|
|---|
|
Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program; Arizona Department of Transportation Draft FHWA Audit Report Publication: Federal Register Agency: Federal Highway Administration Byline: Stephanie Pollack Date: 3 November 2022 Subjects: American Government  , Roads & Highways
|
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 212 (Thursday, November 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66357-66362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23915]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2021-0020]
Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program; Arizona
Department of Transportation Draft FHWA Audit Report
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
established the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program that
allows a State to assume FHWA's environmental responsibilities for
environmental review, consultation, and compliance under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for Federal highway projects. When a
State assumes these Federal responsibilities, the State becomes solely
responsible and liable for carrying out the responsibilities it has
assumed, in lieu of FHWA. This program mandates annual audits during
each of the first 4 years of State participation to ensure compliance
with program requirements. This is the second audit of the Arizona
Department of Transportation's (ADOT) performance of its
responsibilities under the Surface Transportation Project Delivery
Program (NEPA Assignment Program). This notice announces and solicits
comments on the second audit report for ADOT.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 5, 2022.
[[Page 66358]]
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to Docket Management Facility:
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590. You may also submit comments electronically
at www.regulations.gov. All comments should include the docket number
that appears in the heading of this document. All comments received
will be available for examination and copying at the above address from
9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-
addressed, stamped postcard or you may print the acknowledgment page
that appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone can
search the electronic form of all comments in any one of our dockets by
the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the
comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, or labor
union). The DOT posts these comments, without edits, including any
personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Neel Vanikar, Office of Project
Development and Environmental Review, (202) 366-2068,
neel.vanikar@dot.gov, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, or
Mr. Patrick Smith, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1345,
patrick.c.smith@dot.gov, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
An electronic copy of this notice may be downloaded from the
specific docket page at www.regulations.gov.
Background
The Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program, codified at 23
U.S.C. 327, commonly known as the NEPA Assignment Program, allows a
State to assume FHWA's environmental responsibilities for review,
consultation, and compliance for Federal highway projects. When a State
assumes these Federal responsibilities, the State becomes solely liable
for carrying out the responsibilities it has assumed, in lieu of FHWA.
The ADOT published its application for NEPA assumption on June 29,
2018, and solicited public comment. After considering public comments,
ADOT submitted its application to FHWA on November 16, 2018. The
application served as the basis for developing a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) that identifies the responsibilities and
obligations that ADOT would assume. The FHWA published a notice of the
draft MOU in the Federal Register on February 11, 2019, at 84 FR 3275,
with a 30-day comment period to solicit the views of the public and
Federal agencies. After the close of the comment period, FHWA and ADOT
considered comments and proceeded to execute the MOU. Effective April
16, 2019, ADOT assumed FHWA's responsibilities under NEPA, and the
responsibilities for NEPA-related Federal environmental laws described
in the MOU.
Section 327(g) of Title 23, U.S.C., requires the Secretary to
conduct annual audits to ensure compliance with the MOU during each of
the first 4 years of State participation and, after the fourth year,
monitor compliance. The FHWA must make the results of each audit
available for public comment. This notice announces and solicits
comments on the second audit report for ADOT.
Authority: Section 1313 of Public Law 112-141; Section 6005 of
Public Law 109-59; 23 U.S.C. 327; 23 CFR 773.
Stephanie Pollack,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program
Draft FHWA Audit #2 of the Arizona Department of Transportation
Executive Summary
This is Audit #2 of the Arizona Department of Transportation's
(ADOT) assumption of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
responsibilities under the Surface Transportation Project Delivery
Program. Under the authority of Title 23 United States Code (U.S.C.)
Section 327, ADOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
executed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on April 16, 2019, to
memorialize ADOT's NEPA responsibilities and liabilities for Federal-
aid highway projects and other related environmental reviews for
highway projects in Arizona. This 23 U.S.C. 327 MOU covers
environmental review responsibilities for projects that require the
preparation of environmental assessments (EA), environmental impact
statements (EIS), and non-designated individual categorical exclusions
(CE). A separate MOU between FHWA and ADOT, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 326,
authorizes environmental review responsibilities for other CEs. This
audit does not cover the CE responsibilities and projects assigned to
ADOT under the 23 U.S.C. 326 MOU.
The FHWA conducted an audit of ADOT's performance according to the
terms of the MOU from March 29 to April 1, 2021. Prior to the audit,
the FHWA audit team reviewed ADOT's environmental manuals and
procedures, NEPA project files, ADOT's response to FHWA's pre-audit
information request (PAIR), and ADOT's NEPA Assignment Self-Assessment
Report. During the March 2021 audit, the audit team conducted
interviews with staff from ADOT Environmental Planning (EP) and the
Arizona Attorney General's Office (AGO) and prepared preliminary audit
results. The audit team presented these preliminary results to ADOT EP
leadership on April 1, 2021. The audit team conducted a completely
virtual site visit rather than its traditional onsite visit due to
national health emergency travel restrictions.
Overall, the audit team found that ADOT has carried out the
responsibilities it has assumed consistent with the intent of the MOU
and ADOT's application. The ADOT continues to develop, revise, and
implement procedures and processes required to deliver its NEPA
Assignment Program. This report describes several observations and
successful practices. Through this report, FHWA is notifying ADOT of
two non-compliance observations that require ADOT to take corrective
action. By addressing the observations in this report, ADOT will
continue to assure successful program assignment.
Background
The purpose of the audits performed under the authority of 23
U.S.C. 327 is to assess a State's compliance with the provisions of the
MOU as well as all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, policies,
and guidance. The FHWA's review and oversight obligation entails the
need to collect information to evaluate the success of the NEPA
Assignment Program; to evaluate a State's progress toward achieving its
performance measures as specified in the MOU; and to collect
information for the administration of the NEPA Assignment Program. This
report summarizes the results of the second audit in Arizona and ADOT's
progress towards meeting the program review
[[Page 66359]]
objectives identified in the MOU. Following this audit, FHWA will
conduct two additional annual NEPA Assignment Program audits in
Arizona.
Scope and Methodology
The overall scope of this audit review is defined both in statute
(23 U.S.C. 327) and the MOU (Part 11). The definition of an audit is
one where an independent, unbiased body makes an official and careful
examination and verification of accounts and records, especially of
financial accounts. Auditors who have special training with regard to
accounts or financial records may follow a prescribed process or
methodology in conducting an audit of those processes or methods. The
FHWA considers its review to meet the definition of an audit because it
is an unbiased, independent, official, and careful examination and
verification of records and information about ADOT's assumption of
environmental responsibilities.
The audit team consisted of NEPA subject matter experts (SME) from
FHWA Headquarters, Resource Center, Office of the Chief Counsel, and
staff from FHWA's Arizona Division. This audit is an unbiased official
action taken by FHWA, which included an audit team of diverse
composition, and followed an established process for developing the
review report and publishing it in the Federal Register.
The audit team reviewed six NEPA Assignment Program elements:
program management; documentation and records management; quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC); performance measures; legal
sufficiency; and training. The audit team considered two additional
focus areas for this review: the procedures contained in 40 CFR part 93
for project-level conformity and the procedures contained in Section
4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, codified in
49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138 (otherwise known as Section 4(f)). This
report concludes with a status update for FHWA's observations from the
first audit report.
The audit team conducted a careful examination of ADOT policies,
guidance, and manuals pertaining to NEPA responsibilities, as well as a
representative sample of ADOT's project files. Other documents, such as
ADOT's PAIR responses and ADOT's Self-Assessment Report, also informed
this review. In addition, the audit team interviewed ADOT staff via
videoconference.
The timeframe defined for this second audit includes highway
project environmental approvals completed between January 1, 2020, and
December 31, 2020. During this timeframe, ADOT completed NEPA approvals
and documented NEPA decision points for nine projects. Due to the small
sample size, the audit team reviewed all nine projects. This consisted
of three EAs with a Finding of No Significant Impact, two EAs initiated
with scoping completed, three EA re-evaluations, and one individual CE.
The PAIR submitted to ADOT contained 24 questions covering all 6
NEPA Assignment Program elements. The audit team developed specific
follow-up questions for the interviews with ADOT staff based on ADOT
responses to the PAIR. The audit team conducted a total of 13
interviews. Interview participants included staff from ADOT EP and the
Arizona AGO.
The audit team compared ADOT manuals and procedures to the
information obtained during interviews and project file reviews to
determine if ADOT's performance of its MOU responsibilities is in
accordance with ADOT procedures and Federal requirements. The audit
team documented individual observations and successful practices during
the interviews and reviews and combined these under the six NEPA
Assignment Program elements. The audit results are described below by
program element.
Overall Audit Opinion
The audit team found ADOT has carried out the responsibilities it
has assumed consistent with the intent of the MOU and ADOT's
application. FHWA is notifying ADOT of two non-compliance observations
that require ADOT to take corrective action. By addressing the
observations cited in this report, ADOT will continue to ensure a
successful program.
Successful Practices and Observations
Successful practices are practices that the team believes are
positive and encourages ADOT to consider continuing or expanding those
programs in the future. The audit team identified numerous successful
practices in this report.
Observations are items the audit team would like to draw ADOT's
attention to, which may improve processes, procedures, and/or outcomes.
The team identified four observations in this report.
Non-compliance observations are instances where the audit team
finds the State is not in compliance or is deficient with regard to a
Federal regulation, statute, guidance, policy, State procedure, or the
MOU. Non-compliance may also include instances where the State has
failed to secure or maintain adequate personnel and/or financial
resources to carry out the responsibilities they have assumed. FHWA
expects the State to develop and implement corrective actions to
address all non-compliance observations. The audit team identified two
non-compliance observations in this report.
The audit team shared initial results during the closeout meeting
with ADOT and shared the draft audit report with ADOT to provide them
the opportunity to clarify any observation, as needed, and/or begin
implementing corrective actions to improve the program. FHWA will
consider actions taken by ADOT to address these observations as part of
the scope of the third audit.
Successful Practices and Observations
Program Management
Successful Practice #1
ADOT EP continues to maintain several guidance manuals for
implementing NEPA Assignment and evaluating environmental resources.
These manuals are readily available online at ADOT's environmental
website. ADOT continuously updates its manuals and ensures staff are
informed of updates. Staff noted the benefit of utilizing the guidance
manuals and having better defined procedures.
Successful Practice #2
During interviews with staff, the audit team learned that ADOT EP
has increased internal communication and coordination by holding
monthly meetings with the NEPA Assignment Program managers and
technical area program managers, and by holding biweekly meetings with
program managers. ADOT EP's internal communication efforts also
included emails and informal staff interactions.
Successful Practice #3
During interviews with staff, the audit team learned that staff
felt a benefit of NEPA Assignment has been an increased sense of
ownership and responsibility for the program and decisions. Program
managers indicated that staff at all levels within ADOT had become more
engaged in the NEPA Assignment Program.
Observations
Observation #1: Deficiencies and Gaps in ADOT's Manuals and Procedures
The audit team reviewed ADOT's manuals and procedures as part of
the evaluation of ADOT's performance of its MOU responsibilities.
Section 4.2.4 of the MOU specifies that ADOT must implement procedures
to support appropriate environmental analysis and
[[Page 66360]]
decisionmaking under NEPA and associated laws and regulations. The
audit team identified the following deficiencies in ADOT's manuals and
procedures which may result in incomplete project documentation or
analysis and increase the risk for non-compliance:
The ADOT CE Checklist Manual and the ADOT EA/EIS Manual
contain different procedures for completing re-evaluations and the
process for re-evaluations for EA/EISs is not well-defined. During
interviews, staff described variations in the procedures for completing
and documenting re-evaluations.
The ADOT Section 4(f) Manual, documentation forms, and
desk reference/matrix contain information inconsistent with FHWA
guidance and regulation, as identified below:
[cir] The manual, desk reference/matrix, ``Section 4(f)
Applicability/Exceptions'' form, and ``No Section 4(f) Property/Use''
form incorrectly state that the exception for archaeological sites
applies only to Section 106 adverse effect findings. The archaeological
exception can be applied to both no adverse effect and adverse effect
findings. Moreover, resources resulting in either finding must still be
evaluated for Section 4(f) applicability and potential uses. The
incorrect information in ADOT's materials creates the risk of
inadequately evaluating archaeological sites with a finding of no
adverse effect for Section 4(f) purposes, and not consulting with the
official with jurisdiction when the archaeological exception is
applied.
[cir] The manual, desk reference/matrix, and ``No Section 4(f)
Property/Use'' form incorrectly state that a Section 106 no adverse
effect finding equates to a Section 4(f) ``no use.'' While it is
possible for a Section 4(f) ``no use'' to apply in cases of no adverse
effect findings, this is not automatic, and resources should be
evaluated on an individual basis to determine potential uses. The
project file should include information demonstrating that a ``no use''
determination is appropriate and the factors that support that
decision. The incorrect information in ADOT's materials creates the
risk of inadequately evaluating all eligible historic properties for
potential uses.
[cir] The ``Section 4(f) De Minimis Impact on Public Parks,
Recreational Areas and Wildlife/Waterfowl Refuges'' form incorrectly
indicates that meeting minutes alone can be used to document written
concurrence from the official with jurisdiction. Meeting minutes can be
used to demonstrate that communicating potential impacts and
coordinating with the official with jurisdiction occurred, but written
concurrence should be documented through formal correspondence (e.g.,
signed letter or form, or email responses).
Documentation and Records Management
Successful Practice #4
During interviews, staff indicated increased efforts to coordinate
with the ADOT Communications Office and the ADOT Civil Rights Office on
public involvement activities conducted for projects.
Successful Practice #5
ADOT continues to implement its standard folder structure for
consistent record keeping and assistance with QA reviews. Staff
commented that the standard folder structure was a helpful tool and
improved process for maintaining project files.
Successful Practice #6
ADOT EP has developed standard templates (checklists, forms) for
various decision-points and processes. Staff noted that using the
standard templates during the environmental review process has
increased the consistency of project documentation.
Observations
Section 4.2.4 of the MOU specifies that ADOT must implement
procedures to support appropriate environmental analysis and
decisionmaking under NEPA and associated laws and regulations. The
audit team identified several inconsistencies between ADOT's procedures
for documenting project decisions (as identified in the ADOT CE
Checklist Manual, ADOT EA/EIS Manual, ADOT Section 4(f) Manual, ADOT
QA/QC Plan, and ADOT Project Development Procedures Manual) and the
project file documentation provided. ADOT was provided an opportunity
during the audit, and during their opportunity to comment on the draft
audit report, to clarify inconsistencies identified by the audit team
and provide additional information regarding the project documentation.
ADOT provided explanations to the audit team's questions and indicated
where specific information was located in the project files but did not
submit additional documents or files. FHWA did not consider this
supplemental information to be sufficient for four audited projects.
Non-Compliance Observation #1: Deficiencies in Section 4(f) Evaluation
of Archaeological Resources
ADOT's Section 4(f) Manual (Sections 3.3 and 3.4.2) and FHWA
regulations, policies, and guidance provide information on determining
the applicability of Section 4(f) to archaeological resources and
determining if there is an exception or potential use. ADOT's Section
4(f) Manual (Sections 5.2 and 5.3) specifies procedures for documenting
Section 4(f) uses of archaeological sites, exceptions per 23 CFR
774.13(b), and ``no use'' determinations. During Audit #1, FHWA
identified inconsistencies with ADOT's Section 4(f) evaluation and
documentation of archaeological sites which were included as an
observation in the Audit #1 Report. The audit team observed similar
inconsistencies during the project file reviews for this audit and
identified the following procedural deficiencies relating to ADOT's
Section 4(f) evaluation and documentation:
One project file included a Section 106 adverse effect
determination for two archaeological sites, indicating the presence of
Section 4(f) resources and potential Section 4(f) uses. The
consultation letter sent to the Arizona State Historic Preservation
Officer did not state ADOT's intent to apply the archaeological
exception to these sites or include other Section 4(f) information
regarding these sites. No other consultation letters or other
information was provided in the project file or NEPA document as to how
these two sites were evaluated for Section 4(f).
Non-Compliance Observation #2: Deficiencies in Analysis of Right-of-Way
Impacts
ADOT's procedures (ADOT EA/EIS Manual) and FHWA's regulations,
policies, and guidance provide information on how to consider right-of-
way impacts in the NEPA analysis. FHWA's regulations, policies, and
guidance provide additional information on how early property
acquisitions should be considered with the right-of-way impacts
analysis. After completing the project file review, the audit team
identified the following procedural deficiencies relating to ADOT's
evaluation of right-of-way impacts:
One project file did not demonstrate that early
acquisition of properties and previous relocations were adequately
addressed in the impact analysis in the NEPA document. The NEPA
document stated that ADOT had acquired properties within the project
corridor during previous planning and
[[Page 66361]]
environmental studies and that ADOT intended to incorporate these early
acquisitions into the right-of-way needed for the current project. CEs
previously completed for some of these early acquisitions included a
complete NEPA evaluation. However, several CEs previously completed for
early acquisitions were only for title transfer of the properties (per
23 CFR 771.117(d)(12)) and did not evaluate demolition, relocations, or
other potential environmental impacts. The audit team requested
additional information from ADOT regarding the NEPA analysis of these
properties. ADOT responded that the project files and NEPA document
contained a complete record and no additional documentation was
available. Since the properties acquired as early acquisitions were
incorporated into the right-of-way needed for the current project,
these properties should have been included in the NEPA analysis, even
though the properties were acquired during other planning and
environmental studies. Based on the information provided in the project
file and the NEPA document, it does not appear that all of the early
acquisitions were fully evaluated in the NEPA analysis for the current
project, nor were they accounted for in the total number of
acquisitions required for the project (per 23 CFR 771.119(b)). The land
use, environmental justice, community impacts, and indirect and
cumulative impacts sections provided conflicting information regarding
the impact analyses of these properties. Therefore, it is unclear how
all the early property acquisitions were considered in the overall
right-of-way impacts analysis in the NEPA evaluation.
Observation #2: Deficiencies in Section 4(f) Documentation of de
Minimis Impact to Historic Properties
ADOT's procedures (ADOT Section 4(f) Manual Sections 5.1 and 5.4.2
and ADOT QA/QC Plan Section 5.1.1) specify completing the ``Section
4(f) De Minimis Impact for Historic Properties Form'' in addition to
obtaining written concurrence from the official with jurisdiction.
After completing the project file review, the audit team found that
two project files did not include the ``Section 4(f) De Minimis Impact
for Historic Properties Form'' for de minimis impacts to historic
properties.
Observation #3: Inconsistencies in Interagency Consultation
Documentation
After completing the project file review, the audit team found
several inconsistencies with ADOT's documentation of compliance with
interagency consultation requirements (per 40 CFR 93.105). It is
unclear if interagency consultation occurred for some projects since
the project files did not include information on agency responses,
concurrence, and the comment resolution process. Therefore, it is
unknown if the interagency consultation agencies had an opportunity to
participate in consultation or if ADOT provided them an opportunity to
review and comment on the materials as required by 40 CFR 93.105 and
MOU Section 7.2.1.
The audit team is aware that ADOT has increased efforts to follow
up with agencies throughout interagency consultation and include email
responses with consultation documentation and acknowledges ADOT's
progress toward improving their processes.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
The audit team verified that ADOT has procedures in place for QA/QC
which are described in the ADOT QA/QC Plan and the ADOT Project
Development Procedures. No observations were identified during this
audit.
Performance Measures
Observations
Observation #4: Incomplete Development and Implementation of
Performance Measures To Evaluate the Quality of ADOT's Program
The audit team reviewed ADOT's development and implementation of
performance measures to evaluate their program as required in the MOU
(Part 10.2.1). ADOT's QA/QC Plan, PAIR response, and self-assessment
report identified several performance measures, but all included
limited reporting data for the review period. ADOT's reporting data
primarily dealt with increasing efficiencies and reducing project
delivery schedules rather than on measuring the quality of
relationships with agencies and the general public, and decisions made
during the NEPA process. The metrics ADOT has developed are not being
utilized to provide a meaningful or comprehensive evaluation of the
overall program. Additionally, ADOT's performance measures indicate a
disconnect between its metrics and availability of reportable data.
Staff indicated during interviews that performance measures are not an
effective or useful tool in evaluating the program.
Legal Sufficiency
Through information provided by ADOT and interviews by the FHWA
Office of Chief Counsel with two Assistant Attorneys General (AAGs)
assigned to ADOT's NEPA Assignment Program, the auditors determined
ADOT had not completed formal legal sufficiency reviews of assigned
environmental documents during the audit period. Currently, ADOT
retains the services of two AAGs for NEPA Assignment reviews and
related matters. The assigned AAGs have received formal and informal
training in environmental law matters.
Successful Practice #7
Through the interviews, the audit team learned ADOT seeks to
involve its lawyers early in the environmental review phase, with AAGs
participating in project coordination team meetings and reviews of
early drafts of environmental documents. The AAGs will provide legal
guidance at any time ADOT requests it throughout the project
development process. For formal legal sufficiency reviews, the process
includes a submittal package containing a request for legal sufficiency
review. A letter finding of legal sufficiency would be included in the
project file.
Training
The audit team reviewed ADOT's 2021 Training Plan and ADOT's PAIR
responses pertaining to its training program. ADOT continues to
maintain a strong training program by providing training opportunities
to staff and dedicating time, effort, and resources toward its training
program. To further support the training program, ADOT EP employs a
dedicated training coordinator within the environmental section.
Successful Practice #8
During staff interviews, the audit team learned that the staff
provides input on the training plan and that program managers meet
quarterly to discuss training needs. Staff remarked on the availability
of training offered to them and considered this to be a benefit to
ADOT's NEPA Assignment Program. The audit team commends ADOT for
adjusting to a virtual environment and offering online training
opportunities for staff.
Status of Observations From the Audit #1 Report
This section describes the actions ADOT has taken (or is taking) in
response to observations made during the first audit.
[[Page 66362]]
Non-Compliance Observation #1: Incomplete Project Files Submission
During Audit #1, ADOT submitted incomplete project files to FHWA by
not uploading all files requested by FHWA to the file sharing website.
For Audit #2, ADOT provided FHWA direct access to the project files
requested for the project file review. ADOT has stated it intends to
continue to utilize this method for sharing files with FHWA. ADOT also
indicated it will continue to identify improvements in technology to
increase efficiencies in file sharing. FHWA appreciates ADOT's efforts
towards increasing the transparency and communication during the audit
process, and better utilizing available technologies.
Non-Compliance Observation #2: Project-Level Conformity Compliance
Issues
During Audit #1, the audit team found that ADOT's protocols do not
provide for the appropriate consultation, coordination, and
communication with FHWA and other agencies to ensure the projects meet
the project-level conformity requirements where required. The audit
team found documentation for two projects showing that ADOT staff did
not coordinate with FHWA on the application of conformity requirements
and found multiple projects that did not demonstrate ADOT's compliance
with interagency consultation requirements (per 40 CFR 93.105). As part
of Audit #2, the audit team learned that ADOT has made progress toward
addressing these issues. ADOT and FHWA established a joint working
group that resulted in developing draft coordination procedures and
identifying increased communication methods, including monthly
coordination meetings. During the file review for Audit #2, the audit
team identified additional inconsistencies in the project files as
described in the observations above. FHWA recognizes ADOT's efforts
toward improving its procedures and will continue to evaluate this area
in subsequent audits.
Observation #1: Use of the Federal Infrastructure Permitting Dashboard
ADOT is responsible for inputting project information for assigned
projects into the Federal Infrastructure Permitting Dashboard, per MOU
Section 8.5.1 and in accordance with the Federal Permitting Dashboard
Reporting Standard. During Audit #1, the audit team found that the
dashboard did not include information for any of the applicable
projects assigned to ADOT. ADOT has since obtained access to the
dashboard, designated staff responsible for entering project data, and
has updated the dashboard with relevant project information.
Observation #2: Inconsistencies and Deficiencies Based on the Review of
Project File Documentation
After completing the project file review for Audit #1, the audit
team identified several procedural deficiencies relating to the MOU,
ADOT's procedures, and FHWA's regulations, policies, and guidance. To
address this issue, ADOT has developed standard templates (forms,
checklists) to increase consistency in project file documentation and
has informed staff of documentation requirements. The audit team
identified additional procedural deficiencies during Audit #2 as
identified in the observations described above. FHWA recognizes ADOT's
efforts toward improving its procedures and will continue to evaluate
this area in subsequent audits.
Observation #3: Incomplete Development and Implementation of
Performance Measures
During Audit #1, the audit team reviewed ADOT's development and
implementation of performance measures to evaluate their program as
required in the MOU (Part 10.2.1). The Self-Assessment Report did not
include reporting data for any of the performance measures. Due to the
lack of performance measure data, the audit team determined that ADOT
had not fully established and initiated data collection as it relates
to performance metrics per the MOU. For Audit #2, the audit team
reviewed ADOT's performance measures and reporting data submitted for
the review period. ADOT has made progress toward developing and
implementing its performance measures, though FHWA continues to
identify this program objective as an area of concern, described in the
observations above, and will continue to evaluate this area in
subsequent audits.
Finalizing This Report
FHWA provided a draft of the audit report to ADOT for a 14-day
review and comment period. ADOT provided comments which the audit team
considered in finalizing this draft audit report. The audit team
acknowledges that ADOT has begun to address some of the observations
identified in this report and recognizes ADOT's efforts toward
improving their program. FHWA is publishing this notice in the Federal
Register for a 30-day comment period in accordance with 23 U.S.C.
327(g). No later than 60 days after the close of the comment period,
FHWA will address all comments submitted to finalize this draft audit
report pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327(g)(2)(B). Subsequently, FHWA will
publish the final audit report in the Federal Register. FHWA will
consider the results of this audit in preparing the scope of the next
annual audit. The next audit report will include a summary that
describes the status of ADOT's corrective and other actions taken in
response to this audit's conclusions.
[FR Doc. 2022-23915 Filed 11-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P