Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program; TxDOT Audit #4 Report |
|---|
|
Brandye L. Hendrickson
Federal Highway Administration
14 December 2017
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 239 (Thursday, December 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59206-59212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26947]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2017-0038]
Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program; TxDOT Audit #4
Report
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice, request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Project Delivery 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
responsible and liable for carrying out the responsibilities it has
assumed, in lieu of FHWA. Prior to the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015, the Program required semiannual
audits during each of the first 2 years of State participation to
ensure compliance by each State participating in the Program. This
notice announces and solicits comments on the fourth audit report for
the Texas Department of Transportation's (TxDOT) participation in
accordance with these pre-FAST Act requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 16, 2018.
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 is able
to 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: Dr. Owen Lindauer, Office of Project
Development and Environmental Review, (202) 366-2655,
owen.lindauer@dot.gov, or Mr. Jomar Maldonado, Office of the Chief
Counsel, (202) 366-1373, jomar.maldonado@dot.gov, Federal Highway
Administration, 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 allows a State
to assume FHWA's environmental responsibilities for review,
consultation, and compliance for Federal highway projects. This
provision has been codified at 23 U.S.C. 327. Since December 16, 2014,
TxDOT has assumed FHWA's responsibilities under National Environmental
Policy Act and the responsibilities for reviews under other Federal
environmental requirements under this authority.
Prior to December 4, 2015, 23 U.S.C. 327(g) required the Secretary
to conduct semiannual audits during each of the first 2 years of State
participation, annual audits during years 3 and 4, and monitoring each
subsequent year of State participation to ensure compliance by each
State participating in the program. The results of each audit were
required to be presented in the form of an audit report and be made
available for public comment. On December 4, 2015, the President signed
into law the FAST Act, Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312 (2015). Section
1308 of the FAST Act amended the audit provisions by limiting the
number of audits to one audit each year during the first 4 years of a
State's participation. This notice announces the availability of the
report for the fourth audit for TxDOT conducted prior to the FAST Act
and solicits public comment onit.
Authority: Section 1313 of Public Law 112-141; Section 6005 of
Public Law 109-59; Public Law 114-94; 23 U.S.C. 327; 49 CFR 1.85.
Issued on: December 8, 2017.
Brandye L. Hendrickson,
Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
DRAFT
Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program
FHWA Audit #4 of the Texas Department of Transportation
June 16, 2016 to August 1, 2017
Executive Summary
This report summarizes the results of FHWA's fourth audit review
(Audit #4) to assess the performance by the Texas Department of
Transportation (TxDOT) regarding its assumption of responsibilities
assigned by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), under a memorandum
of understanding (MOU) that took effect on December 16, 2014. TxDOT
assumed FHWA's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
responsibilities and other environmental review responsibilities
related to Federal-aid highway projects in Texas. The status of FHWA's
observations from the third audit review (Audit #3), including any
TxDOT self-imposed corrective actions, is detailed at the end of this
report. The FHWA Audit #4 team (team) appreciates the cooperation and
professionalism of TxDOT staff in conducting this review.
The team was formed in October 2016 and met regularly to prepare
for the audit. Prior to the on-site visit, the team: (1) performed
reviews of project files in TxDOT's Environmental Compliance Oversight
System (ECOS), (2) examined TxDOT's responses to FHWA's information
requests, and (3) developed interview questions. Interviews of TxDOT
and resource agency staff occurred during the on-site portion of this
audit, conducted on May 22-26, 2017.
The TxDOT continues to develop, revise, and implement procedures
and processes required to carry out the NEPA Assignment Program. Based
on information provided by TxDOT and from interviews, TxDOT is
committed to maintaining a successful program. This report describes
two (2) categories of non-compliance observations and eight (8)
observations that represent opportunities for TxDOT to improve its
program. It also includes brief status updates of the Audit #3
conclusions.
The TxDOT has continued to make progress toward meeting the
responsibilities it has assumed in
[[Page 59207]]
accordance with the MOU. The non-compliance observations identified in
this review will require TxDOT to take corrective action. By taking
corrective action and considering changes based on the observations in
this report, TxDOT should continue to move the NEPA Assignment Program
forward successfully.
Background
The Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program (NEPA
Assignment Program) allows a State to assume FHWA's environmental
responsibilities for review, consultation, and compliance for highway
projects. This program is codified at 23 U.S.C. 327. When a State
assumes these Federal responsibilities for NEPA project decision-
making, the State becomes solely responsible and liable for carrying
out these obligations in lieu of, and without further NEPA related
approval by, FHWA.
The State of Texas was assigned the responsibility for making
project NEPA approvals and the responsibility for making other related
environmental decisions for highway projects on December 16, 2014. In
enacting Texas Transportation Code, Sec. 201.6035, the State has
waived its sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution and consents to defend against any actions brought by its
citizens for NEPA decisions it has made in Federal court.
The FHWA project-specific environmental review responsibilities
assigned to TxDOT are specified in the MOU. These responsibilities
include: compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 7
consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine
Fisheries Service, and Section 106 consultations with the Texas
Historical Commission (THC) regarding impacts to historic properties.
Other responsibilities may not be assigned and remain with FHWA. They
include: (1) responsibility for project-level conformity determinations
under the Clean Air Act, and (2) the responsibility for government-to-
government consultation with federally-recognized Indian tribes. Based
on 23 U.S.C. 327(a)(2)(D), any responsibility not explicitly assigned
in the MOU is retained by FHWA.
The MOU specifies that FHWA is required to conduct six audit
reviews. These audits are part of FHWA's oversight responsibility for
the NEPA Assignment Program. The reviews are to assess a State's
compliance with the provisions of the MOU. They also are used to
evaluate a State's progress toward achieving its performance measures
as specified in the MOU; to evaluate the success of the NEPA Assignment
Program; and to inform the administration of the findings regarding the
NEPA Assignment Program. In December 2015, statutory changes in Section
1308 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act)
reduced the frequency of these audit reviews to one audit per year
during the first four years of state participation in the program. This
audit is the fourth completed in Texas. The 5th and final audit is
planned for 2018.
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). An audit generally is defined as
an official and careful examination and verification of accounts and
records, especially of financial accounts, by an independent, unbiased
body. Regarding accounts or financial records, audits may follow a
prescribed process or methodology, and be conducted by ``auditors'' who
have special training in those processes or methods. The FHWA considers
this 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 TxDOT's assumption of
environmental responsibilities. Principal members of the team that
conducted this audit have completed special training in audit processes
and methods.
The diverse composition of the team and the process of developing
the review report and publishing it in the Federal Register help to
maintain an unbiased review and establish the audit as an official
action taken by FHWA. The team for Audit #4 included NEPA subject-
matter experts from the FHWA Texas Division Office, as well as FHWA
offices in Washington, DC, Atlanta, GA, Charleston, SC, and Salt Lake
City, UT. In addition to the NEPA experts, the team included FHWA
planners, engineers, and air quality specialists from the Texas
Division office.
Audits, as stated in the MOU (Parts 11.1.1 and 11.1.5), are the
primary mechanism used by FHWA to oversee TxDOT's compliance with the
MOU, evaluate TxDOT's progress toward achieving the performance
measures identified in the MOU (Part 10.2), and collect information
needed for the Secretary's annual report to Congress. These audits also
consider TxDOT's technical competency and organizational capacity,
adequacy of the financial resources committed by TxDOT to administer
the responsibilities assumed, quality assurance/quality control
process, attainment of performance measures, compliance with the MOU
requirements, and compliance with applicable laws and policies in
administering the responsibilities assumed.
This audit reviewed processes and procedures (i.e., toolkits and
handbooks) TxDOT staff use to process and make NEPA approvals. The
information the team gathered that served as the basis for this audit
came from three primary sources: (1) TxDOT's response to a pre-audit #4
information request (PAIR #4), (2) a review of both a judgmental and
random sample of project files in ECOS with approval dates after
February 1, 2016, and (3) interviews with TxDOT and the USFWS staff.
The TxDOT provided information in response to FHWA pre-audit questions
and requests for documents and provided a written clarification to FHWA
thereafter. That material covered the following six topics: program
management, documentation and records management, quality assurance/
quality control, legal sufficiency review, performance measurement, and
training. In addition to considering these six topics, the team also
considered the following topics: Endangered Species Act (ESA)
compliance, consideration of noise impacts and noise mitigation
(Noise), and adherence to the TxDOT Public Involvement plan.
The intent of the review was to check that TxDOT has the proper
procedures in place to implement the responsibilities assumed through
the MOU, ensure that the staff is aware of those procedures, and make
certain the staff implements the procedures appropriately to achieve
compliance with NEPA and other assigned responsibilities. The review
did not second guess project-specific decisions, as such decisions are
the sole responsibility of TxDOT. The team focused on whether the
procedures TxDOT followed complied with all Federal statutes,
regulation, policy, procedure, process, guidance, and guidelines.
The team defined the timeframe for highway project environmental
approvals subject to this fourth audit to be between February 1, 2016,
and January 31, 2017. The project file review effort occurred in two
phases: approvals made during Round 1 (Feb 1, 2016-July 31, 2016) and
Round 2 (Aug 1, 2016-Jan 31, 2017). One important note is that this
audit project file review time frame spans a full 12 months, where
previous
[[Page 59208]]
audits reviewed project approvals that spanned 6 months. The population
of environmental approvals included 224 projects based on 12 certified
lists of NEPA approvals reported monthly by TxDOT. The NEPA project
file approvals reviewed included: (1) categorical exclusion
determinations (CEs), (2) approvals to circulate draft Environmental
Assessments (EAs), (3) findings of no significant impacts (FONSI), (4)
re-evaluations of EAs, Section 4(f) decisions, (5) approvals of a draft
environmental impact statement (DEIS), and (6) re-evaluations of EISs
and records of decision (RODs). Project files reviewed constitute a
sample of randomly selected c-listed CEs, and 100 percent of the
following file approvals: 4(f) approvals; CE determinations for actions
not listed in the ``c'' or ``d'' lists; the FONSI and its EA; the ROD
and its EIS; and re-evaluations of these documents and approvals.
The interviews conducted by the team focused on TxDOT's leadership
and staff at the Environmental Affairs Division (ENV) Headquarters in
Austin and staff in four of TxDOT's Districts. The team interviewed the
Austin District and then divided into two groups (the next day) to
complete the face-to-face interviews of District staff in Waco and San
Antonio. Members of the team interviewed staff from the Ft. Worth
District via teleconference. The team used the same ECOS project
document review form but updated interview questions for Districts and
ENV staff with new focus areas to gather data.
Overall Audit Opinion
The TxDOT continues to make progress in the implementation of its
program that assumes FHWA's NEPA project-level decision responsibility
and other environmental responsibilities. The team acknowledges TxDOT's
effort to refine and, when necessary, establish additional written
internal policies and procedures. The team found evidence of TxDOT's
continuing efforts to train staff in clarifying the roles and
responsibilities of TxDOT staff, and in educating staff in an effort to
assure compliance with all of the assigned responsibilities.
The team identified two non-compliant observations in this audit
that TxDOT will need to address through corrective actions. These non-
compliance observations come from a review of TxDOT procedures, project
file documentation, and interview information. This report also
identifies several notable observations and successful practices that
we recommend be expanded.
Non-Compliance Observations
Non-compliance observations are instances where the team found the
TxDOT was out of compliance or deficient in proper implementation of a
Federal regulation, statute, guidance, policy, the terms of the MOU, or
TxDOT's own procedures for compliance with the NEPA process. Such
observations may also include instances where TxDOT has failed to
maintain technical competency, adequate personnel, and/or financial
resources to carry out the assumed responsibilities. Other non-
compliance observations could suggest a persistent failure to
adequately consult, coordinate, or consider the concerns of other
Federal, State, tribal, or local agencies with oversight, consultation,
or coordination responsibilities. The FHWA expects TxDOT to develop and
implement corrective actions to address all non-compliance
observations. As part of information gathered for this audit, TxDOT
informed the team they are still implementing some recommendations made
by FHWA on Audit #3 to address non-compliance. The FHWA will conduct
followup reviews of non-compliance observations in Audit #5 from this
review.
The MOU (Part 3.1.1) states that ``[p]ursuant to 23 U.S.C.
327(a)(2)(A), on the Effective Date, FHWA assigns, and TxDOT assumes,
subject to the terms and conditions set forth in 23 U.S.C. 327 and this
MOU, all of the USDOT Secretary's responsibilities for compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq. with respect to the highway projects specified under subpart 3.3.
This includes statutory provisions, regulations, policies, and guidance
related to the implementation of NEPA for Federal highway projects such
as 23 U.S.C. 139, 40 CFR 1500-1508, DOT Order 5610.1C, and 23 CFR 771
as applicable.'' Also, the performance measure in MOU Part 10.2.1(A)
for compliance with NEPA and other Federal environmental statutes and
regulations commits TxDOT to maintaining documented compliance with
requirements of all applicable statutes and regulations, as well as
provisions in the MOU. The following non-compliance observations are
presented as two categories of non-compliance observations: (1) with
procedures specified in Federal laws, regulations, policy, or guidance,
or (2) with the State's environmental review procedures.
Audit #4 Non-Compliance Observation #1: Section 5.1.1 of the MOU
requires the State to follow Federal laws, regulations, policy, and
procedures to implement the responsibilities assumed. This review
identified several examples of deficient adherence to these Federal
procedures.
(a) Project scope analyzed for impacts differed from the scope
approved
Making an approval that includes actions not considered as part of
environmental review is deficient according to the FHWA Technical
Advisory 6640.8A. The scope of the FONSI cannot include actions not
considered in the EA. This recurring deficiency was also identified for
a project file in Audit #3.
(b) Plan consistency prior to NEPA approval
Section 3.3.1 of the MOU requires that prior to approving any CE
determination, FONSI, Final EIS, or final EIS/ROD, TxDOT will ensure
and document that the project is consistent with the current
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP), or Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). The team identified
two projects where TxDOT made NEPA approval without meeting the MOU
consistency requirement.
(c) Public Involvement
The FHWA's regulation at 23 CFR 771.119(h) requires a second public
notification to occur 30 days prior to issuing a FONSI. The team
reviewed a project file where TxDOT approved a FONSI for an action
described in 23 CFR 771.115(a) without evidence of a required
additional public notification. TxDOT acknowledges this requirement in
their updated public involvement handbook.
(d) Timing of NEPA approval
One project file lacked documentation for Section 106 compliance prior
to TxDOT making a NEPA approval. The FHWA regulation at 23 CFR 771.133
expects compliance with all applicable laws or reasonable assurance all
requirements will be met at the time of an approval.
Audit #4 Non-Compliance Observation #2: Section 7.2.1 of the MOU
requires the State to develop State procedures to implement the
responsibilities assumed. This review identified several examples of
deficient adherence to these state procedures.
(a) Reporting of approvals made by TxDOT
MOU section 8.7.1 requires the State to certify on a list the approvals
it makes pursuant to the terms of the MOU and Federal review
requirements so FHWA
[[Page 59209]]
knows which projects completed NEPA and are eligible for Federal-aid
funding. The FHWA identified a project whose approval was made pursuant
to State law and therefore should not have been on the certified list
of projects eligible for Federal-aid funding. This is a recurrence from
Audit #3.
(b) Noise workshop timing
One project did not follow the TxDOT Noise guidelines for the timing of
a required noise workshop. TxDOT improperly held a noise workshop
months before the public hearing opportunity. The TxDOT noise
guidelines (Guidelines for Analysis and Abatement of Roadway Traffic
Noise, 2011) identifies procedures for compliance with 23 CFR 772. This
is a recurrence of the same non-compliance observation in Audit #3.
(c) Endangered Species Act Section 7
The TxDOT provided training to staff and updated its Section 7
compliance procedures, as part of a partnering effort after Audit #3
between FHWA, TxDOT, and USFWS. However, one project was still not in
compliance with the updated procedures.
(d) Indirect & Cumulative Impacts
One project file reviewed by the team lacked the indirect and
cumulative impact analysis that is expected according to TxDOTs
indirect and cumulative impact evaluation procedures.
(e) Federal approval request for a State-funded project
The review team reviewed a project file where TxDOT followed State
environmental laws and then requested Federal-aid to purchase right-of-
way. TxDOT informed the team that they are removing Federal funds from
the ROW portion of this project as corrective action. This is a
recurrence from Audit #3.
Successful Practices and Other Observations
This section summarizes the team's observations about issues or
practices that TxDOT may consider as areas to improve. It also
summarizes practices that the team believes are successful, so that
TxDOT can consider continuing or expanding those programs in the
future. Further information on these successful practices and
observations is contained in the following subsections that address
these six topic areas: program management; documentation and records
management; quality assurance/quality control; legal sufficiency;
performance management; and training.
Throughout the following subsections, the team lists 8 observations
for TxDOT to consider in order to make improvements. The FHWA's
suggested implementation methods of action include: corrective action,
targeted training, revising procedures, continued self-assessment,
improved QA/QC, or some other means. The team acknowledges that, by
sharing the preliminary draft audit report with TxDOT, TxDOT has begun
the process of implementing actions to address these observations and
improve its program prior to the publication of this report.
1. Program Management
Successful Practices and Observations
The team appreciates TxDOT ENV willingness to partner with FHWA
before, during, and after audit reviews. This has resulted in improved
communication and assisted the team in verifying many of the
conclusions in this report. The quarterly partnering sessions, started
in 2016, will be an ongoing effort. These exchanges of information
between FHWA and TxDOT have clarified and refined FHWA's reviews and
assisted TxDOT's efforts to make improvements to their environmental
review processes and procedures.
The team noted in District and ENV staff interviews that they
welcomed the opportunity to be responsible and accountable for NEPA
decisions. Additionally, TxDOT District staff members and management
have said in interviews that they are more diligent with their
documentation because they know that these approvals will be internally
assessed and the District held accountable by the TxDOT ENV Program
Review Team (formerly TxDOT's Self-Assessment Branch, [SAB]). District
staff indicated in interviews that the former SAB detailed reviews were
highly valued because they learned from their mistakes and make
improvements. Accountability, in part, is driving an enhanced desire
for TxDOT staff to consistently and carefully complete environmental
reviews.
The team recognizes enhanced communication among individuals in the
project development process through the Core Team (a partnership of
District and ENV environmental staff assigned to an individual EIS
project) as a valuable concept. Information gained from interviews and
materials provided by TxDOT in most cases demonstrate improved
communication amongst Districts and between Districts and ENV. The team
noted that ``NEPA Chats'' (regular conference calls led by ENV,
providing a platform for Districts to discuss complex NEPA
implementation issues) are still, for the most part, well received.
Districts also provide internal self-initiated training across
disciplines so everyone in the District Office is aware of TxDOT
procedures to try to ensure that staff follows NEPA-related, discipline
specific processes. This keeps projects on-schedule or ensures that
there are no surprises if projected schedules slip.
Audit #4 Observation #1: Noise procedure clarification.
TxDOT ENV is currently in the process of proposing an update to
their Noise Guidelines. The team reviewed a project file where the
decisions based on an original noise study were re-examined to reach a
different conclusion. The current TxDOT Noise Guidelines do not address
how, or under what conditions a re-examination of an original Noise
Study report that reaches different conclusions could occur. The team
urges TxDOT to clarify their noise guidelines to ensure consistent and
fair and equitable treatment of stakeholders affected by highway noise
impacts.
Audit #4 Observation #2: Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
During the interviews, the review team learned that there is a
disincentive for ``may affect'' determinations because TxDOT cannot
predict the amount of time required to complete informal consultation.
If a particular project's schedule could accommodate the time required
for informal consultation, a ``may affect'' determination might be made
to minimize a risk of a legal challenge.
The review team would like to draw TxDOT's attention to the
possibility that risk management decisionmaking can introduce a bias or
``disincentive'' to coordinate with USFWS when it is expected according
to Federal policy and guidance. In fulfilling ESA Section 7(a)(2)
responsibilities, Congress intended the ``benefit of the doubt'' to be
given to the species (H.R. Conf. Rep. 96-697, 96 Cong., 1st sess.
1979).
The team acknowledges that TxDOT plans to train staff on its
revised ESA handbook and standard operating procedures, and this may
inform staff of this bias. Through interviews, the team learned that in
certain Districts with sensitive habitats (i.e., karst) or the
possibility of a species present (i.e., a salamander), ENV managers
would review a project's information in addition to the District's and/
or ENV biologists. This enhanced review process is currently limited
only to two Districts and could be expanded to
[[Page 59210]]
include instances where such bias may occur.
Audit #4 Observation #3: Project description and logical termini
The team reviewed one project where the scope described in the NEPA
document differed from what was proposed to be implemented. A proposed
added capacity project's description indicated a longer terminus
compared to a schematic. The team could not determine whether the
description or the schematic accurately reflected the project proposal.
A second reviewed project contained a description of the proposed
project as the project's purpose instead of identifying a purpose that
would accommodate more than one reasonable alternative. The team urges
TxDOT to make reviewers aware of these challenges.
2. Documentation and Records Management
The team relied on information in ECOS, TxDOT's official file of
record, to evaluate project documentation and records management
practices. Many TxDOT toolkit and handbook procedures mention the
requirement to store official documentation in ECOS. The ECOS is also a
tool for storage and management of information records, as well as for
disclosure within TxDOT District Offices. ECOS is how TxDOT identifies
and procures information required to be disclosed to, and requested by,
the public. ECOS is being upgraded, and there are four more phased
upgrades planned over time. The most recent work includes incorporation
of a revised scope development tool, Biological Evaluation (BE) form,
and new way to electronically approve a CE determination form in lieu
of paper. The TxDOT staff noted that ECOS is both adaptable and
flexible.
Successful Practices and Observations
A number of successful practices demonstrated by TxDOT were evident
as a result of the documentation and records management review. The
team learned that ECOS continues to improve in download speed and
compatibility. The team learned through interviews with TxDOT staff
members that ENV is changing the scope development tool within ECOS and
that functionality will improve. Some staff indicated that they also
utilized the scope development tool to develop their own checklists to
ensure that all environmental requirements have been met prior to
making a NEPA approval.
Audit #4 Observation #4: Record keeping integrity
The team's review included project files that were incomplete
because of missing or incorrect CSJ references that would link the
files to environmental review documentation. TxDOT has indicated that
they are working to address this problem. In addition to the issue of
database links, the team identified a project file that lacked a record
of required public involvement required per TxDOT procedures. The team
learned from interviews that ENV and District staff do not consistently
include such documentation in ECOS. Also, one reviewed project file had
outdated data for threatened and endangered species. The team urges
TxDOT staff to rely upon up to date and complete data in making project
decisions.
The team identified one project file where total project costs were
not presented in the project documentation and EA documents were added
after the FONSI was signed. The added EA documentation was editorial in
nature. The team urges TxDOT to ensure the project file contains
supportive documentation. Material that was not considered as part of
the NEPA decision, and that was dated after the NEPA approval should
not be included in a project's file.
The team found a project file that had conflicting information
about a detour. The review form indicated that no detour was proposed,
but letters to a county agency said that a road would be closed, which
would require addressing the need for a detour. Our review was unable
to confirm the detour or whether the impact road closure was
considered.
3. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
Successful Practices and Observations
The team observed some continued successful practices from previous
audits in (QA/QC). These successful practices include the use of
established checklists, certifications, NEPA Chats, and the CORE Team
concept (items described in previous audit reports). The TxDOT District
Office environmental staff continue to do peer reviews of environmental
decisions to double check the quality and accuracy of documentation.
The Environmental Affairs Division has established a post-NEPA review
team (performance review team) that was briefly mentioned in the Self-
Assessment report to FHWA. Through our interviews, we learned that the
team reaches out to ENVs own Section Directors and subject matter
experts, in addition to District environmental staff, regarding their
observations to improve the quality of documentation in future NEPA
decisions. The FHWA team observed increased evidence in ECOS of
documentation of collaboration illustrating the efforts to improve
document quality and accuracy.
Audit #4 Observation #5: Effectiveness and change in QA/QC
Based on project file reviews, the team found errors and omissions
that should have been identified and addressed through TxDOT quality
control. Also, TxDOT's certified monthly list of project decisions
contained errors, some of which were recurring.
During this review period, the team was informed that TxDOT's
approach to QA/QC had changed since the previous audit review. In audit
#3, the team identified the Self-Assessment Branch (SAB) as a
successful practice. TxDOT's response in the PAIR #4 indicated SAB was
disbanded and ENV did not explain how its function would be replaced.
Through interviews, the team learned that TxDOT had reorganized its SAB
staff and modified its approach to QA/QC. This report identifies a
higher number of observations that were either non-compliant or the
result of missing or erroneous information compared to previous audits.
The team could not assess the validity and relevance of TxDOT's self-
assessment of QA/QC because TxDOT's methodology (sampling and
timeframe) was not explained. Lastly, through interviews with District
environmental staff, the team learned that they are unclear on how
errors and omissions now identified by the new ``performance review
team'' and ENV SMEs are to be resolved. The team urges TxDOT to
evaluate its new approach to QA/QC with relevant and valid performance
measures and to explain its approach to QA/QC to its staff.
4. Legal Sufficiency Review
Based on the interviews with two of the General Counsel Division
(GCD) staff and documentation review, the requirements for legal
sufficiency under the MOU continue to be adequately fulfilled.
There are five attorneys in TxDOT's GCD, with one serving as lead
attorney. Additional assistance is provided by a consultant attorney
who has delivered environmental legal assistance to ENV for several
years and by an outside law firm. The contract for the outside law firm
is currently going through a scheduled re-procurement. The GCD
assistance continues to be guided by
[[Page 59211]]
ENVs Project Delivery Manual Sections 303.080 through 303.086. These
sections provide guidance on conducting legal sufficiency review of
FHWA-funded projects and those documents that are to be published in
the Federal Register, such as the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an
EIS, Statute of Limitation (139(l)), and Notice of Availability of EIS.
GCD continues to serve as a resource to ENV and the Districts and
is involved early in the development of large and complex projects. One
example is the very large Houston District IH 45 project around
downtown Houston with an estimated cost of $4.5 billion. The GCD lead
attorney has been involved in the project and participated in the
project's public hearing. GCD participates in the monthly NEPA chats
and recently provided informal training during the chat on project
scoping, logical termini, and independent utility.
According to TxDOT's response to FHWA's PAIR #4, GCD staff has
reviewed or been involved in legal review for eight projects. The ENV
project delivery managers make requests for review of a document or
assistance to the lead attorney, who then assigns that project to an
attorney for legal review. Attorney comments are provided in the
standard comment response matrix back to ENV and are reviewed by the
lead attorney. All comments must be satisfactorily addressed for GCD to
complete its legal sufficiency determination. The GCD does not issue
conditional legal sufficiency determinations. Legal sufficiency is
documented by email to ENV.
A notable effort by GCD, in the last year, were the two lawsuits on
TxDOT issued Federal environmental FONSI decision on the MOPAC
intersections, the ongoing environmental process on the widening of
south MOPAC, and State environmental decision on SH 45 SW. The lawsuit
advanced only the Federal environmental decision on the MOPAC
intersections. GCD worked first to develop the administrative record,
having the numerous consultant and TxDOT staff provide documentation of
their involvement on the MOPAC intersections project. Staff from GCD,
Attorney General, and outside counsel then developed the voluminous
record, which is their first since assuming NEPA responsibilities. The
initial request by the plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction on the
project was denied in Federal court, and, since a hearing on the merits
was held later, they are awaiting the judge's decision. The FHWA and
DOJ were notified, as appropriate, of the notices of pleadings through
the court's PACE database.
Successful Practice
ENV involves GCD early on projects and issues in need of their
attention and expertise. Based on our discussions, GCD continues to be
involved with the Districts and ENV throughout the NEPA project
development process, when needed, and addresses legal issues, as
appropriate. Based on interview responses, observation, and the
comments above, TxDOT's approach to legal sufficiency is adequate.
5. Performance Measurement
TxDOT states in their self-assessment summary report that they
achieved acceptable performance goals for all five performance-based
performance metrics with the remaining seven performance goals
remaining, consistent with the March 2016 self-assessment. The TxDOT
continues to devote a high level of effort to develop the metrics to
measure performance. During this audit, the team learned through
interviews that the methodology employed to assess QA/QC performance
had been revamped to the point that the results do not appear to be
comparable with measures from previous years.
Successful Practices and Observations
As part of TxDOT's response to the PAIR #4, TxDOT provided an
alternate performance metric for EA timeframes that analyzed the
distribution of EA durations for projects initiated and completed prior
to assignment, initiated prior to assignment but completed after
assignment, and ones initiated and completed after assignment. This
creative approach identified both improved and diminished performance
in EA timeframes for projects initiated before assignment but completed
after assignment. TxDOT reports in their response to the PAIR #4 that,
at a 95 percent confidence interval, comparing completion times for EA
projects before and after assignment, the post-assignment median
timeframe for completion is faster after assignment.
Audit #4 Observation #6: Performance measure awareness and
effectiveness
The team noted through interviews of TxDOT District Office staff
that many were unaware of TxDOT performance measures and their results.
We encourage TxDOT environmental leadership to make these results
available to their staff, if only as a means of feedback on
performance. Overall, these measures are a positive reflection of
actions taken by TxDOT staff, and sharing changes in performance
measures may lead to improved performance.
As mentioned above, the team learned that TxDOT's QA/QC methodology
changed from that utilized since the previous audit. Previously, the
measure reported the percent of project files determined to be complete
and accurate, but included information on substantive errors made
across different documents. Now the measure is limited only to the
percent of project files determined to be complete that relies upon new
yes/no/NA response questions whose result lacks an evaluation of the
substantial-ness of errors of accuracy or completion. The team urges
TxDOT to continue to analyze the information they are already
collecting on the completeness and accuracy of project files as means
of implementing information that usually leads to continuous
improvement.
6. Training Program
Since the period of the previous audit, TxDOT has revamped its on-
line training program, as training courses content were out of date.
Training continues to be offered to TxDOT staff informally through NEPA
chats as well as through in-person instructor training. All of the
training information for any individual TxDOT District staff
environmental professional can be found on a TxDOT sharepoint site and
is monitored by the training coordinator (especially the qualifications
in the Texas Administrative Code). This makes it much more
straightforward for third parties (including FHWA) to assess the
District staff competency and exposure to training. Since Audit #3
TxDOT has increased the number of hours of training that staff are
required to have to maintain environmental certification from 16 to 32
hours. Based on interviews, we learned that some individuals had far
exceeded the minimal number of training hours required. We learned that
training hours could be earned by participating in the environmental
conference, but with a stipulation that other sources of training would
be required.
Successful Practices and Observations
The team recognizes the following successful training practices. We
learned from interviews that two TxDOT District Offices conduct annual
training events for staff of local governments as a means to help them
develop their own projects. This training identifies the TxDOT
expectations for successful project development, including
environmental review.
Another successful practice we learned from interviews, and
reported
[[Page 59212]]
by TxDOT in the list of training scheduled, is that public involvement
training has been revised to emphasize additional outreach that goes
beyond the minimum requirements. The emphasis appears to be on
achieving meaningful public engagement rather than simple public
disclosure.
Finally, the team would like to acknowledge that TxDOT has
recognized and taken advantage of cross training that is a successful
practice. The TxDOT ENV strategic planning coordinator informed us in
an interview that he co-taught a class on planning consistency by
adding an environmental component. The team taught how the planning
issues relate to environmental review and compliance 5 or 6 times
throughout the State. The ENV strategic planning coordinator is now
working with the local government division to add an environment module
to the Local Project Assistance (LPA) class with specific discussion of
environmental reviews (adding information on how to work with ENV at
TxDOT, or how to find consultants who are approved to do work for
TxDOT).
Audit #4 Observation #7: Additional outreach on improvements.
The team learned through interviews the value and importance of
NEPA chats for informing ENV staff when there are changes in
procedures, guidance, or policy. For example, when the handbook for
compliance with ESA was first completed, it was the subject of a NEPA
chat. The team is aware of recent changes TxDOT made to the handbook
related to a non-compliance related to ESA compliance. Based on
information gained from interviews, the team learned that the changes
to the ESA SOP/handbook were not followed by a NEPA chat. As a result,
we confirmed that most of the TxDOT Biology SMEs were unaware of the
handbook changes. The team appreciates that TxDOT has revised its ESA
handbook and urges staff to implement training or other outreach to
inform TxDOT staff of these revisions.
Audit #4 Observation #8: FAST Act training.
The Fixing America's Transportation (FAST) Act included several new
statutory requirements for the environmental review process, as well as
other changes that change NEPA procedures and requirements. The FHWA's
Office of Project Development and Environmental Review has released
some guidance on how to implement these requirements and anticipates
releasing additional information. Even though additional information on
these changes is forthcoming, States under NEPA assignment are required
to implement these changes. The team learned through TxDOT's PAIR #4,
and through interviews, that TxDOT has neither developed nor delivered
training to its staff concerning new requirements for the FAST Act for
environmental review. In response to this observation, TxDOT is
currently collaborating with FHWA to develop a presentation on this
topic for its annual environmental conference.
Status of Non-Compliance Observations and Other Observations From Audit
#3 (April 2017)
Audit #3 Non-Compliance Observations
1. Section 7 Consultation-- TxDOT ENV made revisions to their ESA
procedures that they have shared with FHWA and USFWS via partnering
sessions. TxDOT implementation and training efforts are still pending
by ENV management on the revised procedures to ENV and District staff.
2. Noise Policy-- TxDOT has informed the team that they are in the
process of updating the 2011 Noise Guidelines. TxDOT will submit those
guidelines to FHWA for review and approval once they are updated. TxDOT
has not indicated whether they intend to provide training on these
guidelines for TxDOT District Office and consultant staff.
3. Public Involvement-- TxDOT updated their FHWA approved Handbook in
November of 2016. There was one recurrence of a non-compliant action
that was reported in Audit #3 during Audit #4. TxDOT informed FHWA that
ENV will request that FHWA review their Texas Administrative Code in
lieu of their previous request that FHWA review only their Public
Involvement Handbook.
4. Section 4(f)-- FHWA did not have any non-compliance observations in
regards to TxDOT carrying out their assigned Section 4(f)
responsibilities during Audit #4.
Audit #3 Observations
1. A certified project had an incomplete review-- TxDOT continues to
certify NEPA approvals for projects on a list provided to FHWA. This
audit review identified an error of the inclusion of a project on a
certified list.
2. Inconsistent and contradictory information in some project files--
TxDOT has made ECOS software upgrades recently that address this
problem. This audit review continued to identify project file errors in
the consistency of information.
3. TxDOT's QA/QC performance measure could demonstrate continuous
improvement--Since Audit #3, TxDOT has developed a new approach to the
QA/QC performance measure. For CE reviews, the methodology is based on
``yes/no/NA'' answers to 50 questions (for EA projects there are 100
questions) based on requirements in the TxDOT handbooks. The measures
are an average of the individual projects reviewed. TxDOT has not
addressed how this new measure may demonstrate continuous improvement.
4. Consider implementing more meaningful timeliness measures--TxDOT's
response to the pre-audit information request as well as in their self-
assessment summary included detailed discussions of the timeliness
measures for CEs as well as for EA projects that are meaningful.
5. TxDOT's ability to monitor the certification and competency status
of their qualified staff--TxDOT has included on its training sharepoint
site a database that identifies each environmental staff member, a
complete list of training they have completed, and when that training
occurred. TxDOT's training coordinator is responsible for monitoring
this database to ensure all staff maintain their competency and
qualification status per State law as well as the ongoing training
requirement specified by the ENV director.
Next Steps
The FHWA provided a preliminary draft audit report to TxDOT for a 14-
day review and comment period. The team has considered TxDOT comments
in developing this draft Audit #4 report. As the next step, FHWA will
publish a notice in the Federal Register to make it available to the
public for a 30-day review comment period [23 U.S.C. 327(g)]. No later
than 60 days after the close of the comment period, FHWA will respond
to all comments submitted in finalizing this draft audit report
[pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327(g)(2)(B)]. Once finalized, the audit report
will be published in the Federal Register.
[FR Doc. 2017-26947 Filed 12-13-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P