Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program; Arizona Department of Transportation Draft FHWA Audit Report |
|---|
|
Nicole R. Nason
Federal Highway Administration
28 December 2020
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84454-84458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28503]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2020-0020]
Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program; Arizona
Department of Transportation Draft FHWA Audit Report
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice; Request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)
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 first 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 first audit report for ADOT.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 27, 2021.
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
[[Page 84455]]
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. Jay Payne, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-4241,
james.o.payne@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 memorandum of
understanding during each of the first four 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 the availability of the first audit report for ADOT
and solicits comments on the same.
Authority: Section 1313 of Public Law 112-141; Section 6005 of
Public Law 109-59; 23 U.S.C. 327; 23 CFR 773.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program
Draft FHWA Audit #1 of the Arizona Department of Transportation
Executive Summary
This is Audit #1 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 23 U.S.C. 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 CE. 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 March 9-12, 2020. Prior to the audit, the FHWA
audit team held internal meetings to prepare for an onsite visit to
the Arizona Division and ADOT offices. Prior to the onsite visit,
the 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 2020 audit, the audit team conducted interviews
with staff from ADOT Environmental Planning (EP) and ADOT's external
partners, and prepared preliminary audit results. The audit team
presented these preliminary results to ADOT EP leadership on March
12, 2020.
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 first audit in
Arizona and ADOT's progress towards meeting the program review
objectives identified in the MOU. Following this audit, FHWA will
conduct three 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 and Resource Center, as well as 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 three
additional focus areas for this review: Project-level conformity
procedures; Section 4(f) procedures; and public involvement
procedures.
The audit team conducted a careful examination of ADOT policies,
guidance, and manuals pertaining to NEPA responsibilities,
[[Page 84456]]
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 staff from ADOT EP and ADOT's external partners, both in
person and via teleconference.
The timeframe defined for this first audit includes highway
project environmental approvals completed between April 16, 2019,
and December 31, 2019. During this timeframe, ADOT completed NEPA
approvals and documented NEPA decision points for 12 projects. Due
to the small sample size, the audit team reviewed all 12 projects.
This consisted of four Individual CEs, one EA with a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI), two draft EAs, one EA initiated with
scoping completed, one draft EIS, and three EA re-evaluations.
The PAIR submitted to ADOT contained 23 questions covering all 6
NEPA Assignment Program elements. The audit team developed specific
follow-up questions for the onsite interviews with ADOT staff based
on ADOT responses to the PAIR.
The audit team conducted a total of 17 interviews. Interview
participants included staff from ADOT EP, Arizona Attorney General's
Office (AGO), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9,
Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD), Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG), and the city of Phoenix.
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. The 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 assure 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 three 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. The
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 site visit
closeout 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. The FHWA
will consider actions taken by ADOT to address these observations as
part of the scope of the second audit.
Successful Practices and Observations
Program Management
Successful Practices
The ADOT EP has developed several detailed guidance manuals for
implementing NEPA Assignment and evaluating environmental resources.
These manuals are readily available online at ADOT's environmental
website. The ADOT continuously updates their manuals and has a
process for tracking updates by including a list of changes as an
appendix in each version. Several staff members stated they
regularly consult the guidance manuals and are informed of updates.
The ADOT EP has developed internal procedures for resolving and
escalating conflicts. The ADOT Project Development Procedures Manual
describes these escalation procedures. The ADOT has found this to be
an effective tool to assist in evaluating controversial issues,
identifying appropriate levels of communication, and determining the
best approach for dispute resolution.
During interviews with staff, the audit team learned that ADOT
EP makes a considerable effort at internal communication and
coordination through meetings, emails, and informal interaction. The
staff holds weekly and monthly meetings for environmental planners
and technical groups to discuss project issues, address program-
level questions, and update staff on guidance. Interviewed staff
said they were well-informed about procedures and comfortable
discussing complex situations with team leads and technical experts.
In addition, ADOT EP attends partnering/preconstruction meetings
with other ADOT sections to convey environmental commitments and to
stay informed of project changes.
During interviews, EPA, AZGFD, and the city of Phoenix commented
on ADOT EP's collaboration and communication efforts with them. The
EPA was appreciative of ADOT EP holding bi-monthly coordination
meetings to discuss the status of projects and commented on their
much-improved relationship with ADOT. The AZGFD acknowledged and
appreciated the opportunities to provide input through the outreach
efforts of ADOT biologists on projects with wildlife concerns. The
city of Phoenix noted ADOT's improved communication with local
governments and efforts to increase flexibility in the environmental
review process. The audit team recognizes ADOT EP's outreach efforts
with these external partners. One area identified by the audit team
in need of improved collaboration is project-level conformity
determinations, where legal responsibility remains assigned to FHWA.
Observations
Non-Compliance Observation #1: Incomplete Project Files Submission
For this audit, pursuant to MOU Sections 8.2.2 and 8.2.3, FHWA
requested all project files pertaining to the NEPA approvals and
documented NEPA decision points completed during the audit review
period. The request specified the approved NEPA document and all
supporting documentation related to the decision milestones, such as
consultation letters, technical memos, and resource evaluations
(email to ADOT November 26, 2019). The FHWA provided additional
clarification to ADOT regarding the types of NEPA approvals and NEPA
decision documents that ADOT should submit (email to ADOT December
18, 2019).
The audit team found several inconsistences between ADOT's
procedures for maintaining project files (as identified in the ADOT
CE Checklist Manual, ADOT EA/EIS Manual, ADOT QA/QC Plan, and ADOT
Project Development Procedures Manual) and the project file
documentation provided to FHWA. The ADOT's procedures specify
utilizing a standard folder structure for all projects and saving
all project documentation and supporting information in the project
files. However, the project files submitted by ADOT for this audit
were incomplete and did not include all supporting documentation.
The project files that ADOT submitted consisted primarily of final
decision documents and, in most cases, did not include
correspondence, internal communication, technical memos/reports, or
other types of information to support NEPA decisions or demonstrate
how ADOT evaluated resources.
The audit team learned during interviews that ADOT EP management
created a duplicate project file for each project which consisted of
a subset of their project files. Due to the incomplete project
files, it is unclear how ADOT is maintaining electronic project
files and administrative records, and how ADOT is complying with its
procedures and the terms of the 23 U.S.C. 327 MOU as they apply to
records retention. The audit team determined that ADOT EP management
made the decision to not submit all requested project files for
review by FHWA as required by the MOU (Section 8.2.3). In the last
23 U.S.C. 326 MOU monitoring review, FHWA observed this same
practice and informed ADOT that such a practice was in non-
compliance with the MOU. Just as that practice was in non-compliance
with the 23 U.S.C. 326 MOU, this practice is also in non-compliance
with the 23 U.S.C. 327 MOU.
Observation #1: Use of the Federal Infrastructure Permitting Dashboard
The ADOT is responsible for inputting project information for
assigned projects into the Federal Infrastructure Permitting
[[Page 84457]]
Dashboard, per MOU Section 8.5.1. During the audit, the audit team
reviewed the Permitting Dashboard and found that it did not include
information for any of the applicable projects assigned to ADOT. The
audit team confirmed during interviews that ADOT has not updated the
dashboard. The audit team acknowledges that ADOT is working with
FHWA to obtain access to the dashboard and address this issue.
Documentation and Records Management
The audit team reviewed 12 projects as part of this audit. This
consisted of four Individual CEs, one EA with a FONSI, two draft
EAs, one EA initiated with scoping completed, one draft EIS, and
three EA re-evaluations.
Successful Practices
The ADOT EP has developed several standard templates (e.g.,
checklists, forms, etc.) to document various actions and decision-
points throughout the NEPA process. These are an effective tool for
ADOT to consistently evaluate environmental resources and document
decisions. Staff indicated that these templates have aided in
streamlining the review process and provided consistency across
projects.
Observations
Non-Compliance Observation #2: Project-Level Conformity Compliance
Issues
The statutory provisions of the NEPA Assignment Program, along
with Section 3.2.1 of the MOU, prohibit ADOT from assuming the
responsibility for making conformity determinations for projects
processed under the 23 U.S.C. 327 MOU. However, pursuant to the
Federal transportation conformity regulations at 40 CFR 93.105(c)
and Section 7.2.1 of the MOU, ADOT and FHWA Arizona Division can
agree on procedures that allow ADOT to engage in activities to
assist in this process and establish when and how consultation with
FHWA must occur.
The audit team reviewed ADOT's protocols for seeking FHWA's
project-level conformity determinations, conducted a focused review
of project-level conformity procedures on six projects, and
interviewed ADOT, MAG, and EPA staff. The audit team found that ADOT
had not given FHWA a chance to review and agree on the protocols
and, as a result, the protocols do not provide for the appropriate
consultation, coordination, and communication with FHWA and other
agencies, such as EPA and MAG, 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, by doing so, ADOT took actions that
were not assigned to them. This failure to coordinate prevented FHWA
from meeting its conformity determination responsibilities. The ADOT
incorrectly concluded that the conformity requirements did not apply
to one of the two projects because they assumed that the project
would not trigger any FHWA approvals. The ADOT proceeded to complete
NEPA without FHWA's conformity determination. This deficient
approval prevents FHWA from authorizing the project until the
conformity requirements are met. In another project, ADOT
incorrectly determined that a widening project was exempt from
project conformity under 40 CFR 93.126.
The audit team found multiple projects that did not demonstrate
ADOT's compliance with interagency consultation requirements, per 40
CFR 93.105. The ADOT appears to have conducted some degree of
interagency consultation but information on such consultation was
not included in the project files. Therefore, it is unclear whether
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. During interviews, EPA expressed concerns
regarding how ADOT conducts project-level interagency consultation.
Both EPA and MAG also felt that the interagency consultation is not
fully transparent since ADOT does not: (1) Share comments with all
interagency consultation agencies throughout the process; (2)
provide responses to agency comments; and (3) consistently follow up
with agencies to ensure their comments are adequately addressed. In
cases where a project-level conformity determination is required,
the interagency consultation process must meet the conformity rule
requirements found in 40 CFR 93.105.
During interviews, ADOT staff did not demonstrate a full of
understanding project-level conformity requirements. The audit team
identified that ADOT staff were not aware that: (1) Certain FHWA
approvals (in addition to Federal funding) may necessitate a
project-level conformity determination; (2) certain situations may
require a redetermination of project-level conformity under 40 CFR
93.104(d); (3) the importance of specific traffic data requirements
for the reviews; and (4) the public involvement requirements
associated with project-level conformity.
The lack of agreed-upon interagency consultation procedures with
clear roles, responsibilities, and coordination protocols,
particularly between ADOT and FHWA, creates a significant risk of
project schedule delays and, ultimately, project non-compliance. The
ADOT should revise their procedures to be consistent with 40 CFR
93.105 and obtain agreement from FHWA to make sure the correct
workflows are established, the responsibilities of FHWA are not
curtailed, and that interagency consultation is transparent. Until
agreed-upon protocols between FHWA and ADOT are in place, ADOT
should consult with FHWA on all projects in non-attainment and
maintenance areas to determine if conformity determination will be
required for the project and the appropriate interagency
consultation needed.
Observation #2: Inconsistencies and Deficiencies Based on the Review of
Project File Documentation
The audit team preliminarily identified several inconsistencies
between ADOT's procedures for documenting project decisions (as
identified in the ADOT CE Checklist Manual, ADOT EA/EIS Manual, ADOT
QA/QC Plan, and ADOT Project Development Procedures Manual) and the
incomplete project file documentation provided. Section 4.2.4 of the
MOU specifies that ADOT must implement documentation procedures to
support appropriate environmental analysis and decisionmaking under
NEPA and associated laws and regulations. The FHWA informed ADOT EP
leadership during the audit week that project files were incomplete
and, in response, ADOT submitted additional project files and
supporting documentation. The ADOT was provided a second opportunity
after the audit week to clarify inconsistences identified by the
audit team and answer follow-up questions regarding the project
documentation.
After completing the project file review (including the
supplemental information provided by ADOT), the audit team
identified the following procedural deficiencies relating to the MOU
and FHWA's regulations, policies, and guidance:
One project did not include the disclosure statement on
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement cover page regarding the
intent to combine the final EIS and record of decision as identified
in the January 14, 2013, interim guidance memorandum on MAP-21
Section 1319 Accelerated Decision making in Environmental Reviews.
One corridor widening project did not demonstrate
independent utility and logical termini as required in 23 CFR
771.111(f)(1) and 23 CFR 771.111(f)(2).
One project did not demonstrate that funding for the
project is programmed beyond Fiscal Year 2019 and did not
demonstrate that the project is identified on a current Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program per 23 CFR 771.113(a)(3).
In addition, the audit team found several inconsistencies
between ADOT's documentation of Section 4(f) determinations (as
identified in ADOT's Section 4(f) procedures and FHWA Section 4(f)
regulation and guidance) and the project file documentation. Due to
the inadequate information provided, it is unclear how ADOT is
implementing Section 4(f) and how ADOT is complying with its Section
4(f) procedures. The audit team identified the following
inconsistencies in project files relating to Section 4(f)
evaluations and determinations:
One project included a Section 106 no adverse effect
finding and Section 4(f) no use determinations for six historic
properties; however, ADOT did not provide any information
demonstrating how they evaluated these resources under Section 4(f),
or if they consulted the officials with jurisdiction over the
resources.
Two projects included a Section 106 finding of either
adverse effect or no adverse effect, indicating the presence of
potential Section 4(f) resources; however, ADOT did not provide any
information demonstrating how they evaluated these resources under
Section 4(f), or if they had consulted the officials with
jurisdiction over the resources.
One project included a Section 4(f) joint development
determination but it is unclear
[[Page 84458]]
what information ADOT used to support this determination (such as a
master plan map or other planning information), or if they consulted
the official with jurisdiction over the resource regarding potential
impacts to the Section 4(f) resource.
One project included a temporary occupancy
determination and the description of the impact to the resource is
inconsistent with the definition provided in 23 CFR 774.13(d)(3).
One project stated that a Section 4(f) resource within
the project area is jointly owned by two entities, but it is unclear
if ADOT consulted with both officials with jurisdiction regarding
the de minimis use since only one official with jurisdiction
concurred with the de minimis use.
The audit team acknowledges that ADOT is aware that
implementation of Section 4(f) is an area in need of improvement and
recognizes their efforts to update its procedures, including ADOT
recently developing standard evaluation forms.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
The audit team verified that ADOT has procedures in place for
QA/QC which are described in the ADOT QA/QC Manual and ADOT Project
Development Procedures Manual. The ADOT has developed QC checklists
and forms to assist in implementing project-level QC procedures.
During the project file reviews, the audit team noted some variation
in how ADOT implements project-level QC procedures, and
inconsistencies in how ADOT documents QC reviews. It was unclear how
ADOT conducts thorough project-level QC reviews (completeness vs.
accuracy), how ADOT corrects errors it identifies during QC reviews,
and how the environmental planners coordinate with technical experts
during QC reviews. Staff indicated during interviews that informal
QC reviews are often conducted before QC checklists are completed,
though it is unclear how this process is tracked to ensure comments
are addressed. Due to these inconsistencies, the audit team was
unable to fully assess the implementation of project-level QC
procedures. The FHWA will continue to evaluate this program
objective in subsequent audits.
Performance Measures
Observations
Observation #3: Incomplete Development and Implementation of
Performance Measures
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 ADOT's QA/QC Plan and self-assessment report
identified several performance measures but both indicated that ADOT
was still refining these measures and had not fully implemented
them. The ADOT's PAIR response stated that ADOT has focused on
tracking projects for schedule issues and has not begun gathering
data for other performance measures. The self-assessment report did
not include reporting data for any of the performance measures. The
audit team confirmed during staff interviews that ADOT does not have
data for its performance measures and is looking to further refine
its performance measures. Due to the lack of performance measure
data, the audit team determined that ADOT has not fully established
and initiated data collection as it relates to performance metrics
per the MOU.
Legal Sufficiency
Through information provided by ADOT and an interview by the
FHWA Office of Chief Counsel with an Assistant Attorney General
(AAG) assigned to ADOT's NEPA Assignment Program, the auditors
determined ADOT had not conducted 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. The ADOT also
has the ability to retain outside counsel to review projects or
conduct litigation should the need arise.
Successful Practice
Through the interview, the audit team learned ADOT seeks to
involve lawyers early in the environmental review phase, with AAGs
participating in project coordination team meetings and reviews of
early drafts of environmental documents. In addition, ADOT and the
AGO have a process in place by which ADOT can request written legal
opinions and advice from an AAG on environmental review legal
matters. For formal reviews, the process would include a formal
transmittal memo from an ADOT environmental manager, a review
package (hard copy or electronic), and a completed ADOT EA/EIS
Quality Control Checklist.
Training
The audit team reviewed ADOT's 2020 Training Plan and ADOT's
PAIR responses pertaining to its training program. The ADOT's
training program includes in-house, Web-based, and instructor-led
courses training opportunities for staff. Since assuming NEPA
responsibilities, ADOT has held several formal training courses and
plans to continue these efforts during the upcoming year. The ADOT
provides new hires with structured onboarding training which
includes coaching, mentoring, and collaborative on-the-job training
to facilitate professional development. The ADOT EP Training Officer
tracks staff training needs and completion of courses and updates
this document quarterly. Staff remarked during interviews on the
availability of training offered to them and opportunities to travel
out of State for specialty technical courses.
Successful Practices
The audit team commends ADOT for developing a detailed training
plan and committing resources to provide training opportunities for
staff. The ADOT EP encourages staff to pursue individual training
interests and has undertaken efforts to ensure staff maintains
professional certifications. The ADOT EP has developed a Web-based
training course for staff as an introduction to NEPA Assignment. To
further support the training program, ADOT EP utilizes a dedicated
training coordinator within the environmental section.
Finalizing This Report
The FHWA provided a draft of the audit report to ADOT for a 14-
day review and comment period. The 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. The 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. The 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. 2020-28503 Filed 12-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P