Standards of Submission, Environmental QA/QC/CI,

PCE Determinations

A Proposal to Decentralize Environmental Review

(View in Notes Page mode to view script)

Baseline Perceptions

District Perceptions Districts should have more authority ENV standards too high

ENV Perceptions Districts not reviewing NEPA documents,

reports, and studies Districts reluctant to disclose impacts Consultants repeating same errors

Shared Perceptions Too much back and forth We’re here to build roads

TxDOT’s Goal To more efficiently build Transportation

Improvements that are environmentally sensitive and supported by the public

Proposal for Change Initiate use of Standards of Submission Develop and implement QA/QC process for

TxDOT CI/training to reduce error, replicate

success Cooperate to prevent error on critical

projects Move PCE determination to Districts Audit performance to identify training and

guidance needs

PCE Agreement What it is

Not Delegation Establishes thresholds for PCEs ENV ensures/verifies thresholds are met If thresholds are exceeded, CE is

forwarded to FHWA If not exceeded, PCE is assumed approved

by FHWA, processed by ENV

Persuading FHWA

FHWA not opposed to delegation SAFETEA-LU 6005 provides model

Transfers FHWA accountability to State DOT’s Reduces FHWA oversight to program audit Links continuation of delegation to audit results

Bottom line: 6005 delegation requires assurances and accountability for FHWA

Use 6005 model for PCE determination at District level

Persuading FHWA ENV developed a 6005 program FHWA already likes TxDOT’s 6005 model:

Regarded TxDOT’s QA/QC/audit system as model for other states;

Wanted others to adopt TxDOT District/ENV structure;

Know TxDOT can monitor itself reliably; FHWA and ENV recognize CI value.

Mr. Saenz wanted our 6005 system regardless of 6005 results

Adapting the 6005 Model Moving PCEs to Districts still leaves FHWA

responsible—unlike 6005 Keys to FHWA acceptance:

Maintaining District/ENV firewall Balancing project- vs. program-level

QA/QC/audit Balancing program standards vs. project-

specific exceptions Maintaining accountability:

between TxDOT, FHWA, and stakeholders within Districts and ENV individually

Implementation Sequence of events

Centerpiece: Finalize, roll out standards of submission (SOSs)

Finalize, roll out, test-drive QA/QC/audit system Perform demonstration audits/CI reviews Request FHWA approval to move verification

authority to districts Repeat as necessary

Standards of Submission Created to increase CZ control over review

time/outcome for SH 130 SOSs:

Define minimum acceptable performance Reduce ambiguity to minimum levels Are Statements of Work for producers,

reference for reviewers Maximizes first-time acceptance by ENV,

agencies and FHWA In place for SH 130

Effectively a pilot program

Standards of Submission What they can do:

Get producers, reviewers on same page Front-load project for successful outcome Reduce preventable re-dos Increase consultant, District, ENV accountability Provide baseline for consistent QA/QC/audit

If producers meet an explicit standard, basic quality happens automatically If there is good reason for more, standard is

place to start

Standards of Submission What they are:

Criteria for acceptance – Maximizes likelihood of acceptance of reports, documents, etc

Baseline for legal adequacy Point of departure for innovation, risk

management What they aren’t:

The only acceptable way to do things Permanently unchanging

Standards of Submission Agency/FHWA approval useful, but not

necessary Even without approval

Can be adapted to Agency/FHWA expectations Point of departure for project-specific

exceptions negotiated by District, FHWA, ENV If exceptions become common, adapt

SOSs to changed Agency/FHWA expectations

Excerpt from Sample SOS

REVIEW STANDARDS FOR DRAFT AND FINAL REPORTS FOR ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEYS—INDIVIDUAL ANTIQUITIES PERMITS

# Criterion Meets criterion?Yes / No / N/A

1 Report cover and title page include Hwy/limits, Counties, CSJ(s), District(s), Antiquities Permit #, Principal Investigator’s name, and investigative firm’s name. (Abstract form and curation form must accompany final report.)

2 Report includes a map of the area surveyed on a USGS 7.5’ Quadrangle or equivalent if 7.5’ Quad unavailable. (In final report, the map of the area surveyed cannot include site location. Map with site locations must be included as separate enclosure.)

3 Report includes Project Type/Description/Impacts and acreage of area surveyed.

4 Report defines the Area of Potential Effects (APE) in three dimensions, referring to project plans or to typical impacts for this class of project.

5 Report includes discussion of previous work/sites within one kilometer of the area surveyed with explicit reference to review of TARL files, THC or Historic Sites Atlas maps, and explicitly indicates trinomials of sites or absence of sites within one kilometer.

6 Report includes description of topography, soils, and geology. Report references soil survey maps and geological maps for the entire area surveyed or indicates that none are published for the area surveyed.

7 Report includes estimate of surface visibility, description of land use, and general description of vegetation in and adjacent to the area surveyed.

SOSs and QA/QC Legal, guidance, policy foundations of

SOSs define: Performance standards for various

environmental tasks Standards for documentation/disclosure

Therefore, SOSs define: Minimum standards for tech reports,

documents, studies, etc QA/QC/audit criteria that apply to both ENV

and Districts

District QA/QC Check reports, studies, and documents

against SOSs For consultants, Districts, local governments

District performs QA/QC review Preparer and District certify:

Report, study, document, meets SOSs, or Report, study, document deviates from SOSs, but

meets: Other criteria pre-approved by FHWA and ENV/other

agencies (i.e., project-specific SOS) Legal requirements covered by SOSs

Under PCE determination by districts, SOSs become standards for District review and approval

Excerpt from Draft Certification

COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT CERTIFICATION CSJ: __________ Highway: ____________ County: _______ District: ______

Project Scope:__________________________________________________

Description Yes No NA

Does the N&P discussion follow current guidance? ___ ___ ___

Has the district actively developed the project with planners, designers, & MPO? ___ ___ ___ Are the project limits and logical termini identified/ consistent? ___ ___ ___

Do the typical cross sections match the text describing the proposed improvements? ___ ___ ___

Has the appropriate level of public involvement been completed? ___ ___ ___

Is project in current MTP/STIP/TIP? ___ ___ ___

Is the document properly classified per 23 CFR 771 and 43 TAC 2.1-2.20 (BCE, SCE, PCE, CE, EA, EIS)? ___ ___ ___

Has the district completed the two-tier level QA/QC process? ___ ___ ___

[…]

This document is fully compliant with the NEPA process and with all the rules, regulations, permits, and environmental procedures.

_________________________________ _________________________________

Authorized Preparer Representative/Date Authorized District Representative/Date

ENV QA/QC/Audit Check certain % of reports, studies and

documents for conformance with: SOSs, or Pre-approved deviations, or Legal requirements covered by SOSs

Check environmental tasks for conformance with SOSs or legal requirements

Maintain data base of review results Periodic audits to evaluate performance Periodic meetings w/ Agencies/FHWA to gauge

their perspective of program issues

Audit 6005 model relies on program-level audit

Determine success of delegation Identify opportunities for mid-course change Monitor effectiveness of mid-course change

Approach consistent with: FHWA approach in LGPOTF TxDOT use of Independent Engineers in CDAs TxDOT’s general internal audit program

Base PCE move to districts audit on 6005 model

Audit: Proposed Model Identify possible systemic error, success

Use QA/QC data base Look for correlations involving specific districts,

issues, reviewers, project types, etc. Examine project files

Is correlation actual vs apparent? Can a cause be identified? Is there problematic or innovative deviation from

SOSs, legal requirements of SOSs, or pre-approved deviations?

SOSs become audit standards

Audit & Continuous Improvement Program-level audit to identify

opportunities for program improvement Program-level QA/QC audit directed

toward identifying: Systemic causes of error Replicable innovations Proposed changes

Proposed changes function as CI recommendations Training, guidance, technical assistance likely

to be major CI items

Maintaining PCE move to Districts Principal key: Maintain quality

Meet FHWA comfort levels Maintain accountability Maintain relationships with resource agencies Document legal defensibility of program

Prevent QA/QC problems Respond to CI recommendations Foreclose review problems through

Pre-approved deviations from SOSs ENV technical assistance for difficult tasks