October 6, 2016 Welcome & Overview Improving business practices - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

October 6, 2016

Welcome & Overview

Improving business practices and growing the Nebraska economy

Project Prioritization Alternative Delivery Project Prioritization Bridge Program Project Prioritization Practical Design NEPA Engagement

Nov ‘15 Feb ‘16 June ‘16 Oct ‘16

Entrepreneurial Engaging Empowering

Delivering the Transportation Innovation Act: Economic Opportunity Program

Delivering the Transportation Innovation Act: County Bridge Match Program

BNA/TIA: Now It’s Time to Deliver

Delivering transportation

USDOT DOT

FHWA a and o

• ther s

r sister agen agencies

• He

Headquar uarters f s for national nal coord

• ordination
• Fiel

eld of

• ffices

es i in ea each s state f e for

• r

loc

• cal d

del elivery ery

NDOR DOR

• He

Headquar uarters s for

• r st

state coord

• ordination, d

des esign a and program am a admini nist strat ation

• Dis

istrict o

• ffi

ffices fo for lo r local del elivery ry

Accelerating project delivery

Alaska California Florida Ohio Texas Utah

Emerging national trend: NEPA Assignment

Introduction to NEPA Process and NDOR Experience

Jason

• n Jurg

urgens, ND NDOR OR

What is NEPA?

Federal a agencies a are r require red to determ rmine i if their prop

• pose

sed act actions h s hav ave a signi nifica cant env nvironmenta tal e effects ts, a and to consider t r the env nvironmenta tal a and nd relate ted s social a and econo nomic effect cts of s of the heir p prop

• pose
• sed act

actions

What is the purpose?

To i improve

• ve deci

ecision m making

How do you do that?

Consider er social, l, ec economic and and env environmenta tal f fac acto tors Re Reach o ch out to public a and r d resour urce ce a agenci ncies Docum cument nt decisi sion

• ns

Toxic Substances Control Act American Indian Religious Freedom Act

National Historic Preservation Act

Coastal Zone Management Act

Clean Water Act

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

Floodplains and Wetlands

Endangered Species Act

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

Farmland Protection Policy Act

Research Conservation and Recovery Act

Safe Drinking Water Act

Rivers and Harbors Act

Environmental Justice

Clean Air Act Considerations are many and broad ranging

Categorical Exclusion (CE)

Routine project actions, Majority of NDOR’s NEPA actions – 84 approved last year, 99% of all projects in last 6 years

Environmental Assessment (EA)

Don’t know if project will have significant impact 7 active EAs at NDOR, 1% of all projects in last 6 years

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

Significant impacts, currently no EIS action in NE Last EIS was before 2010

Recent developments at NDOR

• Rede

edefined FHWA and and NDOR p proces essing and and approval r l responsib ibil ilit itie ies

• CE P

Programmatic Agreem eement ent I Implem ement entation

• NDO

DOR i is now abl ble to appr pprove 75% 75% of CE CEs, accelerating p g project s schedules b by 60 process d days

• Continui

uing t ng to work w with F h FHW HWA t to stream amline process

Task Force charge

1.

• 1. Explor
• re w

e ways t to i innovate a e and i improve b e busines ess practices es a at ND NDOR OR 2.

• 2. Look a
• k at n

nation

• nal t

tren ends t to e examine e how transpor

• rtation
• n i

inves estmen ents c can h help grow

• w

Ne Nebraska ka

John R. Kasich, Jerry Wray, Ohio Governor ODOT Director

NEPA Assignment Program

Tim Hill, Administrator Office of Environmental Services

OH OHIO IO

Natural and Human Infrastructure

7th most populated state in US

34th in total area in US

Development 3,600,000 ac. Forest 7,900,000 ac. Agriculture 13,600,000 ac.

483,000 ac. of wetland 3 feet of rain per year 57,000 +

miles of rivers

4 National Scenic Rivers

39 amphibian species

59 mammal species

45 reptile species

2 federally listed bat species

$2.2 Billion Annual Transportation Construction Program

2nd largest inventory of bridges in the US

8th largest inventory of public roads in the US

1 day’s drive of 60% of the US and Canadian population

$555 billion of goods

• riginate in Ohio

$1.9 trillion of goods flow annually through the Ohio’s transportation system

3800 + historic properties on the National Register Thousands of parks

What is NEPA Assignment?

• Formal Assignment of FHWA’s NEPA responsibilities to a

State who would assume:

• All NEPA classes of action: CE, EA and EIS
• All environmental laws, rules and orders
• Under this program, ODOT is deemed to be FHWA on

all projects for environmental matters.

What is NEPA Assignment?

• ODOT assumes legal responsibility and liabilities to

ensure compliance with all environmental requirements

• ODOT agrees to be sued in Federal court
• ODOT’s Assignment does not change any current legal

requirements

• Savings is from reduced reviews - not shortcutting

process or legal requirements.

What is NEPA Assignment?

No coordination with FHWA on environmental projects/actions, except for:

• Tribal Coordination
• Projects over state lines
• Program Issues
• Training
• Audit/Performance

Measurements

Under the NEPA Assignment program, ODOT assumes all of FHWA's responsibilities for environmental review, interagency consultation, and other environmental related actions in Ohio.

History

• 2005 - Originated in SAFETEA-LU
• Pilot program allowed Alaska, California, Ohio, Oklahoma,

Texas

• 2007 - California seeks Assignment, 2007

History

• 2012 - Program expands under MAP-21
• 2014 - Texas the first State to apply
• 2014 - Ohio issues letter of interest in NEPA Assignment
• 2015- MOU between ODOT and FHWA
• First audit June thru August
• Alaska, Florida, Utah right behind us…

Benefits

• More efficient environmental review process
• Time and cost savings by eliminating a layer of review
• More efficient project delivery program
• More efficient consultation between ODOT and our

agencies

• Increased focus on local decision-making
• Continue ODOT’s leadership of our program

Benefits

Cost savings from reduced review time in Ohio

$23 million each year from reduced review times

Benefits

Example of Time Savings on Medium Projects ($20M - $149M) FHWA reviews:

• Purpose and Need

(30 days)

• Feasibility Study

(30 days)

• Alternative Analysis Report

(30 days)

• Section 4(f) actions

(45 days)

• Misc. env. Report

(60 days)

• Review/approve final document (60 days)
• Total time – FHWA can average over 390 review days per project.

Benefits

• Typical FHWA review for $20M - $149M project – 390 days.
• ODOT averages 12 of this type of project per year – 4,680

review days.

• 30% reviews performed concurrently – 1,404 project review

days.

• 25% are considered critical path= 819 days of delay
• 3.9% inflation and delay costs = $5.7 million per year.
• Not factoring in our super-projects!

What can go wrong?

• ODOT will be legally responsible and liable for all

NEPA decisions

• ODOT will defend in federal court
• Required for both on and off the State Highway System- pass

thru federal monies are the same as ODOT spending them

What can go wrong?

• No more FHWA backstop “The feds are

making us do it….”

• ODOT has to make the right decisions, based on the required

process and laws and stand by it.

• Failure - FHWA can take the program away.

Application Process

• Three phases:
• Pre-Application, Application, MOU
• Majority of application is describing current processes.
• FHWA wants to know they’re turning it over to a

competent organization.

• FHWA wants this program to be successful and for

any state that participates in this program to be successful!

Changes made for NEPA Assignment

• Sovereign Immunity Waiver
• Change State Law to accept Federal court jurisdiction

with respect to the responsibilities being sought

• “Limited Waiver”

Changes made for NEPA Assignment

• Comparable State laws
• Ensure the State’s public records laws are similar to

FOIA and the State has the authority to carry out the responsibilities assumed.

Changes made for NEPA Assignment

• Need to address shortcomings in program.
• Requires a hard look. ODOT identified a few areas that

required major overhaul. FHWA will find it during audits.

Changes made for NEPA Assignment

ODOT Changes:

• Update all manuals, guidance, etc. ODOT had 30

processes developed from scratch or updated. 16 more were developed post-Assumption.

• Establish QA/QC measures that can be tracked
• Updated Record Keeping schedules/process
• Set up conflict escalation processes with agencies

NEPA Assignment- Audit

Audit Purpose

• Assess ODOT’s discharge of the responsibilities it has assumed

under MOU

• Primary mechanism to oversee compliance with MOU
• Ensures compliance with applicable Federal laws as well as

ODOT policies/guidance

• Used to collect information for the USDOT Secretary’s annual

report to Congress

Audit Afterthoughts

NEPA Assignment- Audits

Audit Results

• Overall- positive review of ODOT’s program
• All areas were substantially complete and working well.
• Observations noted in:
• Program Management
• Documentation
• Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
• Performance Measures

40

What are we getting out of it?

Time savings

• USFWS PA processing, several
• ther agency agreements….
• Project processing savings ($5.6

million in first 4 months) Risk Management

• ODOT can update our

guidance/processes….

• It’s our risk to manage…

Helpful Input

• Helpful to understand concerns that others had w/ODOT.
• If anyone had concerns, they even helped us in addressing

those areas.

• We had support for the limited waiver of ODOT’s Sovereign

Immunity and during the Application and MOU comment periods.

• FHWA and all our partners helped ODOT continue to improve and

ensure positive performance of this program!

John R. Kasich, Jerry Wray, Ohio Governor ODOT Director

NEPA Assignment

Surface Transportation project delivery program

Tim Hill, Administrator Office of Environmental Services Tim.Hill@dot.ohio.gov 614-644-0377

Emerging national trend $19M annual savings Balance accountability, risk and savings

Facilitated Discussion

• Reacti

tion t to e emerging t trend? d?

• Conc

ncern rns?

• Po

Positive o

• utcomes?

County Bridge Match Program

Mo Moe Jams mshidi NDO DOR De Deputy Di y Direct ctor

Overview

• Prom
• mot
• te i

e innov

• vative s

e solutions

• Up

Up to $40M

• $40M t

to r

• repa

epair a and r repl eplace e def eficie ient cou

• unty

bridges

• Consult

lt with th c county o

• ffic

ficia ials ls

• Vo

Voluntary pr prog

• gram
• Program d

det etail ils t to Leg

• Legislature

e by by Dec ecember 2016 2016

• Program t

ter erminates Ju June 30, 30, 2023 2023

Came to you first – Followed your advice

Keep it simple Focus on innovation

Working Group members

• Larry

rry Dix, NACO Executive Director

• Steve R

Riehle le, Hall County, President NACE

• Chris J

Jacobs

• bsen, Custer County
• Steve M

e Mika, Saunders County

• Kevin

n Bar Barta, Knox County

• Tim R

m Ryan an, Keith County

• Denny

nny Wilson, Sarpy County

• Moe Jamsh

shidi, NDOR

• Ma

Mark Tr Traynowicz cz, NDOR

• Mick

k Sysl slo, NDOR

• An

Andy C Cunni nning ngha ham, NDOR

• Larry

rry L Leg egg, NDOR

Allocation based on NACO Districts

Structurally Deficient Bridges

5-10% 2-5% 40-45% 15-20% 25-30%

Innovation examples

• Include t

e time/ e/cos

• st s

saving m mea easures es

• Coop
• per

eration

• n b

between een m multiple c e counties es

• Bundlin

ling o

• f multip

iple br bridges

• Hyd

ydrauli lic s studie ies by d by drainage ba basin

• Ne

New t technol

• log
• gy
• Potential t

to ch change f future bridge co construction and/or

• r m

mainten enance e

Innovation examples, continued

• Clos
• se b

e bridges es/roads – don

• n’t n

nee eed a all of

• f them
• Constr

truct ct u using c g county y force ces

• Corros
• sion
• n r

resistant s substructures

• Sim

implic licity ty

• Other

ers? Prop

• pos
• sals w

will e expand l list

Selection process

• Bridge

e projec ects s submitted ed by counties duri during a a Reques est f for P Prop

• pos
• sal
• County p

prior

• ritizes

es thei eir submitted p projects

• Selec

ection

• n p

proces ess t to deter ermine f e funded ed p projec ects

Scoring criteria

0-20 pt 20 pts Inno nnovat ation 0-10 10 Cost o

• r T

Time S e Savings 0-10 10 Sustainability/Tr /Transfer erability o

• f I

Innov

• vation
• n

0-10 10 Lon Long-Ter Term M Mainten enance S e Savings 0-20 20 Project S ct Sign gnifi fica cance ce/Risk 0-20 20 Ne Needs ( (by p percen entage e in NA NACO D O District) 0-10 10 Equ quity

Funding

• 55%

% Mat atch P Program ( (State) f funds unds

• Up t

to $150, 50,000 000 per b bridge ( e (State f e funds)

• 45%

% Count unty f fund nds

• Engin

ineers a and R ROW w will be be funded en entirely ly by by cou

• unty
• Mat

atchi hing ng f funds f nds for b bridg dge c const nstruction c n cost sts

Timeline

• 5 wo

working g group m p meetings

• Initial ph

phase of

• f pr

prog

• gram
• Fal

all 2 2016: R RFP ad adver ertise sed – fun unding for

• r t

thi his cy cycle annou

• unce

ced

• Win

inte ter 2 r 2016: P Pro roposals ls due

• Early 2

y 2017: 17: F Final selec ection

• f init

itia ial p l pro rogram

• Fut

Future re c cal all f for p r projects

Questions?

Customer Service

Be Entrepreneurial Be Engaging Be Empowering

Gathering data to inform engagement and improve customer satisfaction

• LPA

PA surv survey

• Cus

Customer sat r satisfaction surv survey

• Outreach t

to co contracting a and co consulting partners

• PI/Environ
• nmen

ental p proces ess s survey ey

• Freight P

Plan an – addi dditional al e engag agement

• Proc
• ces

ess i improv

• vem

emen ents

Facilitated Discussion

• Who s

shou

• uld we

we r reach ch o

• ut t

to?

• How d

do w we be best reach stake kehold lders? The pu public ic? Lessons fro rom priv rivate s secto tor or r oth ther a r agencie ies?

• Ef

Effectiv ive e engagement appr pproaches?

• What t

topics most n need t to be be addressed?

Lightning Round

Thank You