[Federal Register: February 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 30)]
[Notices]
[Page 7536-7541]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17fe09-182]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2008-0053]
Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot Program; Caltrans
Audit Report
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Final report.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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. This final report presents
the findings from the second FHWA audit of the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) under the pilot program.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ruth Rentch, Office of Project
Development and Environmental Review, (202)-366-2034,
Ruth.Rentch@dot.gov, or Mr. Michael Harkins, Office of the Chief
Counsel, (202) 366-4928, Michael.Harkins@dot.gov, 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.access.gpo.gov.
Background
Section 6005 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (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 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. The FHWA solicited comments
on the second audit report in a Federal Register Notice published on
December 8, 2008, at 73 FR 74560. The FHWA received one anonymous
comment questioning any time or money saved from participation in the
pilot program. This notice provides the final draft of the second FHWA
audit report for Caltrans under the pilot program.
Authority: Section 6005 of Public Law 109-59; 23 U.S.C. 315 and
327.
Issued on: February 10, 2009.
Jeffrey F. Paniati,
Acting Deputy Federal Highway Administrator.
Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot Program Federal Highway
Administration Audit of California Department of Transportation July
28-August 1, 2008
Background
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU, Pub. L.109-59) section 6005(a)
established the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot Program
(Pilot Program), codified at title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.),
section 327. The Pilot Program allows the Secretary to assign, and the
State to assume, the Secretary of Transportation's (Secretary)
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 liable for carrying out the responsibilities it
has assumed, in lieu of the Federal Highway Administration (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 audits is to assess a
pilot State's compliance with the required Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) \1\ and applicable Federal laws and policies, to collect
information needed to evaluate the success of the Pilot Program, to
evaluate pilot State progress toward achieving its performance
measures, and to collect information needed for 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. This audit report must be
made available for public comment, and FHWA must
[[Page 7537]]
respond to public comments received no later than 60 days after the
date on which the period for public comment closes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Caltrans MOU between FHWA and Caltrans available at: http://
environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/safe_cdot_pilot.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) published
its Application for Assumption (Application) under the Pilot Program on
March 14, 2007, and made it available for public comment for 30 days.
After considering public comments, Caltrans submitted its application
to FHWA on May 21, 2007, and FHWA, after soliciting the views of other
Federal agencies, reviewed and approved the application. Then on June
29, 2007, Caltrans and FHWA entered into an MOU that established the
assignments to and assumptions of responsibility to Caltrans, which
became effective July 1, 2007. Under the MOU, Caltrans assumed the
majority of FHWA's responsibilities under NEPA, as well as FHWA's
responsibilities under other Federal environmental laws for most
highway projects in California. Caltrans' participation in the Pilot
Program will be effective through August 2011 (23 U.S.C 327(i)(1)).
Scope of the Audit
This is the second FHWA audit of Caltrans' participation in the
Pilot Program. The onsite portion of this audit was conducted by the
FHWA audit team in California from July 28 through August 1, 2008. As
required in SAFETEA-LU, the second audit assessed Caltrans' compliance
with the roles and responsibilities it assumed in the MOU and also
provided recommendations to assist Caltrans in conducting a successful
Pilot Program.
The audit reviewed the following core areas: (1) Program
management; (2) legal sufficiency; (3) performance measures; (4)
documentation and file management; (5) training; and (6) quality
assurance and quality control measurement. Prior to the onsite visits,
FHWA conducted telephone interviews with staff in the Caltrans
Headquarters (HQ) office and with staff in Federal resource agency
regional offices (Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and U.S.D.A. Forest Service) and the
California State Historic Preservation Office. The audit included
onsite visits to three Caltrans District Offices: District 7 (Los
Angeles), District 8 (San Bernardino), and District 11 (San Diego).
Audit Process and Implementation
Each FHWA audit conducted under the Pilot Program is planned to
ensure a pilot State's compliance with the commitments in its MOU with
FHWA. FHWA does not evaluate specific project-related decisions made by
the State because these decisions are the sole responsibility of the
pilot State. However, the scope of the FHWA audits does include the
review of the processes and procedures used by the pilot State to reach
project decisions in compliance with MOU section 3.2.
Also, 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 hHunder the Pilot Program. The FHWA
audits review how Caltrans is meeting each commitment and assesses
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;
Record Keeping 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 audit team included representatives from the following
offices or agencies:
FHWA Office of Project Development and Environmental
Review;
FHWA Office of Chief Counsel;
FHWA Alaska Division Office;
FHWA Resource Center Environmental Team;
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center;
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation;
U.S.D.A. Forest Service.
During the onsite audit, FHWA interviewed more than 75 Caltrans
staff (from both the Capital and Local Assistance programs) in the 3
District offices and Caltrans' Legal Division staff in each of its 4
offices. The audit team interviewed a cross-section of staff including
top senior managers, senior environmental planners, generalists,
associate planners, and technical experts. The audit also included a
review of the project files and records for over 30 projects managed
under the Pilot Program.
FHWA acknowledges that Caltrans identified specific issues during
its second self-assessment performed under the Pilot Program (required
by MOU section 8.2.6), and has processes in place to work toward
resolving each issue. Some issues described in the Caltrans self-
assessment may overlap with FHWA findings in this audit report. This
audit report documents findings within the scope of the audit and as of
the dates of the onsite portion of the audit.
In accordance with MOU section 11.4.1, FHWA provided Caltrans with
a 30-day comment period to review the draft audit report. FHWA reviewed
the comments received from Caltrans and revised sections of the draft
report, where appropriate, prior to publishing it in the Federal
Register for public comment.
Progress Since the Last Audit
As part of the second FHWA audit of the Caltrans' Pilot Program,
FHWA verified that Caltrans demonstrated continued compliance in the
``Compliant'' findings areas identified in the first audit in January
2008. These compliant findings were:
1. Legal Sufficiency--Caltrans' Legal Division has developed a
consistent process to conduct formal legal sufficiency reviews by
attorneys (and has provided basic legal sufficiency training to each
reviewing attorney).
2. Establish Pilot Program Policies and Procedures--Caltrans
currently, in general, complies with MOU section 1.1.2 commitments to
establish Pilot Program policy and procedural documentation (as
detailed in Caltrans' Application).
3. Background NEPA Training--Caltrans' existing Environmental Staff
Development Program, outlined in the Application, has processes in
place to ensure that Environmental Staff involved in NEPA documentation
have the underlying foundational skill sets required in addition to the
added skills required to address responsibilities under the Pilot
Program.
4. Training Plan--Caltrans conducted a training needs assessment
specific to the Pilot Program and developed a training plan titled
``Caltrans Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot Program
Training Plan (Oct. 1, 2007).''
5. Interagency Agreements that Involve Other Agencies as
Signatories--Caltrans complied with MOU section 5.1.5 as it pertains to
the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106
[[Page 7538]]
Programmatic Agreement (PA) by completing an addenda to the PA within 6
months after the effective date of the MOU to reflect Caltrans'
assignment of authority under the Pilot Program.
6. State Commitment of Resources--The initial evaluation of
resources to implement the Pilot Program and the assignment of
resources, as of the date of the first audit, is compliant with MOU
section 4.2.
FHWA also evaluated progress in resolving ``Deficient'' and ``Needs
Improvement'' audit findings from the first FHWA audit.
Caltrans addressed ``Deficient'' audit findings from the
January 2008 audit as follows:
(1) Statement Regarding Assumption of Responsibility--The required
statement regarding assumption of responsibility required by MOU
section 3.2.5 appeared on the cover page of each environmental document
reviewed in the second audit.
(2) Records Management--Caltrans demonstrated progress in the area
of records management. The audit team confirmed that project files were
present in Districts 7, 8, and 11 as required under the Caltrans
Uniform Filing System (UFS). Caltrans is working toward full compliance
of the implementation of MOU section 8.3, the Caltrans Application
(Section 773.106(b)(3)(i) and (ii)), and the Caltrans Standard
Environmental Reference (SER) Chapter 38.
(3) QA/QC Process--The audit team observed progress in implementing
the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) process for environmental
documents developed under the Pilot Program in the following areas:
a. Completion of the Quality Control Certification forms--The
completion of the Internal and External Quality Control Reviews
Certification forms improved based on FHWA audit team project file
reviews completed in Districts 7, 8, and 11 during the second audit.
b. Peer Reviewer--In April 2008, Caltrans revised Chapter 38 of the
SER to clarify the description of the peer reviewer function for the
QA/QC process for environmental documents produced under the Pilot
Program. All of the QC forms reviewed by FHWA in Districts 7, 8, and 11
that were prepared after the change to the SER complied with this
requirement.
c. Internal and External Quality Control Reviews--Caltrans revised
the Internal and External QC certification forms and the Environmental
Document Preparation and Review Tool (Environmental Document Checklist)
to address feedback from Caltrans staff, the initial Caltrans self-
assessment, and the January 2008 FHWA audit.
Caltrans addressed ``Needs Improvement'' audit findings
from the January 2008 audit as follows:
(1) QA/QC Process Related to SER Chapter 38 Procedural and Policy
Changes--Caltrans has created a new section in the SER, titled ``SER
Posting History,'' which presents a chronology of changes made in the
SER (i.e., SER chapter changed, date of change, summary of change).
(2) Self-assessment issues and corrective actions--The second self-
assessment completed by Caltrans correlated each identified issue
needing improvement to the corrective action(s) being taken to address
each issue.
(3) QA/QC process implementation and documentation--Caltrans
revised SER Chapter 38 in April 2008 to clarify the QA/QC process
requirements, the technical specialist review, the internal peer
review, the class of action determination, signature authorities, and
the options each District may use to communicate that an environmental
document is ready for signature. Through interviews with staff in the
four Caltrans Districts (Districts 4, 7, 8, and 11) visited, the audit
team determined that the Districts are using some format of a ``Ready
for Signature'' QC form to transmit to the District Deputy Director
that the environmental document is ready for signature.
Key Elements of Implementation
One of the purposes of each FHWA audit of a State Pilot Program is
to identify and collect information for consideration by potential
future Pilot Program participants. Key elements that are being used by
Caltrans in the implementation of the Pilot Program include their SER,
particularly Chapter 38-NEPA Delegation, Caltrans annotated outlines
for environmental documents, quality control certification forms,
environmental document review checklists, and monthly NEPA delegation
statewide teleconferences.
During the interviews and project files reviews completed in
Districts 7, 8, and 11, the audit team observed the following effective
practices:
(1) Use of standard ``spreadsheet'' template to convey the comments
of HQ NEPA coordinators on environmental documents to District staff--
Through interviews with HQ NEPA coordinators and review of project
files, the audit team observed a systematic mechanism used to
communicate comments on environmental documents. The HQ NEPA
coordinator consolidates the comments on each environmental document
reviewed and provides the comments to the District point of contact via
a standard ``spreadsheet'' template. The template file includes
information on each document section, the comment and action needed,
and identifies the commenter. The audit team identified records of
these communications in project files. This approach provides a
systematic and transparent mechanism to transfer and document
communications between HQ and District staff on environmental
documents.
(2) Use of intranet sites at Districts to access Pilot Program
materials and documents--The audit team determined through interviews
with staff at Districts 7, 8, and 11 that each of these Districts use
an intranet site (not accessible to the public) to post District
specific documents related to the Pilot Program. Maintaining an
internal system for all users at the District to access the latest
District specific Pilot Program documents provides for improved
consistency in implementing the Pilot Program.
(3) File transfer as standard operating procedure when transferring
projects between staff--The audit team determined through interviews
with Caltrans staff that file transfer procedures were in selective use
at some Districts visited during the audit, to address employee
turnover or the transitioning of projects between staff. File transfer
practices include a file transfer meeting where the generalist hands
off all documents to the Senior Planner overseeing the individual's
work.
Overall Audit Opinion
Based on the information reviewed, it is the FHWA audit team's
opinion that to date, Caltrans has been carrying out the
responsibilities it has assumed in keeping with the intent of the MOU
and the Application. During the onsite audit, Caltrans staff and
management continued to indicate ongoing interest in obtaining
constructive feedback on successes and areas for improvement. By
addressing the findings in this report, Caltrans will continue to move
the program toward success.
Findings Definitions
The FHWA audit team carefully examined Pilot Program areas to
assess compliance in accordance with established criteria (i.e., MOU,
Application). The time period covered by this second audit report is
from the start of the Caltrans Pilot Program (July 1, 2007) through
completion of the second onsite audit (August 1, 2008). This report
presents audit findings in three areas:
[[Page 7539]]
Compliant--Audit verified that a process, procedure or
other component of the Pilot Program meets a stated commitment in the
Application for Assumption and/or MOU.
Needs Improvement--Audit determined that a process,
procedure or other component of the Pilot Program as specified in the
Application for Assumption 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 for Assumption 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
for Assumption and/or MOU. Corrective action is required prior to the
next audit.
Summary of Findings--July 2008
Findings--Compliant
(C1) Training of Legal Division Staff--In compliance with MOU
section 12.1.1 and section 773.106(b)(3)(iii) of Caltrans' Application,
Caltrans' Legal Division maintains a staff of qualified attorneys
supporting the Pilot Program and tracks the trainings attended by each
attorney. Attorney training is organized into five core areas (Legal
Sufficiency, Section 4(f), Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
Environmental Tools (internal to Caltrans), and Audit). Additionally,
the four Assistant Chief Counsels (ACC) with environmental law
responsibilities work together to identify additional training
opportunities available statewide. Each ACC has approval authority to
fund additional training opportunities for attorneys on their team.
(C2) Conformity Determinations--Section 8.5 of the MOU requires
that FHWA's California Division Office document the project level
conformity determination by transmitting a letter to Caltrans to be
included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or
Environmental Assessment (EA). Based on interviews with Caltrans staff
and review of 15 project files, conformity decisions were completed in
accordance with MOU section 8.5.
Findings--Needs Improvement
(N1) Commitment of Resources--Section 4.2.2 of the MOU requires
Caltrans to maintain adequate organizational and staff capability to
effectively carry out the responsibilities it has assumed. Interviews
with Caltrans District staff working on Capitol Projects revealed that
the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) code established to track actual
time spent on Pilot Program activities is not used in a consistent
manner. Inconsistent use and understanding of the WBS code to track
labor expenditures under the Pilot Program provides inaccurate
information on the resources used to support the Pilot Program.
Caltrans should continue to clearly define, communicate and emphasize
consistent use of the WBS to staff supporting the Capital Projects
component of the Pilot Program, which activities to track using the
designated WBS code for the Pilot Program.
Interviews with Caltrans District staff working on Local Assistance
Projects revealed an inability to track actual time spent on Pilot
Program activities through the use of the Expenditure Authorization
system.
Given this two part finding, it is unclear whether Caltrans is able
to accurately and fully assess the current and future resource needs
for implementation of the Pilot Program.
(N2) District Training Approaches and Implementation--MOU section
4.2.2 requires Caltrans to maintain adequate organizational and staff
capability to effectively carry out the responsibilities it has assumed
under the Pilot Program. A fundamental component of staff capability is
maintaining a training program that ensures staff competency to meet
Pilot Program responsibilities. The responsibility of identifying
individual staff training needs largely falls to managers at the
District level. Audit observations in the three Districts visited
(Districts 7, 8, and 11) during this audit, along with the one District
visited (District 4) during the previous audit, confirmed that
considerable variation in training approaches exist between District
managers, which can result in potentially widely varying levels of
competency among staff. This variation in staff training levels could
affect staff competency levels and compliance with commitments under
the Pilot Program. As Caltrans HQ and Districts continue to assess and
address staff training needs, Caltrans needs to actively monitor how
District staff training needs are assessed and demonstrate consistency
among and within Districts in the delivery of training in order to
achieve a sufficient level of competency among all associated staff.
Inconsistencies identified through Caltrans self-assessments and audit
findings also serve as a source to identify training needs, including:
(a) Project Files--When to initiate a project file and what
information it should contain;
(b) Internal QA/QC Certification Form--Who the reviewers should be
and when they should sign the form;
(c) Class of action determinations--What documentation is used,
when a determination is required, and who must be involved;
(d) Differentiating between Categorical Exclusions (CE) that fall
under section 6004 and section 6005 MOUs between Caltrans and FHWA; and
(e) What approvals and decisions are to be included in quarterly
reports on the Pilot Program and at what project stage they are to be
reported;
(f) Environmental document transmittals for the legal sufficiency
process; and
(g) Environmental document and project file transmittals to
transfer projects between staff.
(N3) Performance Measure Evaluation--MOU section 10.1.1 requires
Caltrans to develop performance measures for the Pilot Program. MOU
section 10.1.2 requires FHWA to evaluate these performance measures
during the audits and include the evaluation in the audit reports.
FHWA noted the following areas in need of improvement with respect
to two Pilot Program performance measures--``Timely Completion of NEPA
Process'' and ``Compliance with NEPA and other Federal laws and
regulations.''
(a) Performance Measure: Timely Completion of NEPA Process.
(i) Caltrans measures the time to complete the environmental
document review and approval process for draft and final documents.
While the document review component is one element that Caltrans may
use to evaluate performance under the Pilot Program, this performance
measure evaluates a relatively minor part of the overall project
timeline. In all cases where this current measure is reported, Caltrans
needs to provide full disclosure of the limitations of the measure,
preferably noting that the time period covered is only a small part of
the overall NEPA process. Caltrans should consider expanding this
measure to include other elements assumed under the Pilot Program to
more robustly
[[Page 7540]]
evaluate the timely completion of the NEPA process.
(ii) Caltrans uses baseline data to evaluate progress since
assuming Pilot Program responsibilities. Thirty-five environmental
documents reviewed and approved prior to the effective data of the MOU
(34 EAs and 1 EIS) are used to draw from for performance measure
purposes. Variables such as project size, scope, and complexity, as
well as any required scheduling coordination with resource agencies,
could affect the start time of document reviews and as such any
comparisons with Pilot Program projects need to consider these factors.
The current approach of using the median time from the beginning of the
administrative review process for a document to the document approval
date, prior to and during the Pilot Program does not provide a
realistic or reliable basis of comparison. At a minimum, the metric
does not account for the type of document being reviewed or any of the
other variables involved in the projects. A more effective
representation of project timing would be to compare the timing of
projects prior to and during the Pilot Program by document type (i.e.,
compare EIS projects to EIS projects) and other relevant variables,
such as project size, scope and complexity.
(b) Performance Measure: Compliance with NEPA and other Federal
laws and regulations (Maintain documented compliance with requirements
of all Federal laws and regulations being assumed). Caltrans measures
performance by evaluating the percentage of environmental documents
(draft and final) with a completed Environmental Document Preparation
and Review Tool and Internal Certification Environmental Document
Quality Control Reviews form. Caltrans set at the start of the Pilot
Program a desired outcome of this performance measure of a 100 percent
completion rate. Based on the results of the first two Caltrans self-
assessments, the acceptable completion rate was modified to a phased-in
approach over a 2-year period of time (increasing from 75 percent to 95
percent).
The audit team was unable to identify the basis Caltrans used to
modify the acceptable completion rate for this performance measure. As
Caltrans is using the completion of the Environmental Document
Preparation and Review Tool and Internal Certification Environmental
Document Quality Control Reviews form as a method of demonstrating
compliance with NEPA and other Federal laws and regulations, a
completion rate of less than 100 percent would not correlate with the
demonstration of compliance with assumed responsibilities under the
Pilot Program.
For every compliance related performance measure that is not at 100
percent, Caltrans needs to document each item of noncompliance in the
project file and correct each deficiency identified.
Caltrans (with FHWA involvement under MOU section 10.1.1) needs to
develop an approach to evaluate the effectiveness of each performance
measure and to establish a process to communicate changes implemented
for each performance measure.
(N4) Quarterly Reports--The quarterly reports Caltrans provides to
FHWA under section 8.2.7 of the MOU have not consistently included an
accurate listing of all approvals and decisions under the Pilot
Program. Quarterly reports received by FHWA have been revised and
resubmitted by Caltrans to address reporting data gaps. Audit team
review of the content of the quarterly reports and discussions with
Caltrans staff who develop input for the quarterly reports suggested
that the processes leading to report production is inconsistent in
approach to what approvals and decisions are to be reported to Caltrans
HQ by the District offices. Clear guidance to the Districts is needed
on what approvals and decisions are to be reported and at what stage
they are to be reported.
(N5) Varying Understanding of Section 6004/Section 6005 CEs--
Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 of the MOU define the scope of assignment in
terms of the Section 6004 MOU (State Assumption of Responsibility for
the Categorical Exclusion program, 23 U.S.C. 326). An inconsistent
understanding of determinations of Section 6005 versus Section 6004
project applicability was identified from interviews and review of
project files during the audit. For each CE, District staff need to
understand the purpose, use of Caltrans procedures associated with CEs
and consistently complete and maintain in the project file the
Categorical Exemption/Categorical Exclusion Determination form and the
Categorical Exclusion Checklist.
(N6) Creating and Maintaining Project File Protocols--Section 8.2.4
of the MOU requires that Caltrans maintain project files that include
all letters and comments received from governmental agencies, the
public, and others relating to the Pilot Program responsibilities. In
addition, section 8.2.5 of the MOU requires Caltrans to review and
monitor project file documentation through its QA/QC process. In
District 7, 8, and 11, the audit team identified a lack of consistent
filing and record keeping procedures related to the storage of
electronic communications. Caltrans does not maintain a systematic
process and has not established formal directives regarding electronic
correspondence and/or documents, a lack which could result in the loss
of electronic data.
(N7) Maintenance of Project and General Administrative Files--
Section 8.2.4 of the MOU requires Caltrans to maintain project and
general administrative files pertaining to its discharge of the
responsibilities assumed under the Pilot Program. The audit team
identified inconsistencies with established project files maintenance
procedures through file reviews conducted during the audit. The
following inconsistencies were noted:
(a) Files with incomplete and/or missing required documentation;
(b) Files missing UFS file tabs;
(c) Electronic correspondence and data not printed and/or located
in the project file; and
(d) Project file materials maintained separately from the project
file.
Additionally, the audit team identified a lack of direction and
consistency among Caltrans staff on what items should be included in
the official administrative file. A lack of consistency of filing
procedures existed among generalists interviewed during the audit.
(N8) Establishment of Environmental Project Files--The audit team
observed a lack of clear understanding and inconsistent implementation
among Caltrans staff on when to establish environmental project files.
SER Chapter 38 ``Instructions for Using the UFS'' states ``Establishing
environmental project files based on this UFS as soon as environmental
studies begin, and maintaining these files are mandatory.''
(N9) QA/QC Process Implementation--The Caltrans QA/QC process
developed to comply with section 8.2.5 of the MOU has not been
consistently implemented for all projects assumed under the Pilot
Program. Caltrans requires that each environmental document be reviewed
according to the processes established in the policy memo
``Environmental Document Quality Control Program under the NEPA Pilot
Program'' (July 2, 2007). The audit team identified through interviews
with Caltrans staff and through project files reviews that an
inconsistent understanding and implementation of the steps in the QA/
[[Page 7541]]
QC process for environmental documents existed.
The audit identified a general lack of understanding of the purpose
of the use of the Internal Certification with respect to its role in
the Pilot Program responsibilities assumed. This lack of understanding
involves the overall reasoning and logic for the comprehensive
progression of authorities of the reviews needed in completion of the
certification form. The audit identified a lack of clear understanding
among Caltrans staff that the environmental branch chief must be the
final signatory. Considering these misunderstandings and the deficient
finding (D2) below, the Audit team recommends that Caltrans evaluate
the use of the QC Certification Forms to assess whether the intended
goals of its use are being met.
Findings--Deficient
(D1) Performance Measure--Section 10.1.3 of the MOU requires
Caltrans to collect data and monitor its progress in meeting the
performance measures in section 10.2 of the MOU, including performance
measure 10.2.1(C)(i): ``Assess change in communication among Caltrans,
Federal and State resource agencies, and the public.'' Currently,
Caltrans has no metric to evaluate this performance measure.
(D2) QA/QC Certification Process--To comply with MOU section 8.2.5
and SER Chapter 38, Caltrans requires staff to review each
environmental document in accordance with the policy memo titled
``Environmental Document Quality Control Program under the NEPA Pilot
Program'' (July 2, 2007). The audit team observed the following
deficiencies through Caltrans staff interviews and project file
reviews:
(a) SER Chapter 38 section, ``Quality Control Program,'' requires
the environmental branch chief's ``quality control review,'' to always
constitute the last review. In six instances identified by the audit
team, the environmental branch chief was not the final reviewer based
on the dates indicated on the forms.
(b) The SER Chapter 38 requires that the Caltrans' independent
review of the environmental document not begin until the External QC
Certification form has been completed. It was observed in three
instances that the completion of the Internal Certification QC form
predated the completion of the External Certification QC form.
(D3) Submission of Environmental Documents for Legal Review--Three
of the four environmental documents the audit team identified as having
undergone legal review prior to the July 2008 audit were not submitted
in accordance with the procedures specified in the Division of
Environmental Affairs (DEA) memorandum dated July 2, 2007,
``Environmental Document Quality Control Program under the NEPA Pilot
Program'' (nor, by reference, the then-operative October 15, 2007,
Caltrans Legal Division memorandum, ``Procedures for Determining Legal
Sufficiency for Environmental Documents under the NEPA Pilot
Program''). The procedural deviations identified are as follows:
(a) One NEPA environmental assessment, meeting Caltrans' criteria
for a ``Complex EA'' per the July 2, 2007, DEA memorandum (public
controversy and controversy over project purpose), underwent legal
review prior to approval without the program office having provided the
reviewing attorney any of the supporting documentation for ``Complex
EAs'' required by the July 2, 2007, and October 15, 2007, memoranda.
(b) Two other transmittals were sent to request the initiation of
the formal Legal Sufficiency review without the reviewing attorney
having been provided all six items required by the July 2, 2007, and
the October 15, 2007, memoranda. In those cases, however, the attorney
did eventually receive all required items.
(c) It was observed that a District's transmittal of a Final EIS
for Legal Sufficiency review predated the Environmental Branch Chief's
certification on the Internal Certification form. The SER Chapter 38
requires that the transmittal to the Legal Division will include the
completed and signed Internal and External QC certification forms.
(D4) Environmental Document Process--Class of Action
Determinations--The audit team found an inconsistent understanding and
implementation of the process for documentation of class of action
determinations and concurrences. The NEPA process, dictates that the
thought process and analysis necessary for the determination of the
class of action for a project should be documented as part of the
project's record keeping. Sections 771.111(a) and (b) of Title 23, Code
of Federal Regulations discuss the determination and identification of
the class of action for a project and to verify compliance with these
regulations requires some documentation.
Additionally, Chapter 38 of the SER provides a means of documenting
class of action determinations via the Preliminary Environmental
Analysis Report for State Highway System projects or via the
Preliminary Environmental Study form for Local Assistance projects. The
procedures also require class of action determinations for all EAs
(including Complex EAs) and EISs to be made with the concurrence of the
Headquarters Environmental Coordinator. The SER states that,
``obtaining the concurrence of the Headquarters Environmental
Coordinator may be done through an e-mail which includes the project
description, proposed class of action, and rationale. The Coordinator's
e-mail response will provide concurrence.''
The audit team observed through project file review in the 3
Districts visited, the process described in the SER was not
consistently followed. In more than six instances, project files did
not contain any record of a class of action determination or
concurrence. This area was cited as Needs Improvement in the January
2008 audit. Interviews with Caltrans staff and review of project files
showed varying understanding and compliance with the SER and with
Caltrans Application section 773.106 (b)(3)(ii) and MOU section 5.1.1
regarding procedural and substantive requirements.
Response to Comments and Finalization of Report
Only one comment was received by FHWA during the 30-day comment
period for the draft audit report. An anonymous comment was submitted
that questions the cost and time saving benefits of this Pilot Program.
In considering this comment, it appears that this comment relates more
to the need for the Pilot Program as opposed to the results of the
audit, especially since the comment was submitted prior to the audit
report being publicly available. As such, the FHWA feels that there is
no need to revise the draft audit report findings to be responsive to
this comment, with the exception of the addition of this section.
[FR Doc. E9-3325 Filed 2-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P