[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10599-10604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3977]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2012-0005]
Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot Program; Caltrans
Audit Report
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 6005 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) established
the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot Program, codified at
23 U.S.C. 327. To ensure compliance by each State participating in the
Pilot Program, 23 U.S.C. 327(g) mandates semiannual audits during each
of the first 2 years of State participation and annual audits during
each subsequent year of State participation. This notice announces and
solicits comments on the sixth audit report for the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 23, 2012.
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 http://www.regulations.gov, or fax comments to (202)
493-2251.
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-
[[Page 10600]]
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). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000, (Volume 65, Number 70,
Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ruth Rentch, Office of Project
Development and Environmental Review, (202) 366-2034,
[email protected], or Mr. Michael Harkins, Office of the Chief
Counsel, (202) 366-4928, [email protected], Federal Highway
Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15
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 Office
of the Federal Register's home page at http://www.archives.gov and the
Government Printing Office's Web site at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys.
Background
Section 6005 of SAFETEA-LU (codified at 23 U.S.C. 327) established
a pilot program to allow up to five States to assume the Secretary of
Transportation's responsibilities for environmental review,
consultation, or other actions under any Federal environmental law
pertaining to the review or approval of highway projects. In order to
be selected for the pilot program, a State must submit an application
to the Secretary.
On June 29, 2007, Caltrans and FHWA entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) that established the assignments to and assumptions
of responsibility to Caltrans. Under the MOU, Caltrans assumed the
majority of the FHWA's responsibilities under the National
Environmental Policy Act, as well as the FHWA's responsibilities under
other Federal environmental laws for most highway projects in
California.
To ensure compliance by each State participating in the Pilot
Program, 23 U.S.C. 327(g) requires the Secretary to conduct semiannual
audits during each of the first 2 years of State participation; and
annual audits during each subsequent year of State participation. The
results of each audit must be presented in the form of an audit report
and be made available for public comment. This notice announces the
availability of the sixth audit report for Caltrans and solicits public
comment on same.
Authority: Section 6005 of Pub. L. 109-59; 23 U.S.C. 315 and
327; 49 CFR 1.48.
Issued on: February 14, 2012.
Victor M. Mendez,
Administrator.
DRAFT
Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot Program Federal Highway
Administration Audit of California Department of Transportation October
17-21, 2011
Overall Audit Opinion
Based on the information reviewed, it is the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) audit team's opinion that as of October 21, 2011,
the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) continued to
make progress toward meeting all responsibilities assumed under the
Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot Program (Pilot Program),
as specified in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) \1\ with FHWA and
in Caltrans' Application for Assumption (Application).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Caltrans MOU between FHWA and Caltrans available at: http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/safe_cdot_pilot.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA commends Caltrans for its implementation of corrective
actions in response to previous FHWA audit report findings. The FHWA
also observed that Caltrans continued to identify and implement on a
statewide Pilot Program basis best practices in use at individual
Caltrans Districts (Districts).
With the completion of FHWA's sixth audit, Caltrans has now
operated under the Pilot Program for 4 years. In compliance with the
time specifications for the required audits, FHWA completed four
semiannual audits in the first 2 years of State participation and is
now conducting the annual audit cycle, which began with the fifth audit
in July 2010 and includes this sixth audit in October 2011.
Collectively, FHWA audits have included on-site audits to Caltrans
headquarters offices, 10 of the 12 Caltrans Districts, and to the
Caltrans Regional Offices supporting the remaining two Districts. The
audit team continues to identify significant differences across the
Districts in terms of implementing Pilot Program policies, procedures,
and responsibilities. Examples of such differences include: resource
availability and allocation; methods of implementation; methods of
process evaluation and improvement; and levels of progress in meeting
all assumed responsibilities. It is the audit team's opinion that the
highly decentralized nature of operations across Districts continues to
be a major contributing factor to the variations observed in the Pilot
Program. As a result of this organizational structure, Caltrans
Headquarters (HQ) must provide clear, consistent, and ongoing oversight
over Districts' implementation and operation of the Pilot Program
responsibilities. Implementation of a robust oversight program will
help foster the exchange of information and the sharing of best
practices and resources between Districts and will put the entire
organization in a better position to more fully implement all assumed
responsibilities and meet all Pilot Program commitments.
Due to the multiyear timeframes associated with most complex and
controversial projects, the full lifecycle of the environmental review
aspect of project development (proceeding from initiation of
environmental studies and concluding with the issuance of a Record of
Decision (ROD) or equivalent decision document) has yet to be realized
within the Pilot Program to date. Caltrans continues to gain experience
in understanding the resource requirements and processes necessary to
administer its Program. It is the audit team's opinion that Caltrans
needs to continue to refine its approaches and use of resources to meet
all Pilot Program commitments, especially given the increasing resource
demands associated with managing ever-more complex and controversial
projects under the Pilot Program under recent resource constraints.
Requirement for Transition Plan
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) Section 6005(a) established the
Pilot Program, codified at 23 U.S.C. 327. Under the provisions of 23
U.S.C 327(i)(1), as enacted in SAFETEA-LU, ``the program shall
terminate on the date that is 6 years after the date of enactment of
this section,'' which was August 10, 2011. However, section 2203(c) of
the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2010, Part II, Public Law
111-322, amended 23 U.S.C 327 (i)(1) to require the Pilot Program to
terminate seven years after the date of the enactment of SAFETEA-LU or
August 10, 2012. The MOU between FHWA and Caltrans was amended
[[Page 10601]]
August 8, 2011, to include this new date and to update related
provisions.
Effective Practices
The FHWA audit team observed the following effective practices
during the sixth audit:
1. The creation of a statewide Community Impacts working team that
holds monthly calls to share Community Impact Assessment (CIA) and
Environmental Justice information. Caltrans has also developed new CIA
guidance.
2. Improved level of consistency in implementing processes and
documenting information, largely due to the use of the Standard
Environmental Reference (SER) and templates.
3. Improved Section 4(f) de minimis letters to the officials with
jurisdiction, with good examples from local agencies in District 4.
4. Increased access to training, including the availability of on-
demand training, PowerPoint, Webinars and videoconferencing.
5. Complete and well-organized project files in District 10.
6. Assumptions and Risk statements included in early project
development/scoping that list possible consequences, effects and costs
of not complying with all environmental requirements and procedures.
7. Caltrans' Standard Specifications for Construction 2010
(recently released) requires environmental stewardship to be included
in all construction contracts, which should aid in environmental
mitigation implementation.
8. The new Caltrans Standard Tracking and Exchange Vehicle for
Environmental (STEVE) supports tracking of the environmental review
process and sharing of project status across project teams and includes
an internal dispute resolution process.
Background
The Pilot Program allows the Secretary of Transportation
(Secretary) to assign, and the State to assume, the Secretary's
responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for
one or more highway projects. Upon assigning NEPA responsibilities, the
Secretary may further assign to the State all or part of the
Secretary's responsibilities for environmental review, consultation, or
other action required under any Federal environmental law pertaining to
the review of a specific highway project. When a State assumes the
Secretary's responsibilities under this program, the State becomes
solely responsible and is liable for carrying out the responsibilities
it has assumed, in lieu of FHWA.
To ensure compliance by each State participating in the Pilot
Program, 23 U.S.C. 327(g) mandates that FHWA, on behalf of the
Secretary, conduct semiannual audits during each of the first 2 years
of State participation; and annual audits during each subsequent year
of State participation. The focus of the FHWA audit process is four-
fold: (1) To assess a Pilot State's compliance with the required MOU
and applicable Federal laws and policies; (2) to collect information
needed to evaluate the success of the Pilot Program; (3) to evaluate
Pilot State progress in meeting its performance measures; and (4) to
collect information for use in the Secretary's annual Report to
Congress on the administration of the Pilot Program. Additionally, 23
U.S.C. 327(g) requires FHWA to present the results of each audit in the
form of an audit report published in the Federal Register. This audit
report must be made available for public comment, and FHWA must respond
to public comments received no later than 60 days after the date on
which the period for public comment closes.
Scope of the Audit
This is the sixth FHWA audit of Caltrans participation in the Pilot
Program. The on-site portion of the audit was conducted in California
from October 17 through October 21, 2011. As required in SAFETEA-LU,
each FHWA audit must assess compliance with the roles and
responsibilities assumed by the Pilot State in the MOU. The audit also
includes recommendations to assist Caltrans in successful participation
in the Pilot Program.
Prior to the on-site audit, FHWA completed telephone interviews
with Federal resource agency staff at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Park Service,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, and the Environmental Protection
Agency. The on-site audit included visits to the Caltrans Offices in
District 2 (Redding), District 3/North Region (Marysville), District 4
(Oakland), District 6 (Fresno), District 10 (Stockton), and
Headquarters (Sacramento).
This report documents findings within the scope of the audit as of
the completion date of the on-site audit on October 21, 2011.
Audit Process and Implementation
The intent of each FHWA audit completed under the Pilot Program is
to ensure that the Pilot State complies with the commitments in its MOU
with FHWA. The FHWA does not evaluate specific project-related
decisions made by the State; these decisions are the sole
responsibility of the Pilot State. However, the FHWA audit scope does
include the review of the processes and procedures (including
documentation) used by the Pilot State to reach project decisions in
compliance with MOU Section 3.2.
In addition, Caltrans committed in its Application (incorporated by
reference in MOU Section 1.1.2) to implement specific processes to
strengthen its environmental procedures in order to assume the
responsibilities assigned by FHWA under the Pilot Program. The FHWA
audits review how Caltrans is meeting each commitment and assess Pilot
Program performance in the core areas specified in the Scope of the
Audit section of this report.
The Caltrans' Pilot Program commitments address:
Organization and Procedures under the Pilot Program;
Expanded Quality Control Procedures;
Independent Environmental Decisionmaking;
Determining the NEPA Class of Action;
Consultation and Coordination with Resource Agencies;
Issue Identification and Conflict Resolution Procedures;
Recordkeeping and Retention;
Expanded Internal Monitoring and Process Reviews;
Performance Measures to Assess the Pilot Program;
Training to Implement the Pilot Program;
Legal Sufficiency Review.
The FHWA team for the sixth audit included representatives from the
following offices or agencies:
FHWA Office of Project Development and Environmental
Review;
FHWA Office of the Chief Counsel;
FHWA Alaska Division Office;
FHWA Resource Center Environmental Team;
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center;
U.S. FWS.
During the onsite audit, the audit team interviewed more than 60
staff from 5 Caltrans District and HQ offices. The audit team also
reviewed project files and records for over 55 projects managed by
Caltrans under the Pilot Program.
[[Page 10602]]
The FHWA acknowledges that Caltrans identified specific issues
during its sixth self-assessment performed under the Pilot Program
(required by MOU section 8.2.6), and is working on corrective actions
to address the identified issues. Some issues described in the Caltrans
self-assessment may overlap with FHWA findings identified in this audit
report.
In accordance with MOU Section 11.4.1, FHWA provided Caltrans with
a 30-day comment period to review this draft audit report. The FHWA
reviewed comments received from Caltrans and revised sections of the
draft report, where appropriate, prior to publishing it in the Federal
Register for public comment.
Limitations of the Audit
The conclusions presented in this report are opinions based upon
interviews of selected persons knowledgeable about past and current
activities related to the execution of the Pilot Program at Caltrans,
and a review of selected documents over a limited time period. The FHWA
audit team's ability to conduct each audit and make determinations of
Caltrans' compliance with assumed responsibilities and commitments
under the Pilot Program has been further limited by the following:
Select Districts visited by the FHWA audit team. The FHWA
audit team has not visited each District during the audit process. Each
audit (including this audit) has consisted of visits to Districts with
significant activity under the Pilot.
Caltrans staff availability during audits. Some Caltrans
staff selected to be interviewed by the audit team were out of the
office and unavailable to participate in the onsite audit, including
participation in scheduled interviews, despite Caltrans having been
notified ahead of time. This limited the extent of information
gathering.
Limited scope of Pilot Program project development
activity. Caltrans has not operated under the Pilot Program for a
sufficient period of time to manage the full lifecycle of most
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and other complex environmental
documents. Therefore, FHWA is not yet able to fully determine how
Caltrans will comply with its responsibilities assumed under the Pilot
Program for these project situations.
Insufficient data to determine time savings reported by
Caltrans in the completion of environmental documents. Due to the
relatively short period of time that the Pilot Program has been in
place, Caltrans has not completed the environmental process for a
sufficient number of projects of varying complexities to adequately
support a determination on the potential time savings resulting from
participation in the Pilot Program.
Continued errors in the quarterly reports. As has been the
case in every audit, the quarterly reports prepared by Caltrans listing
environmental approvals and decisions made under the Pilot Program
continue to contain omissions and errors. It is difficult for FHWA to
exercise full oversight on Pilot Program projects without a complete
accounting of all NEPA documents produced under the Pilot.
Status of Findings Since the Last Audit (July 2010)
As part of the sixth audit, FHWA evaluated the corrective actions
implemented by Caltrans in response to the ``Deficient'' and ``Needs
Improvement'' findings in the fifth FHWA audit report.
Deficient Audit Finding Status
1. Quarterly Reports--The quarterly reports Caltrans provided to
FHWA under MOU Section 8.2.7 continued to include inaccuracies related
to environmental document approvals and decisions made under the Pilot
Program. The audit team acknowledges that Caltrans has recently
implemented the STEVE environmental database system on a statewide
basis to assist in the development of a comprehensive database of
environmental projects and milestones.
2. Section 4(f) Documentation--As noted in the past two audits,
inconsistencies in Section 4(f) compliance and documentation have been
observed by the audit team. The FHWA acknowledges that Caltrans
continues to provide Section 4(f) training and assistance to the
Districts to improve the understanding of the Section 4(f) statute and
regulations. However, training implementation is inconsistent with
staff implementing Section 4(f) across Districts.
3. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Certification
Process--Project file reviews completed during the sixth audit
continued to identify incorrect and incomplete QC certification forms.
Caltrans continues to address inadequacies in this process through
staff-specific training when inconsistencies are identified, most
notably during the self-assessment process.
Needs Improvement Audit Findings Status
1. Maintenance of Project and General Administrative Files--
Caltrans has instituted specific procedures for maintaining project
files in accordance with the Uniform Filing System and has provided
training on these procedures. Inconsistencies in the application of
these procedures, reported in previous audit findings, were also
identified in this audit.
2. Performance Measure--FHWA recommended that Caltrans share with
FHWA the specific agencies' rating information so that specific issues
could be identified. Caltrans has provided this information to FHWA.
3. Coordination with Resource Agencies--Conversations with Federal
resource agencies prior to the onsite audit indicated that
relationships between the agencies and Caltrans are generally
considered to be effective; however, the audit team noted an issue
regarding insufficient information being initially submitted to the
resource agencies.
4. Procedural and Substantive Requirements--There were identified
instances of incomplete documentation regarding the Endangered Species
Act Section 7 process. This was also an area of irregularities
identified in the Caltrans Self Assessment. Section 7 compliance
continues to be a topic addressed by the Biological Consultancy group
and, included as part of the STEVE, there is an elevation process for
Section 7 conflicts.
5. Re-evaluation Process--Project file reviews and staff interviews
continue to indicate varying degrees of compliance with the re-
evaluation process and procedures.
6. Section 4(f) Consistency Issue--Project file reviews and
interviews with Caltrans staff confirmed continuing inconsistencies in
the implementation of the Section 4(f) process as well as with a
general understanding required in carrying out Section 4(f) provisions.
The audit team does acknowledge that a Section 4(f) evaluation training
on demand module was recently posted for use by Caltrans staff.
7. Training--As in past audits, the audit team observed
inconsistencies in the use of tools to identify training needs, ensure
training is received, and to track employees' training histories. The
audit team also determined there was no method for employees to track
completion of any online training available on the Caltrans Web site.
Findings Definitions
The FHWA audit team carefully examined Pilot Program areas to
assess
[[Page 10603]]
compliance in accordance with established criteria in the MOU and
Application. The time period covered by this audit report is from the
start of the Caltrans Pilot Program (July 1, 2007) through completion
of the sixth onsite audit (October 21, 2011) with the focus of the
audit on the most recent 15 month period. This report presents audit
findings in three areas:
Compliant--Audit verified that a process, procedure or
other component of the Pilot Program meets a stated commitment in the
Application and/or MOU.
Needs Improvement--Audit determined that a process,
procedure or other component of the Pilot Program as specified in the
Application and/or MOU is not fully implemented to achieve the stated
commitment or the process or procedure implemented is not functioning
at a level necessary to ensure the stated commitment is satisfied.
Action is recommended to ensure success.
Deficient--Audit was unable to verify if a process,
procedure or other component of the Pilot Program met the stated
commitment in the Application and/or MOU. Action is required to improve
the process, procedure or other component prior to the next audit;
or
Audit determined that a process, procedure or other component of
the Pilot Program did not meet the stated commitment in the Application
and/or MOU. Corrective action is required prior to the next audit;
or
Audit determined that for a past Needs Improvement finding, the
rate of corrective action has not proceeded in a timely manner; is not
on the path to timely resolution of the finding.
Summary of Findings--October 2011
Compliant
Caltrans was found to be compliant in meeting the requirements of
the MOU for the key Pilot Program areas within the scope and the
limitations of the audit, with the exceptions noted in the Deficient
and Needs Improvement findings in this audit report set forth below.
Needs Improvement
(N1) Training--Inconsistent Level of Training for Staff--MOU
Section 12.1.1 requires Caltrans to ensure that its staff is properly
trained and that training will be provided ``in all appropriate areas
with respect to the environmental responsibilities Caltrans has
assumed.'' Section 4.2.2 of the MOU also requires that Caltrans
maintain adequate staff capability to effectively carry out the
responsibilities it has assumed.
The audit team found the following inconsistencies across the
Districts regarding the level of needed trainings received by Caltrans
staff:
(a) Several of the Section 4(f) District Points of Contact (POC)
have very little, if any experience with writing or reviewing a Section
4(f) document and have had little training in Section 4(f). The audit
team learned that the specific roles and responsibilities for the POCs
had not yet been determined. Also, it has not been decided if there
will be the formation of a working/peer group of these POCs or how they
should proceed in becoming ``expert'' in this area;
(b) The audit team learned through interviews that the number and
variety of available online on-demand trainings have increased.
However, the lack of a system to track those taking these trainings
creates difficulties in identifying staff training needs;
(c) Interviews with staff reflected instances where staff had to
cancel their attendance at trainings due to resource limitations, or
schedule demands; and
(d) Interviews with staff indicated a large staff turnover in
certain Districts. The loss of experienced staff increases the
importance of the training needed for new employees, which is uncertain
due to resource restrictions in these same Districts.
(N2) Training--Inconsistent Understanding of Required Processes--
MOU Section 4.2.2 requires Caltrans to maintain adequate organizational
and staff capacity to effectively carry out the responsibilities it has
assumed under MOU Section 3. Good communication among all staff levels
is essential for this to be accomplished. The following inconsistencies
in lack of knowledge and inconsistent understanding were noted during
interviews with Caltrans staff:
(a) Interviews with Caltrans staff in varying positions in three
Districts revealed a lack of understanding of the FHWA fiscal
constraint requirements and its relationship to NEPA documents;
(b) A majority of Caltrans staff members interviewed indicated that
there is a lack of understanding of the definitions for the following
Section 4(f) terms: Section 4(f) use; temporary occupancy; avoidance
alternatives; least overall harm analysis; and constructive use of a
Section 4(f) resource.
(c) Interviews with Caltrans staff reflected that there was a lack
of understanding for determining a de minimis impact on a Section 4(f)
resource;
(d) Several Caltrans staff members interviewed indicated a lack of
knowledge regarding the identification of officials with jurisdiction
over Section 4(f) resources; and
(e) Interviews with Caltrans District 4 staff reflected that there
was a lack of communication among all staff concerning the District's
new requirement to hold public hearings for all EAs.
(N3) Air Quality Conformity Determinations--Section 8.5.1 of the
MOU and SER Chapter 38 require Caltrans staff to document the air
quality conformity analysis for each project by submitting a request to
FHWA for a formal conformity determination, as required by 23 U.S.C.
327(a)(2)(B)(ii)(I). The request for the conformity determination
should be submitted to FHWA as soon as possible after the preferred
alternative is identified. The FHWA conformity determination must be
received before the final NEPA action is completed.
Through interviews and project file reviews, the audit team
identified an environmental assessment (EA) that was approved without a
project-level conformity determination letter from FHWA. This
determination letter was later obtained from FHWA and a re-evaluation
was performed by Caltrans and included in the project file.
Deficient
(D1) Reports Listing Approvals and Decisions (i.e., Quarterly
Reports)--MOU Section 8.2.7 requires Caltrans to submit a report
listing all Pilot Program approvals and decisions made with respect to
responsibilities assumed under the MOU with FHWA (each quarter for the
first 2 years and no less than every 6 months after the first 2 years).
Caltrans has chosen to continue to provide quarterly reports to FHWA
after the first 2 years. As was identified in every previous FHWA audit
report, inaccurate project reporting was identified in this audit and
it continues to be an ongoing issue affecting the quarterly report
process.
Among the reporting errors identified in this audit were the
omission of two completed decisions--one ROD and one Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA acknowledges that a new statewide database (STEVE) has
recently been implemented throughout the Districts, and Caltrans
anticipates that this new system will improve the accuracy of
information provided in the quarterly reports provided to FHWA.
(D2) QA/QC Certification Process--MOU Section 8.2.5 and SER Chapter
38 require Caltrans staff to review each
[[Page 10604]]
environmental document in accordance with the policy memorandum titled,
``Environmental Document Quality Control Program under the NEPA Pilot
Program'' (July 2, 2007). As was identified in past audits, incomplete
and incorrectly completed QC certification forms continued to be
identified in this audit. During project file reviews by the audit
team, the following instances of incomplete or incorrect QC
certification forms were observed:
(a) Four Internal QC certification forms (for three projects) were
completed and signed and dated by reviewers after the approval date of
the document;
(b) One class of action determination form was signed on the same
date that the document was approved;
(c) Five QC certification forms contained undated review signatures
or the signatures were not obtained in the proper sequence in
accordance with the Caltrans established QA/QC processes. This included
four projects where external QC certification forms contained
signatures that were obtained after the internal QC certification form
signatures; and
(d) Five QC certification forms were missing the signatures of
required reviewers.
(D3) QA/QC Certification Process--MOU Section 8.2.5 and SER Chapter
38 require Caltrans staff to review each environmental document in
accordance with the policy memorandum titled, ``Environmental Document
Quality Control Program under the NEPA Pilot Program'' (July 2, 2007).
The policy memorandum included the revision to the quality control
program that includes the addition of a NEPA QC Review. The purpose of
this review component is to ensure that the environmental document
complies with the FHWA policies and guidance and the requirements of
all applicable Federal laws, executive orders, and regulations.
Interviews with Caltrans staff and project file reviews in one
District indicated that a NEPA QC reviewer was directed by the Office
Chief of Environmental Affairs and the District Director to sign the
internal certification form without having reviewed the final version
of the environmental document in order to meet the project schedule.
The NEPA QC reviewer had noted in the project file that there were two
items, previously identified to be addressed, that had not yet been
addressed in the document that was signed.
(D4) Re-evaluation Process--MOU Section 5.1 requires Caltrans to be
subject to the same procedural and substantive requirements that apply
to DOT in carrying out the responsibilities assumed under the Pilot
Program. This includes the process and documentation for conducting
NEPA re-evaluations to comply with 23 CFR 771.129. Additionally, SER
Chapter 33 discusses revalidations and re-evaluations. As in past
audits, project file reviews and staff interviews identified varying
degrees of understanding of, and compliance with, these procedures and
the improper use of re-evaluation documentation to serve another
project development purpose. Project file reviews identified the
following inconsistencies with regards to re-evaluations:
(a) A re-evaluation is done to determine if the approved
environmental document or the Categorical Exclusion (CE) designation
remains valid. In the re-evaluation process, the original decision and
analysis needs to be reviewed for its validity. A re-evaluation was
used to increase the scope of the original EA/FONSI. The FHWA re-
evaluation process does not accommodate such an approach. The
supporting documentation and project files for this project were not
available for review; and
(b) In a second project, the NEPA document was identified in the
Quarterly Report as a re-evaluation. This project was identified as an
intersection improvement that was to be added to a larger project,
already under construction. The project file contained both re-
evaluation forms and CE checklist forms. Under NEPA, the project should
have been a stand-alone CE, as it was not a part of the original
project.
(D5) Section 4(f) Documentation--MOU Section 5.1.1 affirms that
Caltrans is subject to the same procedural and substantive requirements
that apply to DOT in carrying out the responsibilities assumed under
the Pilot Program. The SER Chapter 20, Section 4(f) and Related
Requirements, sets forth procedures for documenting impacts to Section
4(f) properties in Caltrans-assigned environmental documents. As was
also noted in the fourth and fifth FHWA audits of the Pilot Program,
project file reviews and interviews with staff conducted during this
audit identified inconsistencies with the implementation and
documentation requirements for carrying out the Section 4(f)
provisions.
In the case of Section 4(f) evaluations, the audit team found the
following:
(a) Two of the three evaluations did not contain a required Section
4(f) avoidance alternative analysis.
(b) Two of the three evaluations did not provide a required Least
Overall Harm Analysis.
(D6) Statement Regarding Assumption of Responsibility--MOU section
3.2.5 requires language regarding Caltrans' assumption of
responsibility under 23 U.S.C. 327 be included on the cover page of
each environmental document for all assumed Pilot Program projects. The
audit teams' project file reviews found the following inconsistencies
with this requirement:
(a) The cover page for one EA reviewed during the audit did not
include this required statement;
(b) The cover page for one Final EIS had been modified from the
language agreed to in the MOU; and
(c) The cover page for three California Environmental Quality Act
only document contained the FHWA assumption statement, even though
there was no FHWA involvement in this document.
[FR Doc. 2012-3977 Filed 2-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P