|
|---|
|
Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program; Arizona Department of Transportation Final FHWA Audit Report Publication: Federal Register Agency: Federal Highway Administration Byline: Stephanie Pollack Date: 5 November 2021 Subjects: American Government  , Roads & Highways
|
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 212 (Friday, November 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61381-61386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24215]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2020-0020]
Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program; Arizona
Department of Transportation Final FHWA Audit Report
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 four 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 finalizes the first
audit report for ADOT.
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., Eastern Standard
Time, 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, from the Office of the
Federal Register's website at www.FederalRegister.gov, or from the
Government Publishing Office's website at www.GovInfo.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
[[Page 61382]]
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 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 finalizes the first 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 part 773.
Stephanie Pollack,
Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program Final 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. A separate MOU between FHWA and ADOT, pursuant
to 23 U.S.C. 326, authorizes environmental review responsibilities for
other categorical exclusions (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 on-site visit to the
Arizona Division and ADOT offices. Prior to the on-site 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, 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 six
NEPA Assignment Program elements.
[[Page 61383]]
The audit team developed specific follow-up questions for the on-site
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
[[Page 61384]]
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 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
[[Page 61385]]
implement documentation procedures to support appropriate environmental
analysis and decision-making 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 DEIS cover page regarding the intent to combine the final EIS and
record of decision (ROD) 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 (STIP) 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 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
[[Page 61386]]
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 published a draft version of this report in the Federal
Register on December 28, 2020 (85 FR 84454), and made it available for
public review and comment for 30 days in accordance with 23 U.S.C.
327(g). The FHWA received two responses to the Federal Register notice
during the public comment period for the draft report. One comment was
submitted by ADOT. The nature of ADOT's comment was substantially the
same as those provided by ADOT during their preliminary review of the
draft report which were considered in developing the draft report. The
FHWA considered this additional comment from ADOT and determined no
changes were needed to the content of the report since the comment had
been previously considered in the draft report. The final version of
the audit report reflects consideration of all of ADOT's comments. The
second comment from the American Road and Transportation Builders
Association expressed their support of the program and did not require
any changes to the content of the report. This is FHWA's final version
of the audit report.
The FHWA 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 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. 2021-24215 Filed 11-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P