GOAL 17 PROGRESS FROM PREVIOUS QUARTERS

Winter 2025

In Q1 2025, DEEP’s NDDB program received 348 requests. Many were related to aquatic invasive species treatment, which increases the baseline number of requests we usually receive in a quarter. DEEP provided 134 automated responses from the eNDDB portal with no further review required, and 214 were routed for biologist review. DEEP issued a total of 213 biologist determinations this quarter.

In 2024, the majority of biologist reviews were completed within 35 days– much faster than the target limit of 10-12 weeks.

DEEP retained a communications consultant to review our published NDDB guidance and instructions, to conduct interviews with various program users, and to survey stakeholders. DEEP explored refinements to the screening mapping tools in the eNDDB application system to help prioritize botanical reviews.

DEEP created the high-level NDDB review process flowchart (below) to provide increased predictability and transparency followed by a description of the steps.

 NDDB Workflow

• Applicant submittal of an NDDB review request through the eNDDB portal.
• eNDDB portal automated screening to determine a project’s anticipated impacts to rare species.
  • If none, the portal provides an automated response to the applicant, and no further review. 
  • Otherwise, the portal provides a response indicating biologist review is required.
• The assigned biologist conducts a “sufficiency review” to determine if the application is complete 
  • If insufficient, the biologist will contact the applicant. 
  • If sufficient, the biologist will commence a technical review. 
• The target timeline for completion of technical review is 10-12 weeks, although most reviews take under 30 days. The biologist then issues a final NDDB determination letter to the applicant, detailing (1) any anticipated impacts to rare species on the project site, (2) prescribed best management practices for minimizing impacts, and (3) requirements for mitigating unavoidable impacts.
• During technical review, the biologist may determine that additional information is required and will issue a “Request for Additional Information” letter to the applicant. 
• Once the applicant submits the required information and the biologist determines it is sufficient, the application will return to the technical review phase. Requests for additional information may add substantial time to the overall timeline (6-12 months).
• A Final NDDB Determination is issued. 

DEEP developed a scope of work for an environmental communication specialist to review current communication tools and web content and provide suggestions for improvements and enhancements to existing messaging and instructions. Program botanists continued to work on plant circumscriptions to inform mapping and streamline botanical reviews. Evaluation of NDDB review requests submitted over the last two years (November 2022 – January 2025) shows that approximately 1,200 requests are received annually for biologist review and that approximately the same number of Site Assessment Inquires are submitted and receive an automatic response.

SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF NDDB REVIEW REQUESTS SUBMITTED BETWEEN NOVEMBER 2022 AND JANUARY 14, 2025 (approximately 2,500 requests, or approximately 1,200 annually).

Summer 2024

This stakeholder-suggested goal was launched in August 2024. DEEP assembled a goal team to lead this process improvement effort, and the team began identifying capacity- and process-related factors affecting the efficiency of programmatic review. For example, aquatic pesticide reviews are challenging to complete on a short timeframe without an aquatic botanist on staff due to the research involved. Having a dedicated NDDB email enables direct communication with the public, but managing the high volume of emails is challenging.