead Hazard Notifications: DCA: Dave Mazzucca

ERB Notifications:EDA: Liza Nolan; Bruce Ciallella


70

DCA provides DCA the AUGF form when it is received from HUD.[Step 9.11].

Once the Authorization for Use of Grant Funds AUGF is received, DCA considers the Environmental Review to be complete.

The TO/EAF Contractor Management team forwards the email from Kim McEvoy with the signed AUGF to the appropriate agency [Step 9.12]. The TO/EAF Contractor Management team then downloads the Final ERR File, adds the signed AUGF Form, and reloads the Final ERR Folder to the Document Library, and emails the DCA PM and Kim McEvoy to confirm completion, with a copy to the appropriate individuals, as listed in the Notification list text box above. TO/EAF Contractor team adds the AUGF to the Final ERR folder under project files in ERMS. After adding the AUGF to ERMS, the TO/EAF Contractor management team checks the box at the bottom of the project details page confirming that all additional documentation has been added to the ERMS ERR File [Step 9.13]. The DCA PM then confirms that all files are present in ERMS and adds the signed AUGF to the Image Library [Step 9.14] [Step 9.15].


71

CHAPTER 7: EAF CONTRACTOR PAYMENT PROCESS

I. EAF CONTRACTOR INVOICING

Every week the Accounting Lead, Elaine Adams, compiles and emails the completed ERMS Tier 2 environmental reviews, and the completed ERMS EA/CEST environmental reviews from the previous week. The Accounting Lead emails each EAF Contractor their list of completed environmental reviews from the previous month to generate invoices. Only those completed environmental reviews included on this list are eligible for payment. If an EAF Contractor believes that a particular environmental review has been completed, but is not on the current approved payable list, the EAF Contractor notifies the Accounting Lead of the discrepancy. The Accounting Lead investigates the apparent discrepancy and provides findings to the EAF Contractor. The EAF Contractor electronically submits one or more completed invoice packet(s) (based on the specific task order) to the Accounting Lead. Each invoice packet includes:

Cover letter detailing the contract number, the task order number, purchase order number, company’s invoice number, and the month during which the services were delivered

Contractor Invoice Copy of Original Purchase Order EAF Contractor signed Purchase Order partial voucher listing monthly

costs incurred Monthly ERR completion list, which includes the completed application

IDs, task order numbers, and the ERR approval dates as well as any partially completed application id’s being invoiced

For Monthly Reporting invoices, a summary page is required to be included which reflects the dates of the weekly reports, and the monthly submissions.

For secondary task orders, required documentation that supports the amount invoiced such as invoices, credit card receipts, etc. should be attached to the invoice packet. If invoices are not available, a credit card receipt is acceptable, but requires reference to the specific APP ID# expensed, initialed, and dated by the EAF Contractor.


72

A. PROTOCOLS FOR REDUCING THE TIMEFRAME OF THE INVOICING BACKEND PROCESS

In keeping with the principal that we should always be evaluating and improving our processes; we have identified two steps that have been added to the invoicing backend process that has assisted in expediting the system.

- EAF Monthly Summaries –Accounting Lead updates the EAF invoice summaries and sends the spreadsheets to the EAF Contractors on a monthly basis. This analysis includes specifics in respect to previous invoice submissions, payment information, and providing outstanding task order/purchase order information for future invoice (90% & RETAINAGE) submissions. This analysis assists the EAF’s to submit invoices on a timelier basis and close out purchase orders more efficiently. It also allows DCA, and the EAF to identify and resolve any problematic invoices earlier in the process. All invoice summaries are stored on the financial directory. This process will place the emphasis on the EAFs to submit their outstanding invoices on a timelier basis.

- POC Portal Invoice/Purchase Order Logging – This process should, be followed if large numbers of revcviews come in but the Accounting lead takes this role on if minimal reviews are concurrantely being processed. The POC Portal Management team may review logs and track invoices and Purchase Orders to ensure timeliness and accuracy. The add on to the existing process allows for errors in invoice packets to be identified earlier in the process, therefore meaning that the Accounting Lead can focus on processing complete invoices while allowing the EAFs to revise and resubmit incorrect invoices. This also improves tracking and logging capability.

The POC Portal Management Team follows the steps below when logging and tracking invoices and purchase orders:

1. POC Portal is copied on all invoices sent to the Accounting Lead by the EAFs. Each invoice is added/stored in the respective EAF folder in the POC inbox once logged.

2. The portal conducts a preliminary “program” review of the invoice packet (ex. check for glaring omissions), issues a ‘received’ email to the EAF, and logs the invoice details in the tracking spreadsheet.

3. Accounting Lead reviews and approves invoices for PM to review and sign. The Accounting Lead then confirms receipt of invoice packets with the invoice log generated by the portal to ensure all invoices are received and processed. The POC tracking portal is copied on invoice revision requests sent to the EAF’s so this information can be tracked and followed up as needed after a set duration. The POC tracking Portal is also copied when requesting approval from DCA PMs.


73

4. All invoices signed by PM continue to follow the existing process for payment. In addition to the process, the Accounting Lead copies the portal on approved/signed invoice packets sent to DCA for processing.

5. Once DCA assigns FR#’s, this information is updated in the monthly EAF invoice summaries. The task order/purchase order can be officially considered ‘closed out’ for tracking purposes.

All revised activity will be included in the EAF monthly invoice summaries as part of the logging activities which will mean that the monthly EAF summaries are kept more up-to-date, and the amount of updates the Accounting Lead will need to make each month will be greatly reduced; again allowing them to focus on approving and processing invoices rather than EAF management.

II. VOUCHER APPROVAL

The Accounting Lead reviews the EAF Contractor’s invoice packets and certifies the accuracy of the attached documentation by initialing the hard copy of the purchase order partial voucher on the bottom left hand corner of the page in blue ink (Certification by Receiving Agency line item). If the actual expense is lower than the original obligation, the 'Total Amount' cell (Section (C) (which is located in the upper right hand corner of the purchase order voucher) is crossed out , and the actual expense is posted, and initialed by the Accounting Lead, and DCA Program Mananger in blue ink. If an invoice packet has discrepancies, is incomplete, or requires further clarification, the Accounting Lead contacts the EAF Contractor by email so that there is record of the correspondence, and possibly with a phone call to the EAF Contractor’s Accounts Payable DCAartment.For each approved hard copy invoice packet, the Accounting Lead initials the partial voucher in blue ink. The DCA Program Manager reviews, and signs in blue ink. In turn, the Accounting Lead electronically sends the certified invoice packages (EAF Contractor specific) to DCA. The Accounting Lead updates the EAF Contractor Invoice summary tracker spreadsheet in the financial record, maintains a hardcopy file of the certified invoice packets and uploads the certified invoice packets into the finaicial record.


74

CHAPTER 8: REPORTING

I. DCA STATUS REPORTS

DCA has taken over the reporting as of August 1, 2018. Reporting that is summarized below may not be required due to the volume reduction of new reviews and change of administration. As of August 1, 2018, the only reporting that is being continued by DCA is the EA/CEST Report. ICF will only report status of HMFA projects to DCA by submitting the EA/CEST Report to HMFA and DCA.

Prior to August 1, 2018, ICF had regularly provided DCA with four types of reports: targeted briefing reports, ongoing reporting and record-keeping


75

information, the EA/CEST Report and the Outstanding/Overdue Report. All reports were stored in Office 365 in the NJ DCA Records Management subsite in the following location:

A. DCA BRIEFING REPORTS

The ICF team is responsible for developing DCA’s Briefing Reports. The primary purpose of this set of reports is to brief the DCA Commissioner and to update staff at DCA with high level data related to program status and progress. The Briefing Reports include:

1) Monthly Report for the Commissioner (renamed Sandy EHP Program Project Completion Status Report). Provides monthly numbers of applications received from DCA for review, numbers tasked out to EAF Contractors, numbers returned from EAF Contractors as complete and ready for QA review, numbers of applications passing QA, and numbers of applications returned to DCA as complete. This report also includes financial data: totals of funds obligated on a per program (task order range) basis and data related to the status of consultation (Toxic Substances, ASTs, and SHPOs) for each program. Included in the Commissioner’s Report are certain counts of NJ DCA specific applications including: exemptions, adoption of FEMA/USFWS reviews, and CENSTs for each program. These are applications that do not require ICF review and are managed solely by NJ DCA. In order to present and maintain accurate data for the Commissioner’s Report counts, ICF would send weekly


76

status reports; however, due to decreased volumn and program closeouts then report was reduced to monthly. Weekly/monthly emails would be sent to each program manager to update any new NJ DCA applications that may have been received or completed in the past two weeks. (Primary Audience: Kim McEvoy and DCA Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners)


77

Weekly Report for the Commissioner

2) RREM Weekly Report. Provides a quick summary of applications received, tasked out, completed by EAF Contractors, and returned to DCA as complete. (Primary audience: DCA)


78

RREM Weekly Report

3) LRRP Weekly Report. Provides a quick summary of applications received, tasked out, completed by EAF Contractors, and returned to DCA as complete. (Primary audience: DCA)

LRRP Weekly Report


79

4) Applications Sent to DCA. Provides a monthly summary of applications that were finalized and sent back to DCA for the specified month. (Primary audience: DCA)

Applications Sent to DCA Report

5) Applications Sent to DCA. Provides a monthly summary of applications have been received by DCA for the specified month. (Primary audience: DCA)

Applications Sent to DCA Report


80

6) QPR Report. Provides a quarterly summary of applications that have been accepted by DCA, tasked out to the EAF Contractors as well as environmentally cleared/sent back to the agencies. This report assists DCA with filling in the narratives for the HUD Quarterly Report that DCA is obligated to produce. (Primary audience: DCA)

B. ON-GOING REPORTING AND RECORD-KEEPING

Other reporting and record-keeping activities include the following:

DCA SIROMS Report (w_o feasibility) . Discussed in Section 2.II.A.

DCA SIROMS Report


81

https://ironworks.sharepoint.com/sites/SandyEnvHistReviews/ERR/_layouts/15/start.aspx#/Reference/Forms/AllItems.aspx?View=%7B8E4E45DB-6F00-49C7-A303-B435F116DDB0%7D

Tier 2 Dashboard. The ICF team produces a report summarizing Tier 2 data as well as EAF Contractor metrics (i.e. Acceptance Rate; Turnaround Time; etc.) when required to assess performance.

Tier 2 Dashboard


82

C. EA/CEST REPORT

Tuesdays and Thursdays, by 3 P.M., the ICF team provides DCA with a status summary of all currently active EA/CESTs. The data is exported from Office 365.

EA/CEST Report

D. OVERDUE REPORT Every two weeks the TO/EAF Contractor Management team prepares an Overdue Report for applications under environmental review. The OverdueReport lists all Tier 2 applications that have not yet been completed in ERMS, identifies ERRs past their due date for each EAF Contractor, and tracks specific policy issues (e.g. SHPO). The Overdue Report facilitates discussion between DCA/ICF and the EAF Contractors in determining the status of their applications and what steps can be taken to expedite the ERR. The TO/EAF Contractor Management team collects information from various personnel and tracking logs to create/update this report. Applications that have passed their assigned due date are considered to be Overdue.The TO/EAF Contractor Management team provides the complete report to Tim Davis and provides EAF Contractor-specific subsets of the report to the EAF Contractors.


83

The Overdue Report file name structure is “Overdue Report mm.dd.yy”. The tab titled “Overdue Report as of m-dd-yy” includes a specific list of applications overdue, or stalled in policy decisions. The TO/EAF Contractor Management team takes the following steps to prepare the report:

Of all Task Orders issued to date, regardless of Task Order series, determine which Task Orders have not yet been completed in ERMS. Export the active applications from Office 365 and identify which applications within those Task Orders have not been completed and add those newly overdue applications to the Overdue Report by inserting a row for each application in the appropriate spot.

Sort the applications in the Overdue Report by Age (days). Any applications with a date of completion in ERMS should be

removed from the report Check the NJ HPO Application Status Report to confirm the Tier 2

(RREM/LRRP) applications listed in the NJ HPO report match those listed in the Overdue Report. If the NJ HPO report indicates that NJ HPO has received a SOW from DCA or that NJ HPO has provided the EAF Contractor with a determination of affect for an application, then the ERR should be completed very soon after and submitted to DCA/ICF QA for review. Tier 2 applications in this situation should be followed-up on with the EAF Contractor to determine the expected submittal date. Include that date in the Overdue Report.

The TO/EAF Contractor Management Team provides each EAF Contractor’s relevant section of the Overdue Report to the EAF Contractors every Wednesday. Substantive responses are due from the EAF Contractors by the close of business Thursday.

The TO/EAF Contractor Management Team reconciles the EAF Contractor contributions to the Overdue Report with existing data and includes ‘Aged’, and ‘Obligations’ updated status columns, renames the file to include the new date and revision status (example, “Overdue Report as of 1_19_16”) and provides the revised Overdue Report to Kim McEvoy and Tim Davis every other Monday. Tim Davis provides feedback on the Overdue Report, and follow up responses by the TO/EAF Contractor Management Team are due back to Tim Davis within two days of receipt of the feedback.

The second tab in the report listed “RedBox List as of m-dd-yy” provides a list of applications that are on hold prior to task out.


84

Overdue Report


85

CHAPTER 9: DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT AND RECORDS RETENTION

ICF has prepared a Document Management and Records Retention Plan and proposed retention schedule. The purpose of the Document Management and Records Retention Plan (DMRR Plan) is to ensure that necessary records generated as a result of the Environmental and Historic Preservation (EHP) Reviews performed by the New Jersey DCAartment of Environmental Protection (NJDCA) for the New Jersey DCAartment of Community Affairs’ (NJDCA) Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) Program are adequately managed, inventoried, protected and maintained to meet all contract requirements and to adhere to State and Federal guidelines for the purpose of records retention. The DMRR Plan will also ensure that records no longer needed by the NJDCA CDBG-DR Program are discarded at the proper time. Records are defined pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:3-16. For NJDCA operational purposes the primary repositories for electronic documents are NJDCA’s V:


86

Drive and Image Drive, the Environmental Review Management System (ERMS), and ICF’s Shared Drive and Microsoft Office 365. In addition, paper documents are stored at both the NJDCA Offices and the ICF New Jersey Offices.

I. STATE OF NEW JERSEY DOCUMENT LIBRARY FILES

Document Library (DL) is not considered a permanent records repository, but contains: ERRs, posted to the DL by the EAF Contractors; and templates, protocols and guidance documents, posted to the DL by NJDCA and ICF. Completed ERRs are periodically backed up on the Image Drive and ERMS by NJDCA, and ICF transfers materials from the Image Drive to the ICF Shared Drive for sorting and temporary retention. Non-ERR Program records are posted to the DL from files existing on Office 365 for ICF, and the V: and Image Drives for NJDCA, which systems are captured and organized for retention by ICF. As of August 1, 2018, ICF has transferred all files saved within Office 365 into DCA SIROMS file share system.

II. NJDCA V: DRIVE AND IMAGE DRIVE FILES

NJDCA’s V: Drive and Image Drive contain files relating to ERRs, protocols, guidance, Task Orders and correspondence relating to ERRs and ERR generation, review and approval. ICF collects, identifies, inventories, organizes and classifies NJDCA EHP Legacy documents located on the NJDCA V: Drive and Image Drive. Legacy documents are those created on or before June 15, 2015. NJDCA copies files from NJDCA’s V: Drive and Image Drive to an Office of Information Resource Management (OIRM) approved Memory Stick or hard drive and delivers the collected material to ICF New Jersey office personnel. During this process legacy electronic documents will be kept on NJDCA’s V: and Image drives for necessary operational access.ICF will identify materials that should be classified as records and classify any records according to record type, per Figure 16.

Figure 16: Record Types

Record Type DMRR Defined RecordERRs Consultant File - Final Report

Emails/letters/transmittal memos

Correspondence


87

Contracts, TOs, POs, Invoices FinancialHMFA/CENST and Exempt Grant Program Staff ReportsProtocols, Change Requests,

PresentationsNeeds Assessment and Strategic

PlanningGuidance Documents Reference Materials -

Environmental RelatedTracking logs and reports Tracking and Reporting

Drafts, notes, non-final reports and materials

Work Papers (Technically not records, not subject to the

retention schedule so DCA may dispose of these materials at their

discretion)

As discussed above, the term record has a specific legal meaning. Many materials have been and are being generated in the EHP program but only some of these materials are records. In general, there are records and non-records. Records are final versions of materials identified in N.J.S.A 47:3-16. Drafts, notes and other non-final documents are not included in the definition of “records”. These non-records are known as Working Papers or Rough Drafts. When ICF reviews and categorizes the legacy NJDCA documentation ICF will compile any such working papers and notes into a separate folder which will then be returned to DCA for disposal at DCA’s discretion.

Program specific electronic records are assigned to record type sub-folders located in a specific Program folder. Non-Program specific records and documentation are placed in the General folder and attributed to the appropriate record type sub-folder. Figure 17a provides a list of the Program specific folders and Figure 17b provides a list of the sub-folders under each Program specific folder and a general folder that will be used in the inventorying and organization of documents.


88

Figure 17a: Program Specific Folder Structure

Figure 16b: Program Sub-Folder Structure

ICF stores the organized legacy documentation on the ICF Shared drive utilizing the folder and subfolder structure detailed in Figures 17a and 17b.

As of June 15, 2015, NJDCA staff started classifing and maintaining newly created documents on the V: Drive and Image Drive using the Program folder and sub-folder structure in Figures 17a and 17b. Starting September 30, 2015, and every calendar quarter after, ICF will collect the documents created on or after June 15, 2015, on the NJDCA V: Drive and Image Drive. ICF will store the organized new documentation on the ICF Shared drive utilizing the folder and subfolder structure detailed in Figures 17a and 17b.


89

III. ERMS FILES

ERMS is the primary NJDCA repository of ERR records. ERMS was developed and placed into operation in March 2014 to act as the records location and workspace for developing, reviewing and approving ERRs associated with the Programs. Only Tier 2 ERRs were processed in ERMS from March 2014 until February 25, 2015, when EAs and CESTs also began to be processed in ERMS. DCA has migrated all pre-ERMS Tier 2s and EA/CESTs into ERMS. These ERRs are identified as “Pre-ERMS”.

IV. ICF SHARED DRIVE FILES

ICF maintains a Shared Drive on its servers which acts as the temporary repository for NJDCA files copied from the V: Drive and Image Drive. The folder structure for the NJDCA records on the ICF Shared Drive mirrors the folder structure placed on the V: Drive and Image Drive for records retention.

V. ICF OFFICE 365 FILES

Office 365 is the primary work space for ICF for its program management and quality assurance review of ERRs. ICF has reviewed all documentation that currently exists on Office 365 and determined which can be classified as records or work papers. Each record has been identified and organized by program and record type in accordance with Figure 16. Specifically, ICF New Jersey office personnel tagged all records on all sub-sites of Office 365, indicating Program and Record type. Tagging of Office 365 records consists of opening each record’s properties and selecting the appropriate menu options for Program and Record type.ICF New Jersey office personnel review their laptop hard drives and upload all program records to Office 365, utilizing the NJDCA Records Management Center sub-site. ICF New Jersey office personnel coordinate with other ICF personnel to facilitate collection, uploading and tagging of EHP program records. All files have been transferred to DCA SIROMS shared drive as of August 1, 2018.

VI. PAPER DOCUMENTATION IN THE NJDCA OFFICES

Upon completion of the electronic records review, ICF collects and scans NJDCA EHP program paper documentation. Scanning is performed at the ICF New Jersey office. Scanned documents are identified, organized, and classified in the folder structure in Figures 17a and 17b.


90

Upon completion of organization of the NJDCA paper documentation, ICF will store the scanned documentation on ICF’s Shared Drive. The organized paper documentation will be returned to the NJDCA offices after the documents are scanned. All hard copies of NJDCA records will be returned to NJDCA at the end of the contract unless provided to DCA at an earlier time.

VII. AT THE COMPLETION OF THE CONTRACT

At the completion of the contract, ICF will provide NJDCA with an electronic copy of the program records stored on the ICF Shared Drive, excluding Work Papers, sorted pursuant to the folder and subfolder structure detailed above, and Office 365, along with an index. This has been completed as of August 1, 2018.


91

APPENDICES


92

APPENDIX A: DOCUMENT AND FILE NAMING CONVENTIONS FOR NEW JERSEY DCA

ENVIRONMENTAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEWS

NEP0000AirportHazards NEP0000AirQuality NEP0000ASTMap NEP0000CoastalBarrierResourceAct

Map NEP0000CoastalZoneManagement NEP0000CEST NEP0000EA NEP0000EarlyNoticePublication NEP0000EnvironmentalJusticeCheck

list NEP0000EnvironmentalJusticeMinor

ity NEP0000EnvironmentalJusticePovert

y NEP0000FarmlandProtectionMap

NEP0000FloodplainAnalysisNEP0000FloodplainMgmtandFloodInsuranceMap

NEP0000HUDForm7015.15NEP0000ParcelMapNEP0000SoleSourceAquiferMapNEP0000ThreatenedandEndangeredSpeciesMap

NEP0000ToxicHazardousRadioactiveSubstancesMap

NEP0000WetlandsProtectionMapNEP0000WildScenicRiverMapRRE0000FieldAssessmentRRE0000Tier2Review

Additional Naming Considerations Numbers and letters are ok Do not use symbols other than

underscore “_” and dash “-” Loading files with symbols (e.g.,

“&” and “#”) in their names can result in loading errors. To avoid these problems, do not use symbols in any file names.

Examples of good naming practice: For PDF files for threatened

and endangered species


93

maps, substitute “TandE” for “T&E” in the file name

For PDF files for of photos, substitute “No123” for “#123”

Revised Documents. This includes any documents that have been revised and resubmitted to be included in the final ERR package. This document will be stored as AppID_DocumentType_Revised


94

APPENDIX B: DOCUMENT AND FILE NAMING CONVENTIONS WITHIN THE OFFICE 365

ENVIRONMENT

Documents stored to the ICF Process Completion Documents folder in Office 365 should use the following naming conventions:

ERMS Submitted Email. The ERMS-generated second email created following hitting “confirm” after final ICF QM review of an ERMS Tier 2 ERR, with “DCA ERMS Form Submitted” in the subject of the email. This email will be stored as DCA ERMS Form Submitted Application ID RRE--------

APPENDIX C: USING ARCGIS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION TO CONFIRM

EAF CONTRACTOR REVIEWSWhen reviewing documentation that relies on maps, the QA reviewer may use the ArcGIS based NJDCA GeoWeb Screening Tool to confirm the maps provided by the EAF Contractor. Air Quality: is there a map showing that the property is located within

USEPA Nonattainment Area Map? Airport Hazards: Does the map show the acceptable distance from the


95

following airports; Newark Liberty International Airport/Atlantic City International Airport /Lakehurst Naval Air Station?

Coastal Zone Management: Is there a map showing that the property is located outside of the identified Coastal Zones?

Contamination and Toxic Substances: Does the map show that is located more than 3,000 ft. away from identified hazardous sites? This may require coordination with Toxics expert, Kim McEvoy to see if any sites have been cleared. The contractor can communicate with to complete this requirement and include a report to show results that cleared the site.

Lead Based Paint: What is the year the structure was built? If an inspection is determined to be needed, is there a written commitment to completing the required surveys, along with a citation of the appropriate Federal regulations? If the survey has been completed, is there an inspection report with findings included?

Asbestos: If a survey is determined to be needed, is there a written commitment to completing the required surveys, along with a citation of the appropriate Federal regulations? If the survey has been completed, is there an inspection report with findings included?

Radon: Is there a copy of the NJ Radon Potential by County table with municipality listed and a PDF map showing the parcel location on the NJDCA Radon Potential Map?

Threatened and Endangered Species (T&E): Is there a letter from the Natural Heritage Program and a map that includes all appropriate species?

Environmental Justice: Have they included the three maps/tables and an EJ checklist from the HUD site? Is it for the right area, and have they drawn the right conclusions?

Explosive and Flammable Operations: Is there a map of the parcel and the location of any AST’s within 1 mile, that have been identified during the site inspection, aerial photo analysis and/or contact with the local fire protection or emergency management agencies? If there is a nearby site, have they analyzed the space between the parcel and the AST?

Farmland Protection: If necessary, is the map included, showing the relation of the parcel to the farmland?

Floodplain Management: Is there a map of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) or Flood Hazard Boundary Map?

Historic Preservation: Is there a copy of the Historic Property Exemption Zone map layer, archaeological grid map layer, programmatic allowance number (from Appendix B from the Programmatic Agreement), or a PDF copy of the State Historic


96

Preservation Officer letter? Have above-ground, archaeological, and tribal resources been considered and addressed?

Noise Abatement and Control: Is there a map showing the parcel and the Noise Contour Map if applicable to the parcel? Does it list in the Compliance and Documentation section if the project is located within the established affected distances? If the project will result in an increase in residential density or is being funding by the Neighborhood Enhancement Program, has a noise analysis been conducted and any required noise mitigation identified?

Sole Source Aquifers, Wetland Protection, Wild and Scenic Rivers: If required, are there maps included for each of these showing the relation to the parcel?


97

APPENDIX D.1: EXEMPT & CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED, NOT SUBJECT TO (CENST)

I. OVERVIEW OF EXEMPT AND CENST

If a project is Exempt under 24 CFR 58.34 or Categorically Excluded Not Subject To (CENST) the related laws and authorities under 24 CFR 58.35(b), the project file must 1) make reference to the applicable exemption or CENST, and 2) document compliance with 24 CFR 58.6 requirements.Some activities that fall under an exemption or CENST include the (1) purchase of tools and equipment (including generators that are not permanent fixtures); (2) supportive services for health care, housing, housing placement, day care, and short-term rent payment; (3) public services related to crime prevention and health; (4) inspections and testing for hazards; (5) development of engineering and design costs; (6) assistance for temporary or permanent improvements that do not alter environmental conditions and are limited to protection, repair, or restoration activities necessary only to control or arrest the effects from disasters or imminent threats to public safety; and 7) supplemental assistance to a previously approved project..This appendix describes the review process for applications that are classified as Exempt or CENST.

Note: At this time, these reviews continue to be conducted by DCA staff. This section will be updated to reflect ICF protocols once responsibility for their completion is transferred.

II. PROCESS FOR COMPLETING APPLICATIONS INITIALLY DETERMINED AS EXEMPT OR AS CENST

Programs or activities that are eligible for exemption pursuant to 24 CFR 58.34 Categorically Excluded Not Subject To (CENST) the related laws and authorities under 24 CFR 58.35(b), are determined through consultation between the Program Director, Kim McEvoy and DCA or EDA, or any potential program lead. The Program Director makes the determination of the whether the program or application meets the criteria and either personally completes the Certificate of Exemption or Certificate of Categorically Excluded Not Subject to sec. 58.5, with the 58.6 Compliance Determinations and executes as Preparer, or the Program Director assigns the Program Manager to complete the documentation.


98

The Program Director compiles the documentation and develops a transmittal memo to provide background information about the application and justify its classification as Exempt or CENST. The Project Director, and sometimes Program Director, delivers the completed ERR to DCA for signature. DCA’s Compliance and Monitoring division returns the signed forms to DCA for filing.For an example of a completed Exempt form and CENST, see Sample Completed Exempt and CENST.


99

APPENDIX D.2: TIER 2I. OVERVIEW OF TIER 2

Tier 2 reviews apply to RREM, LRRP and Unsafe Structures, LMI and Lead Abatement programs. As stated in Chapter 6, ICF receives Tier 2 ERRs through ERMS. The volume of daily reviews to complete can vary significantly so ICF has trained over 30 reviewers to be on-call to complete these reviews. To complete a Tier 2 review, ICF ERR Reviewers must:

Review each section of the Tier 2 review for accuracy and completeness, and ensure that the EAF Contractor’s conclusions appear reasonable.

Verify that the EAF Contractor’s findings are supported by appropriate source documents.

Ensure that the ERR file is a complete, free-standing document that includes all needed supporting documentation in PDF format.

The steps the QA Reviewer must follow are described below. Additional guidance and examples for completing a Tier 2 review are available in the following documents:

ICF Tier 2 Checklist (Located in Office 365) Sample Completed Tier 2 Review Tier 2 NJDCA_Site_Specific_Review_Guidance Tier 2 Updated Guidance Document

All reviews are completed using the Tier 2 Checklist located in Office 365. Once the review is complete, the ICF Quality Manager follows the protocols described in Chapter 6 to approve the Tier 2 review, or to work with the EAF Contractor to address any identified issues with the review.

II. SITE SPECIFIC FINDINGS

The ERR Reviewer confirms that the “Site Specific Findings” section has been completed, the appropriate documentation is provided, and the documentation supports the determination. In this portion of the review the ERR Reviewer:

Reviews the EAF Contractor’s Tier 2 submission to ensure that selections have been made for each of the applicable compliance areas.

Opens the documentation provided by the EAF Contractor cited in each of the compliance sections to ensure that it supports the related determination. This process constitutes the heart of the Tier 2 review.


100

The ERR Reviewer also must ensure that needed consultations (e.g., SHPO, Natural Heritage Program, toxics review, and above-ground storage tank separation distance analysis) have been completed and are properly documented.

Assembles documents for determining whether appropriate determinations have been provided including:

Tier 2 Checklist Sample Completed Tier 2 Review When reviewing documentation that relies on maps, may use the ArcGIS-

based NJDCA GeoWeb Screening Tool to confirm the maps provided by the EAF Contractor. (See Attachment A for examples).

III. CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL

In addition to evaluating the content and findings of the environmental review record, the ERR Reviewer also takes the following steps to confirm that the Tier 2 review is complete and accurate:

Confirms that Project Description and the Project Specific Conditions listed are clearly articulated and correspond with the Site Specific Findings section

Ensures that the property address is accurate Ensures that either the “complies with” or “does not comply” with box is

selected, and is supported by the review Ensures that the preparer signed and dated the document Ensures that the application ID and PAMS Pin number is consistent

throughout Verifies that the “Finding of the Tier 2 Review” section is complete and

accurately reflects the results of the review.


101

APPENDIX D.3: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT & CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED,

SUBJECT TO

I. OVERVIEW OF EA AND CEST

Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Categorically Excluded, Subject To, (CEST) are submitted to ICF through ERMS (Prior to February 25, 2015, these applications were processed through the Document Library). To complete the review ERR Reviewers of CEST and EA must:

Review each section of the EA or CEST for completion, and ensure that the EAF Contractor’s assessments are accurate.

Verify that the EAF Contractor’s findings are supported by appropriate source documents.

The issues the ERR Reviewer must look for in each section of the review are described below. Additional guidance and examples for completing an EA or CEST are available in the Document Library, DCA EA – Information/CEST-EA Documents-Guidance-Forms, in the following documents:

CEST-EA_AdminProcForContractors Sample Completed EA EA_CEST Guidance Document

The ICF Quality Manager, working in coordination with the DCA QA Team, may need to return an EA or CEST multiple times to the EAF Contractor before the ERR passes the QA step in the process.


102

II. SUMMARY INFORMATION

For both EAs and CESTs, the ERR Reviewer checks the ERR summary information for accuracy and completeness by ensuring that:

The CDBG-DR Program, application ID number, applicant name, and project location, are accurate.

Conditions for approval match all findings identified in the EA or CEST. A Finding box has been selected and the finding appears reasonable

based on the summary information provided in the review. The Preparer has signed and dated the environmental review. The descriptive information about the project is accurate by comparing

the descriptions to source materials such as: Funding information Estimated total HUD-Funded Amount Estimated Total Project Cost Statement of Purpose and Need for the proposal Description of the proposed Project Existing Conditions and Trends

III. PART I REVIEW

For both EAs and CESTs, the ERR Reviewer confirms that the Project Description information is accurate and sufficient, the Part I Statutory Checklist section has been completed, the compliance documentation description is accurate and complete, the actual compliance documentation is provided, and the documentation supports the determination. This requires the following steps:

Review the EAF Contractor’s Part I Review submission to ensure that a status has been selected for each authority.

Review the statement of compliance documentation to ensure that the statement of compliance or noncompliance is clearly articulated, and the appropriate documentation is cited.

Open the documentation cited to ensure that it supports the status determination.

Helpful documents for determining whether appropriate determinations and documentation have been provided include:

DCA EA-CEST QA Checklist EA/CEST Guidance Document


103

CEST-EA Statutory Review Guidance Document When reviewing documentation that relies on maps, the Reviewer will

most often just review the uploaded maps, but may also use the ArcGIS based NJDCA GeoWeb Screening Tool and do the mapping again to check and confirm the maps provided by the EAF Contractor. (See Attachment D for examples).

IV. PART II: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST

For EAs, the Reviewer also reviews Part II, Environmental Assessment Checklist. Part II is not required for CESTs and is not part of the CEST form. This requires the following steps:

Review the EAF Contractor’s Part II Review submission to ensure that an impact code has been selected for each impact category and that the impact code appears to be appropriate.

Review the statement of impact evaluation, source documentation, and mitigation or modification required to ensure that the statement is accurate, clearly articulated, and the appropriate documentation is cited.

V. PART III: 58.6 CHECKLIST

For both EAs and CESTs, the ERR Reviewer reviews the 58.6 checklist. This requires the following steps:

Review the EAF Contractor’s 58.6 Review submission to ensure that all three topics have been addressed.

If “No” is selected Ensure that appropriate documentation is cited Open the documentation cited to ensure that it supports the status

determination. If “Yes” is selected

Confirm the finding and ensure that documentation is available. If appropriate, ensure that required follow-up actions are listed.

VI. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

For both EAs and CESTs, the ERR Reviewer reviews the Summary of Findings and Conclusions section. This requires the following steps:


104

Review the Summary of Findings and Conclusions for completeness and accuracy, and to ensure that the findings and conclusions are consistent with the rest of the review.

If issues have been identified, ensure that: Each issue is clearly identified and summarized in the summary,

and If mitigation is necessary, ensure that the specific steps required

are outlined clearly. Site-specific conditions for funding are included at the end of the

section.

VII. PROCESS FOR COMPLETING APPLICATIONS CONVERTED TO EXEMPT (ONLY CEST)

Sometimes in the process of completing an environmental review, an EAF Contractor may determine that a CEST review can be converted to Exempt. When this occurs, the EAF Contractor informs the appropriate Program Manager and the EAF Contractor Management team and the following steps occur;

The EAF Contractor compiles the required documentation, sends the Exempt application back to DCA and ICF through ERMS (formerly through the Document Library).

An ICF Reviewer is then assigned to review the application, the Quality Manager reviews the initial ERR review, coordinates ICF’s findings with the DCA QA Team, and works with the EAF Contractor to ensure a complete and accurate ERR package is uploaded to ERMS. Milestone actions are also tracked in Office 365. No public notice or RROF is required for CESTs that are determined to be Exempt.

The EAF Contractor must include not only the Exempt form but also the CEST compliance documentation review. Completing the CEST review is how the project is determined to be Exempt. Both the Exemption and the CEST must be signed by the Responsible Entity.

APPENDIX E: EA CEST ERMS WORK PROCESS STEPS


105


EA and CEST ERMS Work Process Steps (as of 7/6/2018)

ICF Step Activity DescriptionResponsible

DayParty

Step

0:

Appl

icati

on

Deliv

ery

--- Email/Document Library - Daily application delivery Tonya D0

--- ERMS - daily application delivery DCA D0

---DCA PM and ICF Determine Complete and Accurate Incoming Applications; DCA PM Loads to DL – email EDA/DCA/Applicant for missing information

Tim D0

Step

1: I

ntak

e Pr

oces

s (1

Day) 1.1 Review Daily Inflow of Applications – Update

EA/CEST/Tier 2 Report Tonya D1

1.2Verify Application Data is Accurate and Complete (Done in conjunction with step 0) Tim D1

1.3 Determine Type of Review Kim/Tim D11.4 Create project and upload Application Data in ERMS Kim/Tonya D1

Step

2: T

O P

roce

ss (2

Day

s)

2.1 Identify EAF Contractor Based on Rotation Kim D22.2 Prepare and Submit Draft Task Order in ERMS Kim/Tonya D22.3 Review Draft Task Order Elaine D3

2.4 Approve & Electronically Submit ERMS Version of Task Order Elaine D3

2.5 Automated Email Sends Task Order to EAF Contractor ERMS D32.6 Review Task Order EAF Contractor D42.7 Accept Task Order Via Electronic Signature in ERMS EAF Contractor D42.9 Record Assigned EAF Contractor In V: Drive Elaine D4

2.10 Record Task Order & Application Assignment Dates In V:Drive Elaine D4

2.11 Record Anticipated Application Completion Date and Anticipated Publication Date In EA/CEST/Tier 2 Report Tonya D4

2.12Upload Signed PDF Task Order into V: Drive

Elaine D4Purchase Order Generated

2.13Begin EA/CEST Status Comments in EA/CEST/Tier 2 Report Tonya D4

Step

3: A

sses

smen

t Pro

cess

(50

Days

)

3.1Conduct 5 Day Consultation Determination and Email to DCA PM EAF Contractor D5-

D9

3.2DCA enters information about needed consultations into EA/CEST/Tier 2 Report Tonya D5-

D9

3.3 Conduct Assessment EAF Contractor D5-D53

3.4 Prepare Request for Release Of Funds (PDF) in ERMS EAF Contractor D10-D53

3.5Prepare English and Spanish publication notices, and submit to DCA/ICF for review and approval EAF Contractor D10-

D53

3.6 Approve English notice Kim D10-D53

3.7 Submit approved notices to newspapers for quotes EAF Contractor D10-D53

3.8 Prepare Task Order (ERMS) for Publication Kim/Tonya D10-D53

106


107

-APPENDIX F -TIER 2 ERMS ERR WORK PROCESS STEPS

TIER 2 ERMS ERRWork Process Steps

(As Of 1/5/2016)

ICF Step

Activity Description Responsible Day[Blue Text] = Office 365 Entry Party

Step

0

Deliv --- SIROMS - Nightly Spreadsheet Delivery DCA D0

--- ERMS - Daily Application Delivery DCA D0

Step

1

In

take

Proc

ess

1.1 Review Daily Inflow Of ERMS Based Applications

Kim D1

1.2 Verify Application Data is Accurate & Complete

Kim D1

1.3 Upload Application Data Into V Drive[App ID / Program Type / Level of Review/ Date Accepted for Task Out]

Tonya D1

Step

2

T

ask

Ord

er P

roce

ss

2.1 Identify EAF Contractor Based On Performance & Capacity

Kim D2-D6*

2.2 Generate Task Order In ERMS (Level 3) [EAF Contractor / Task Order Number/ Application Identification]

Kim/Tonya D2-D6*

2.3 Review & Approve Task Order In ERMS (Level 6) [Date TO Provided To EAF Contractor / Estimated Date Of ERR Completion By EAF Contractor]

Kim/Tim D2-D6*

Step

3

A

sses

smen

t

Pr

oces

s

3.1 Review Task Order In ERMS EAF Contractor (POC) D73.2 Accept Task Order Via ERMS (Level 2) EAF Contractor (POC) D7

3.2a Assign Each Application to a Preparer (Level 2) EAF Contractor (POC) D73.3 Conduct Tier 2 ERR Assessment (Level 1) EAF Contractor

(Preparer)D7-D27

3.4 Review And Submit Tier 2 ERR Via ERMS (Level 2)

EAF Contractor (POC) D7-D27

Step

4

Q

ualit

y Re

view

Pro

cess

4.1 Check ERMS For New Tier 2 ERRs [EAF

Contractor Submit ERR for Review]Tonya D28

4.2 Assess Initial ICF Reviewer Availability Kim D284.3 Assign Initial DCA Reviewer & DCA QM

Reviewer [ERR Review Assigned Date / ERR Reviewer Assigned To / QM Reviewer Assigned]

Kim D28

4.4 The ERR Tier 2 ERR Team emails the number of environmental reviews received in ERMS to the Application Intake Coordinator to be included in the daily Status Report email that

Kim ---


108

is sent to both ICF and DCA staff4.5 Review Tier 2 ERR In ERMS (Level 3) Kim/Tim D284.6 Complete Tier 2 ERR Checklist In O365 (Level

3)Kim/Tim D28

4.7 Submit ERR Checklist To ICF QM Reviewer (Level 3) [ERR Checklist Submitted For QM]

Kim/Tim D28

Step

5

Q

ualit

y M

anag

emen

t Pro

cess

5.1 Review Tier 2 ERR Reviewer's Work (Level 3) Kim/Tim D285.1A If Revisions Are Needed, Reject ERR (Level 3)

[Date ERR Returned To EAF For Revision]Kim/Tim ---

5.1B Reject ERR (Level 2) EAF Contractor (POC) ---5.1C Assign To Preparer EAF Contractor (POC) ---5.1D Revise Tier 2 ERR (Level 1) EAF Contractor

(Preparer)---

5.1E Review And Submit Tier 2 Via ERMS (Level 2) - Return To Step 4.4

EAF Contractor (POC) ---

5.2 Approve Tier 2 ERR Via ERMS (Level 3) [Date ERR Passed ICF QM Review]

Kim/Tim D28

5.3 Assign Tier 2 ERR To DCA QM Reviewer (Level 5)

Kim/Tim D29

5.4 Review Tier 2 ERR (Level 4) Kim/Tim D295.4A If Revisions Are Needed, Reject ERR (Level 4) Kim/Tim ---5.4B Reject ERR (Level 3) [Date ERR Returned To

EAF For Revision]Kim/Tim ---

5.4C Reject ERR (Level 2) EAF Contractor (POC) ---5.4D Assign To Preparer EAF Contractor (POC) ---5.4E Revise Tier 2 ERR (Level 1) EAF Contractor

(Preparer)---

5.4F Review And Submit Tier 2 Via ERMS (Level 2) - Return To Step 4.4


5.5 Approve Tier 2 ERR Via ERMS (Level 4) Kim/Tim D295.6 Review Tier 2 ERR (Level 5) Kim/Tim D29

5.6A If Revisions Are Needed, Reject ERR (Level 5) Kim/Tim ---5.6B Reject ERR (Level 4) Kim/Tim ---5.6C Reject ERR (Level 3) [Date ERR Returned To


5.6D Reject ERR (Level 2) EAF Contractor (POC) ---5.6E Assign To Preparer EAF Contractor (POC) ---5.6F Revise Tier 2 ERR (Level 1) EAF Contractor

(Preparer)---

5.6G Review And Submit Tier 2 Via ERMS (Level 2) - Return To Step 4.4


5.7 Approve Tier 2 ERR Via ERMS (Level 5) DCA QA Manager D295.8 Review Tier 2 ERR (Level 6) Tonya D30

5.8A If Revisions Are Needed, Reject ERR (Level 6) Tonya ---5.8B Reject ERR (Level 5) Kim/Tim ---


109

5.8C Reject ERR (Level 4) Kim ---5.8D Reject ERR (Level 3) [Date ERR Returned To


5.8E Reject ERR (Level 2) EAF Contractor (POC) ---5.8F Assign To Preparer EAF Contractor (POC) ---5.8G Revise Tier 2 ERR (Level 1) EAF Contractor

(Preparer)---

5.8H Review And Submit Tier 2 Via ERMS (Level 2) - Return To Step 4.4


5.9 Approve Tier 2 ERR Via ERMS (Level 6) Tonya D30

* Due to the current batching procedures, the task order process could take up to 12 days if an application comes in on Tuesday and has to wait until the second following Monday to be assigned.


110

APPENDIX G – FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION WORK PROCESS STEPS

Floodplain Management: Work Process Steps (as of 4/14/15)Step Activity Description Responsible

PartyDay (8

Step)

Day(5

step)EA/CEST FP

2.7 0. Task Order for EA/CEST accepted by EAF Contractor

EAF D0 D0

1. Determine if project is located within the Special Flood Hazard Area (100-year floodplain, zones A or V), or if the project is a “critical action” within a 500-year floodplain, or if there is a stream on-site or within 300 feet of the property line.

EAF

1) Use DCA’s map layers to determine if the project site is within the floodplain or floodway.

EAF < D5 < D5

2) Provide a pdf map to be included in the ERR. EAF < D5 < D53.1 2. Make a finding. EAF

1) Status A: project is not within a 100-year floodplain or does not involve a “critical action” within the 500-year floodplain

EAF D5 D5

2) Status B: The 5- or 8-step decision making process must be completed

EAF D5 D5

3.3 3. If a 5-step or 8-step process is needed, the EAF must get a task order to do the work.

EAF

1) EAF develops a statement of work (SOW) for the appropriate study (i.e., 5-step or 8-step).

EAF D10 D10

2) ICF creates a Task Order for the EAF to complete the needed analysis and sends it to the DCA PM for approval.

DCA D11 D11

3) DCA PM reviews, signs, and sends the Task Order back to ICF

DCA D11 D11

4) ICF sends approved Task Order to EAF Contractor for signature.

DCA D11 D11

5) EAF returns fully executed Task Order to ICF and begins work.

EAF D12 D12

4. Conduct a 5-step or an 8-step HUD floodplain management decision-making process, as described in 24 CFR 55.20

EAF D13-47

D13-17

5. Conduct early public notification for 8 Step EAF/DCA D23-


111

only. 471) EAF prepares early floodplain notice and send

to ICF and DCA for review and approval.EAF D23

2) EAF, DCA, and ICF resolve issues and comments, if any.

EAF/DCA/ICF

D26

3) EAF gets Spanish translation of early floodplain notice and sends English and Spanish versions to ICF.

EAF D28

4) ICF sends both English and Spanish versions to DCA to post to the DCA website for a 15-day public review period.

DCA D28-29

5) EAF publishes notices in newspapers. EAF D30

6) ICF requests affidavits and copy of notice from EAF

DCA D35

7) If there are public comments, DCA advises ICF and DCA and ICF sends comments to the EAF to prepare responses.

DCA D47

8) If no public comments are received, ICF advises DCA and notifies EAF so the information can be included in the ERR.

DCA D47

3.5-3.6 6. Insert the floodplain analysis into the ERR and prepare the final floodplain notice.

EAF D53 D53


112

APPENDIX H – WETLANDS PROTECTION WORK PROCESS STEPS

Wetlands Management: Work Process Steps (as of 4/16/15)Step Activity Description Responsible

PartyDay*

(8 Step)

Day(3

step)Tier

2EA/CEST WETL

ANDS3.2 2.7 0. Task Order for EA/CEST

accepted by EAF Contractor

EAF D0 D0

1. Determine if project is located within a wetland (within 20 feet of new construction or reconstruction), wetland transition or buffer area (within 150 feet of a wetland), tidal or non-tidal waterway

EAF

1) Use DCA’s map layers to determine if the project site is within wetlands and the floodplain.

EAF < D5 < D5

2) Provide a pdf map to be included in the ERR.

EAF < D5 < D5

3) Determine if a NJDCA or Section 404 permit has been issued.

EAF < D5 < D5

3.1 2. Make a finding. EAF 1) Status A: The project

does not include new construction or expanding the footprint of a building, OR any new construction will not occur in a designated wetland or expand the footprint of a building into a wetland or result in adverse impacts to a wetland.

EAF D5 D5

2) Status B: The 3- or 8-step decision making process must be completed

EAF D5 D5

3.3 3.3 3. If a 3-step or 8-step process is needed, the EAF must get

EAF


113

a task order to do the work.1) EAF develops and submits

a statement of work (SOW) for the appropriate study (i.e., 3-step or 8-step).

EAF <D10 <D10

2) ICF creates a Task Order for the EAF to complete the needed analysis and sends it to the DCA PM for approval.

DCA <D11 <D11

3) DCA PM reviews, signs, and sends the Task Order back to ICF

DCA <D11 <D11

4) ICF sends approved Task Order to EAF Contractor for signature

DCA <D11 <D11

5) EAF returns fully executed Task Order to ICF and begins work.

EAF <D12 <D12

4. Conduct a 3-step or an 8-step HUD wetlands protection decision-making process, as described in 24 CFR 55.20 & 55.28

EAF D13-47

D13-17

5. Conduct early public notification for 8 Step only.

EAF/DCA D23-47

1) EAF prepares early wetlands notice and sends to ICF and DCA for review and approval.

EAF D23

2) EAF, DCA, and ICF resolve issues and comments, if any.

EAF/DCA D26

3) EAF gets Spanish translation of early wetlands notice and sends English and Spanish versions to ICF.

EAF D28


114

4) ICF sends both English and Spanish versions to DCA to post to the DCA website for a 15-day public review period.

DCA D28-29

5) EAF publishes notices in newspapers.

EAF D30

6) ICF requests affidavits and copy of notice from EAF

DCA D35

7) If there are public comments, DCA advises ICF and DCA and ICF sends comments to the EAF to prepare responses.

DCA D47

8) If no public comments are received, ICF advises DCA and notifies EAF so the information can be included in the ERR.

DCA D47

3.4 3.5-3.6 6. Insert the wetlands analysis into the ERR and prepare the final wetlands notice.**

EAF D53 D53

*Dates based on EA/CEST Work Process Steps.

**The final wetlands notice will normally be combined with other notices such as the RROF. The exception is for Tier 2s, which do not require other public notices.


115

APPENDIX I –CHANGE MANAGEMENT WORK FLOW

Table 1 (Change Request Workflow)Activity Comment Responsible

PartyIdentifyChange

Any DCA or ICF team member may identify a potential change to an existing policy, procedure, or process.

Submitter

Create ChangeRequest (CR)

Once identified, the Submitter with collaboration from the Process Owner fills out the online form in Office 365 contained in Appendix C (Change Request). This form serves as a way to describe and categorize the proposed change for processing and tracking purposes.

Submitter

IdentifyPros & ConsAssociated

with CR

The Process Owner works with the Submitter to identify advantages and disadvantages of the CR.

Submitter / Process Owner

Determineif there is

a significantbenefit

After assessing the benefits and drawbacks, the Process Owner determines if there is value to implementing the CR. If so, he or she prepares to send the CR to the Change Management Coordinator. If not, the Process Owner notifies the Submitter that the CR will not be submitted to the Change Management Coordinator.

Process Owner

Add Benefit Statement

to CR

If a CR is determined to have merit, the Process Owner updates the CR form with a narrative explaining why the CR should be implemented from a pain/promise perspective.

Process Owner

Distribute CR to ICF Team for vetting

To ensure the input of the entire ICF NJ Team is captured in the CR, the Submitter sends the Office 365 link to the CR to the ICF NJ team for operational vetting purposes.

Submitter

Submit CR toChange

Management Coordinator

Once the CR has been vetted by the ICF NJ Team, the Submitter initiates the Approval workflow.

Submitter

Review CR After receiving the CR, the Change Management Coordinator reads the CR to understand the extent and benefit of the requested modification and ensure the narratives are adequate for ICF and DCA Management review and approval.

ChangeManagement Coordinator

Change Management Coordinator Approve CR

Once the CR is ready for ICF Management review the Change Management Coordinator approves the CR.

Change Management Coordinator

Evaluate CR After receiving the CR, the ICF Management Team evaluates the CR to determine if the benefits from implementing the change outweigh the implications of adjusting the policy, procedure, or process.

ICFManagement

Team

ICF Management Once the CR is ready for the Change Management Meeting ICF


116

Team Approve CR with DCA the ICF Management Team approves the CR. Management Team

Upload ICF Approval to Office

365

Once the ICF Management Team approval is done, upload the automated approval workflow email to Office 365 (see example in Appendix E).

Submitter

Send CR List to DCA

Export the corresponding CRs from the Ready to be Reviewed view in Office 365 into Excel and send the spreadsheet to DCA.


Conduct Change Review

Session

DCA members of the Change Review Team complete their evaluations of the CR, and the group meets to deliberate on whether to accept the CR.

ChangeReviewTeam

Determinedisposition

of CR

Based on deliberation among the DCA and ICF Change Review Team members, they either approve, reject or request revisions to the CR.

ChangeReviewTeam

NotifyChange

Management Coordinator

of status

ICF members of the Change Review Team will communicate the status of each CR to the Change Management Coordinator via email with a copy to DCA.

ChangeReviewTeam

Add Approval Date & Documentation to

Office 365

Update Office 365 with CR Approval Date and attach email chain with confirmation from DCA of approval.


NotifySubmitter & Process

Owner of status

Communicate the approved or disapproved status to the Submitter and Process Owner.


Integrate & Implement CR

Ensure that the approved change is incorporated into the effected policy, procedure, or process and successfully implemented.

Process Owner


117