April 14, 2015 To: FOIA Requester Service Center Federal Transit Administration 1200 New ersey Avenue, SE Floor East Building - - - Washington, DC 20590. - 74?40 5?1 DUE DATE: 5-1 (-45 Contact Infonnation ofFOlA Requester: LQUQ This FOIA request is for copies of all written correspondence, notee, emails, recollections, minutes, policies and procedures, and any other information pertinent to the issue of con?ict of interest and Randall Pine as it relates to his. performance as a Triennial Reviewer with JV and as a faculty member of the University of Wisconsin? Milwaulcee. Primary sources of information at FTA: John Bodnar, Contracting Of?cer?s Representative (COR) Karoline Starr, Contracting Officerf-Team Lead (CO) Of?ce of Administration ?-Acqnisition Management This information should include but not be limited to the following items, including dates: Source and content of information regarding the allegation of con?ict of interest, including the name of the complainant. The initial exchange between the COR and CO regarding the allegation of COI. FTA Policy and Procedures for investigating COI allegations against TR contractors. - Alldocumentation item the CO regarding the investigation into the allegation of C01. All correspondence between CO and JV regarding Pine and COI, from allegation to determination. A copy 'of Section H, Con?ict of Interest clause included in contracts with TR contractors. . Names of any and all participants consulted in the determination of 001 against Pine. FTA Policy and Procedures for Protesting or Appealing GOI determinations. . Oversight Procedures for Triennial Review Contractors. Respectfully, ego . 1200 New Jerse Avenue S.E. 0f Transportation Washi naton DC 2059 . . Federal Transit - 0* Administration - . Juiie 2015 Our File No.: FY15-0163 Dear 1 This letter' rs in reSponse to your e-mail of April 14, 2015, requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Speci?cally, you requested copies of ?all written correspondence, notes, emails, recollections, minutes, policies and procedures, and any other information pertinent to the issue of con?ict of mterest and as it relates to his performance as a Triennial Reviewer with JV and as a faculty member of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. . . . This information should include but not be limited tothe following items, Mg dates: a Source and content of information regarding the allegation of con?ict of interest, including the name of the complainant. I The initial exchange between the COR and CO regarding the allegation of COI. 0. FTA Policy and Procedures for investigating COI allegations against TR contractors. - All documentation ?om the CO regarding the investigation into the allegation of ?01. All correspondence between the CO and IV regarding and C01, from allegation to determination. - A copy of Section H, Con?ict of Interest clause in contracts with TR contractors. I Names'of any and all participants consulted in the determination of C01 against 0 FTA Policy'and Procedures for Protesting or Appealing COI determinations. I FTA Oversight Procedures for Triennial Review Contractors? A search of.the ?les has disclosed some documents responsive to your request which are enclosed. Personal privacy information has been removed tram the documents. We have based these deletions on Exemption 6 of the OIA, USC 552 as implemented by the Department of Transportation? 5 regulations, 49 CFR on the grounds that the release of this information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The persons responsible for this determination are the undersigned and Stephen Pereira, an attorney in Of?ce of Chief Counsel. In response to item one, TA searched but could not locate any documents responsive to this item. With respect to item 7 in your request, following is a list of employees 'to our knowledge who participated in a discussion of the matter: Name Organization John Bodnar FTA Of?ce of Program Oversight Selene Dalton-Kumins FTA Of?ce of Program Oversight Anthony Foster . FT A Of?ce of Program Oversight. Sherry Snyder ET A Of?ce of Program Oversight James Harper FTA Of?ce of Acquisitions Management Karolina Starr FTA Of?ce of Acquisitions Management Stephen Pereira TA Of?ce of Chief Counsel Cecilia Comito FTA O?ce of Chief Counsel Dave Norstrom Rodrigo Garcia CI Bill Vera CI To the extent that some of the material is not available, this is a partial denial of your request Ifyou are not satis?ed With this response, you may appeal by writing to the Deputy Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S. E., East Building, 5m Floor, Washington, D. C. 20590. Ifyou prefer, your appeal may be sent via. electronic mail to FTA. FOIA. Appeals@dot. gov. An appeal must be received within forty??ve calendar days from the date the initial determination is signed and' should include the FTA ?le or reference number assigned to the request and any information and arguments you may wish to rely on. The enve10pe In which a mailed appeal 18 sent or the subject line of an appeal sent electronically should be prominently marked The Deputy Administrator. 5 determination will be administratively ?nal. Sincerely, Nancy Sides Of?ce of Management Flaming Enclosure June 15,2015 To: Deputy Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue Sin E. East Building 5'11 Floor . Washington, DC. 20590 - ?Requestor Contact Information: @1169 - Rez. FQIA APPEAL FTA File No. FY15-0163 Dated April 14,2015 Background: was a triennial reviewer, subcontracted to the JV team and assigned to conduct seven triennial reviews in Region IV for FY2015. He was (is) employed as a member of the faculty of the University of Wisconsin Systems where he designs and instructs on-h'ne continuing education courses for the Center for Transportation Education and Development. Recognizing that the TR process may be the most comprehensive, concise and inclusive coverage of federal compliance requirements available and that an overview course on theTR process might be of bene?t to anyone with either an interest or obligation in transit, he discussed the possibility of a pilot test of an on- line TR overview course with the then FTA COR. This course was proposed to be self? contained (pm?written tutorial) and self-paced with opportunity for discussion. The University of Wlsconsm Milwaukee CTED offered the on?line continuing educational course titled Triennial Review, Overview and Tips? in late October 2014. Prior to the course, a disclosure/description of the course was sent to current TR COR John Bodnar. In February 2015, FTA Contracting Of?cer Karoline Starr sent noti?cation to JV alleging :ommitted con?ict, of interest for teaching the course. JV provided a defense, susPending in the interim. ?led a civil rights complaint with the FTA Of?ce of Civil Rights in March 2015, requesting input on the issue of academic ?'eedom: (Ten weeks later OCR indicated academic freedom was not in their jurisdiction). In late March 2015, CO Starr informed .TV that a ?nal determination was made that COI. existed and iterated Option to terminate their contract for default. JV _1mmed1ately terminatec :ontract without discussion, protest or appeal. The JV Project Manager, Assistant Project Manager and one other team reviewer (a combined 60+ years of triennial review experience) resigned in direct protest to the manner 0:433?) in which the Issue was handled. A substantial number of FY201 5 triennial reviews were signi?cantly delayed, rescheduled, and/or reassigned to newly acquired, hastily chosen, less experienced replacement reviewers midstream. There IS strong reason to believe that con?ict of interest did not occur and could not have occurred. The COI investigation appeared ?awed and may have encroached on the First Amendment right of academic freedom. An FOIA was ?led by review records regarding the FTA investigation process. Purpose of the FOIA Appeal: The FTA FOIA appeal procedure offers the opportunity to provide addition information and argument. initial FOIA response was not adequate to address the concerns that prompted the FOIA. Therefore, additional information and argument are being offered and documents are being re-requested. A critical step' in resolution is a more adequate response to the FOIA by FTA and a review of the investigation by those who hold higher position in the organization. Structure of this Appeal: The FOLA request listed nine items. Each item is listed below with additional information? as to its intent, relevance and importance. All documents referenced in this appeal are attached. Speci?c requests for follow-up information to the FOIA are bolded. Primary concerns are Summarized in the closing paragraphs. Items listed in the FOIA Request with Explanation: 1) Source and content of information regarding the allegation of con?ict of interest, including the name of the complainant. In an email to COR Bodnar dated February 25, 201-5, requested the? name of the complainant alleging COI and was denied. Further, the FOIA response states, ?The FTA searched but could not locate any documents responsive to this item.? There was discussion between Bodnar and a member of another contracted TR ?rm regarding the course. It was the source of the allegation, limited discussion in order to lodge a complaint was understandable. Ifnot, any discussion regarding a possible con?dential investigation of con?ict of interest that includes a member of another contractor would be unethical and result in a biased investigation. is again requesting the name of the complainant alleging COI as well as information on the nature, extent and timing of conversations between Bodnar and regarding the Issue. . 2) The initial exchange between the COR and CO regarding the allegation of con?ict of interest. A memo ??om Bodnar dated December 30, 2014 titled ?Summary of COI Discussion? was included in the FOIA response. This would not be the initial exchange as this memo was sent to others as a summary of prior discussion. However, in that memo, the following summary of points regardng and COI were listed: FOIA Appeal! . 2 [63 An online class titled Triennial Review: Overview and Tips? was offered by the University of Wisconsin?Milwaukee in the Fall of 2014. [the course is currently listed here: 12] The instructor was There was a registration fee, although it is no longer listed on the UWM website. It is . believed to have been $300. The syllabus includes references to outdated TR practices. Course materials include the TR guide and Grantee Information Request (GIR). The course'is not listed in the Spring 2015 course directory.- Regarding the COI discussion summary listing: The source ?for the items on the summary was not disclosed. The course disclosure/description memo submitted by to Bodnar prior to the course was not listed in the summary. This disclosure/description memo contained information about content, purpose and design of the course. This critical document should have been part of this discussion. . The university determines whether a fee is charged for a course and the amount if applicable. Fees are the responsibility of the student and are paid directly to the university. The reason for speculation on the amount of the fee in this discussion is unclear. The statement is made that the syllabus includes ?references to outdated TR practices.? In fact, was part of the team that developed the content and PowerPoint presentation used by all TR trainers in all FY2015 regional FTA workshops. The curriculum could not have been more current. Outdated-practices are often referred to in curriculum. Since this statement has no relevance to COI, its inclusion as a point of discussion would appear to be solely to discredit the instructor and the course. Course materials did include the TR guide and GIR, both of which are in the public domain. The TR guide is downloadable from the FTA'public website. A basic metaphor for many on-line CE courses is to utilize relevant materials that are in the public domain and to have experienced and quali?ed instructors mold them into curriculum format. This course' was no exception. FOIA request 2) .was made to better understand why and how the investigation was initiated. is again requesting records or other documentation of the initial exchange regarding the allegation of COI. 3) FTA Policy and Procedures for investigating COI allegations against TR contractors. This document was missing from the FOIA response. Does a Policy or Procedure exist for investigating con?ict of interest allegations against TR reviewers or is it being withheld from the FOIA response. If the former, was it followed? FOIA Appeal! . 3 mam . Please provide a copy. If the latter, please indicate the reason it was withheld in the FOIA response. 4) All documentation from the CO regarding thejnvestigation into the allegation of COI. Regarding additional questionsabout the FOIA response and?the purpose for repeating request 4): No record or documentation is provided to indicate that anyone ?om FTA considered the course disclosure/description memo submitted by the defense submitted by or the issue of academic ?eedom. In the letter of C01 determination, CO Starr refers to as an employee of .- has never been an employee of JV. The ?nal determination letter from Starr referenced H.12 and H.13 of the contract. H.13 addresses disclosure. That disclosure was made. The need to draw attention to H.13 in the. ?nal determination letter regarding the allegation was neither justi?ed nor necessary. How the on-line course violated H. 12 or any portion of the contract remains a mystery. If TR educational overview contact biases objectivity, etc., then one needs to ask why FTA annually assigns and compensates reviewers to teach TR overview workshops in the regions where they have current and pending reviews. Enrollees of the course were students of the University of Wisconsin leaukee and were, by law, participants of UWM. Therefore, whether or not a student had any af?liation with a federally funded grantee was not relevant, was not subject to disclosure and IS not open for debate The solicitation of any business between student and instructor outside the course is considered COI by signed university contract. As a point in fact, there was never any contact or communication between any student and at any time before, during or a?er this course. This is not unusual for programmed courses. The language in both the allegation and determination letters from CO Starr was generalized and never identi?ed a speci?c action that could have been constituted as COI. There is strong reason - to believe the speci?c o?ense of C01 was not identi?ed because it could not be identi?ed. . Again, please provide all documentation from C0 Starr regarding the investigation, including her determination of which part the contract was identi?ed as the' issue in question. Additionally, please provide supporting documentation on the COI ?nal determination process that assures that all information was reviewed and considered. 5) All corresPondence between the CO and IV regarding and COI, ?om allegation to determination. FOIA Appeal/ 4 Five letters betvieen CC Starr and IV were part 'ofthe FOIA response. 6) A copy of Section H, Con?ict of Interest clause in contracts with TR contractors. This information was included in the FOIA reSponse as part of the contract with IV. 7) Names. of any and all parties consulted in the determination of COI against A list of names was received. However, neither the reason for their participation nor their conuibutiOn was identi?ed. Is there documentation or record to identify the participation or contribution of those involved with the investigation? 8) FTA Policy and Procedures for Protesting or Appealing COI determinations. The contract offers procedures for protesting COI determinations for the contractor only. JV had no knowledge of or participation with conduct as a faculty member of UWM. Nor did they or do they have either the' capability or the responsibility to provide a defense of academic ?'eedom. was excluded in all correSpondence between PTA and IV and JV refused to give the identity "of the FTA staff involved. informed JV in writing that any information they provided to FTA on his behalf concerning university activity without his prior review was not authorized asked CI IV to inform FTA that this-_ . involved an academic freedom issue and to instruct FTA to contact him?directly. Instead, JV submitted a defense without review, authorization or knowledge. The ?rst time reviewed defense was as part the FOIA released by FTA. His ?rst notice of COI determination by FTA was with a termination notice ?om JV. wasn?t aware that there was a protest or appeal Opportunity until he received the contract as part of the FOIA response nearly six weeks after the termination of his contract. Both the University of Wisconsin Systems and should have been given the- opportunity to participate in an appeal With an issue of this signi?cance. This exclusion of Opportunity to participate in appeal is the direct result of the process used by FTA that mandated that CI .TV represent and allowed them to ?neutralize? the situation at their convenience (terminating . contract) while ignoring the signi?cant issue of academic freedom or the appropriateness of the investigation. It is easy to believe that the terse language contained in determination letter sent by C0 Starr, threatening to terminate their contract by default, - contributed to JV ?s kneejerk, fearful reaction to terminate contract. also believes that JV recognized they did not have either the capability or the incentive to protest the determination. protest and appeal procedure allowed and actually motivated .TV to take the easiest way out - resulting in the denial of due process for . and eliminating any opportunity for the University of Wisconsin Systems to participate in the appeal process. - FOIA Appeal - . 5 MW Are there additional components of COI protest procedures that include faculty and academic freedom issues? D0 COI protest and appeal procedures encourage denial of opportunity to participate? 9) Oversight Procedures for Triennial Review Contractors. A copy of the-PTA Triennial Review Standard Operating Procedure was included with the FOIA response. This document overviews the process for conducting triennial reviews. This is not an FTA oversight procedures document of FTA TR Contractors or subcontracted reviewers. Does the FTA have Oversight Procedures for Triennial Review Contractors or is this document being withheld. Ifthe latter, please provide the reason the document is being withheld. In support of the FOIA appeal, these 'are the key concerns and questions regarding the FTA COI investigation of ms: OIA Appeal 1 There appears to be no written FTA document on conduct or process for the investigation of a con?ict of interest allegation against a triennial reviewer. Any conversation between COR Bodnar and another contractor, about this Issue, other than to formalize a complaint, would have been a violation of privacy and bias the investigation. There was no record to indicate that the course disclosure/description memo, a critical . component, was part of the investigation. The ?summary of points ?om the COI discussion? ?merno contained a statement regarding reference to outdated course content that has no relevance to C01. There IS no record that the investigation considered any element of the defense submitted by IV or the Issue of academic ?'eedom. All'comment in CO Starr?s correspondence to JV regarding COI was in general terms and never identi?ed how COI might have occurred or was determined. Language in CO Starr?s ?nal determination letter to the contractor iterating right to terminate for default was unnecessarily forceful and intimidating in nature and may have ?bullied? the contractor into making the hasty decision to terminate the subcontract with for convenience. There was no opportunity for either or the University of Wisconsin Systems to participate in an appeal within FTA in order to address the appropriateness of the investigation or the issue of academic freedom and government interference. Three highly experienced JV reviewers, including both Project Managers, resigned in protest as a direct result of the manner in which the matter was handled. . The contractor was allowed to hastily acquire non-experienced and less experienced replacement reviewers and insert them into a review process that Was well underway. Due to the loss of four active revieWers, a substantial number of transit agencies were forced to delay and reschedule their site visits and/or have their reviews and reports reassigned to new reviewers who had not been part of the process ?om the beginning. The quality of the reviews may have been compromised. Academic ?eedom is afforded to university faculty as part of the ?'eedom of speech entitlement of the First Amendment. Judicial precedent has established this academic freedom as a civil right that is entitled to certain protections from harm, harassment and ?nancial loss, including protection ?om government interference and in?uence. FTA is being asked in this FOIA appeal to provide more adequate, relevant records as identi?ed. response to this appeal is considered critical in establishing position on this issue and will be closely evaluated in determining actions that may follow. Your attention and consideration is appreciated. FOIA Appeal/'LMCQ) - 7 are the undersigned and Stephen Pereira, an attorney in Of?ce of Chief Counsel. In response to item one, TA searched but could not locate any documents responsive to this item. With respect to item 7 in your request, following is a list of employees to our . knowledge who participated in a discussion of the matter: Name Organization John Bodnar FTA Of?ce of Program Oversight Selene Dalton-Kamins FTA Of?ce of Program Oversight Anthony Foster FTA Of?ce of Program Oversight Sherry Snyder FTA Of?ce of Program Oversight James Harper FTA Of?ce of Acquisitions Management Karoline Starr PTA Of?ce of Acquisitions Management Stephen Pereira FTA Of?ce of Chief Counsel Cecilia Comito FTA Office of Chief Counsel Dave Norstrom CDUDCI Rodrigo Garcia . Bill \(era To the extent that some of the material is not available, this is a partial denial of your request. If you are not satis?ed with this response, you may appeal by writing to the Deputy Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 5?[1 Floor, Washington, DC 20590. If you prefer, your appeal may be sent via electronic mail to An appeal must be received within forty-five calendar days from the date the initial determination is signed and should include the PTA tile or reference number assigned to the request and any information and arguments you may wish to rely on. The envelope in which a mailed appeal is sent or the subject line of an appeal sent electronically should be prominently marked The Deputy Administrator?s determination will be administratively ?nal. Sincerely, So?a/at) Nancy. Si es Office of Management Planning Enclosure From: To: Subject: . Re: Triennial Review online class Date: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:01:34 PM Hi John Be glad to. You may know that I?ve been involved in transit organizational deveIOpment for years and teach at both the University of South Florida Center for Urban Transportation Research and at the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee Center for Transportation Education and Development. And I've had my. ?ngerprints on the curriculum for the annual Triennial Review regional workshops as well. While there?s no substitution for the excellence of the annual regional workshops and the opportunity for attendees to interact with both the experienced presenters and each other, there is a large segment of the transit community who either cannot or choose not to attend. In some cases the worlshops ?ll up and there isn?t space. I ran the idea of an online TR course by Amy Jernigan a couple of years ago and she through it was an excellent idea. ?The idea recently resurfaced and UWM wanted to sponsor a pilot test starting October 20 this year. The online content features the downloadabie TR workbook and GIR and functions under the metaphor that the TR is actually an ?open book? test. The course is meaning that attendees can work on the material at their own pace and interact with both the instructor and each other. The most common exercise is to practice and gain experience using the workbook to look up the ?answer" and explanations for the questions in the GIR. I believe the course provides an opportunity for transit personnel who, because of cost considerations or lack of personnel availability, miss the annual workshops and are left with no ?educational? opportunities to get up to speed. There is also added emphasis on networking to find solutions. I certainly hope you agree and I?ll .be happy to keep you updated on how things progress during this pilot test and answer any questions. Any support or advice you might offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. - On Oct 9, 2014, at 4:57 PM, wrote: learned today that you are teaching anonline class on the Triennial Review through UW. Could you please tell me more about this? - Best regards, John A. Bodnar, CTL Transoortation Program Analyst Of?ce of Program Oversight i 9. . taco N?wYum'Avs. SE U.S. Department Washington. 0.0320590 of Transportation Federal muse - . . Adminldh'a?on .,Febnmy 23, 2015 . Uo) Mr. Joint Ventine . 99 South lake Ave, Suite 210 iPasatiena, CA 91101 . Subject: Con?ict ofInterest Request Triennial Review Program Conn-act - Dear The Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration has received information about con?ict of interest issues for two individuals, Randall Pine and 'I'hesedwo individuals are currently working under Contract Number In accordance with this contract, Section H. 12 . Organizational Con?ict of Interest, the FIA is asking for an of the concerns outlined below: FTA received noti?cation that an online course had been o?'ered and conducted by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in the Fall of 2014 entitled Triennial Review: Overview and Tips?. This course was instructed by Randall Pine. 11: has been con?nned that there was a registration fee for this course. However, the fee is no longer available to be viewed on the Univexsity?s website. Further hivestigntion suggests the fee was $300. - . Review of the course materials and syllabus shows that the Triennial Review workbook and Grantee Information Request (GIR) forms were used and that outdated Triennial Roview practices were part of the some content. At this time, this course is no longer listed in the University?s Spring 2015 course directory. Cull {:33 Lab Ple?se provide an explanation regarding the stated concerhs by t?e COB, February 25, 2015. Ifyou should have any questions, plme feel free to cannot Camille Manual (202) 366-1146. Sincerely, . . Contracting Of?cer From: Warm To: Subject: RE: Con?ict or Interest Niaga?on Date: Wednesday, March 04, Elms-7:07:18 AM Good morning Thank you for your letter. The proper channel for voicing any concerns you have regarding Fl'A?s request for information is to share them with who can then pass that information directly to Fl'A's procurement of?ce. Best regards, John A. Bodnar, CT Transportation Program Analyst Of?ce of Program Oversight Federal Transit Administration 1200 New Jersey Ave SE Rm Washington,,DC 20590 202-366-9091 john.bodnar@dot.gov Sent with Good From: . Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 04:30 PM Eastern Standard Time To: Bodnar, John (PIA) Subject: Con?ict of Interest Allegation Mr. Bodnar, I?ve received noti?cation from and of JV that I am suspended while the allegation of con?ict of interest regarding the teaching of an online course on the Triennial Review process at the University of Milwaukee' :5 being investigated for con?ict of interest. I explained to you in great detail and in writing on October 9, 2014 that the development of this class was in process as a pilot test of online practicality well before the class ever occurred. Had there been any hint of impropriety, it was your responsibility to notify me that there could be an issue and to inform me to delay or cancel iis implementation. Instead, for reasons that are .vague and unclear to me, I have had my reputation tarnished through this suspension and investigation. My contract with UWM prevents me from soliciting any business from course participants nor .was that ever my intent. How this allegation of con?ict of interest got to this point is. regrettable. . . (pi wag; I request that you inform and . to immediately rescind the suspenSIon as an- over reaction and unnecessary to this follow up investigation. I also request that you provide me with details as to how this allegation came about, including who lodged the complaint and how the process ensued. That information should not be withheld from me as part of reasonable due process. I?m concerned because there was language in the letter from PM of allegation that ?outdated processes were part of course content." .Unless the person making that statement took the class and paid the course fee, he or she would have no knowledge of . course content and would have based that statement on speculation or information obtained unethically or illegally. My suspension as a result of this is totally inappropriate and uncalled for. I am preparing a letter to the Administrator to detail my- concerns about lack of available Triennial Review training resources to grantees that don?t have the Opportunity to attend the annual two?day training. On line training is part .of contemporary society. I feel strongly that punishment of me through . inference and denial of due process for taking small steps in that direction Is not consistent with the Administrator?s vision? of progress. I would hope that you ?would agree and grant my requests to have the JV rescind my suspensmn and provrde me information on the background of the allegation. Thank you for your consideration. cram Subject: Karolina Starr - Department of Transportation - Fm Babe: Thursday, March 05. 2015 10:34:55 AM Attachments: ?gm?ge Wi- luau Dave As discussed, the new Contracting Officer for Triennial Review is Karolina Starr. Please direct any inquiries regarding the pending Get information request her way. Her contact info is below. Karolina Starr Department of Transportation FTA Senior Contract Specialis PTA-TAD 202 366 -214? Wort; karoline.starr@clot.gov 1200 NewJerseyAve. SE Washington, DC 20590 Best regards, John A. Bodnar, CTL Transportation Program Analyst Of?ce of Program Oversight Federal Transit Administration 1200 New Jersey Ave SE Rm E44414 Washington, DC 20590 202?366-9091 follow FT A on: to: CI March 6, 2015 Joint Venture Via E?maz?l (karatine.starr@dot.gov) Karolina Starr Contracting Officer Federal :Transit Administration U.S. Department of Transportation - 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE . d9) 1342-322 . Washington, DC. 20590 Re: Triennial Review DTFT60-13-D-00014 - Response to Letter of Con?ict oi? Interest Dear Ms. Starr: This' 15 in response to your letter dated February 23 2015 requesting information regarding potential con?icts of interest involving and Messrs. . and serve as consultants to Joint Venture under the Triennial Review Program Contract, number takes Federal Transit Administration concerns regarding these individuals seriously and appreciates the opportunity to provide more information to you. In your letter, you indicate that FTA is concerned that . conducted an online course for the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in the Fall of 2014 entitled Triennial Review: Overview and Tips.? Your letter indicates that charged an enrollment fee for the course, that the course content ineluded Triennial Review practices and that course materials included the Triennial Review workbook and Grantee Information Request forms. We con?rmed that . served as an instructor for UM-W for the aforementioned cow'se. .The course was accessible from October 20, 2014 to November 14, 2014. .. . advises that offered the course only the one time. UM-W charged a registration fee of either $200 or $300 depending on when the individual registered. . . did not set the registration fee nor did he receive a portion of the registration proceeds. paid a ?xed fee for the course the number of registrants did not impact the fee amount. 2 indicates he did not have knowledge of who the registrants were or how many individuals actually participated in the course. . The course was an online course. 2 indicates that hedid not have any interaction? with the participants. During the course, advised the participants he was BXperienced 1n Karoline Starr March 6, 2015 Page 2 L33 Triennial Reviews, but he did not connect himself In any way with or any ongoing FTA reviews 1150 did not solicit any of the participants for work. Indeed, contract with UM-W expressly prohibited him from soliciting work during the course. His contract with provided, in relevant part, as follows: Participants of our training program sponsored by the School of Continuing Education are the primary participants of the University Accordingly, the instructor agrees not to solicit, assist any third party to solicit, or accept, any public or on-sitc consulting work as a result of presenting this session. acknowledges that during? the course he used FTA materials, but advises that the materials included only FTA materials that were non-copyrighted and publically available. described his plan to use these materials to John Bodnar of the FTA in advance of the course. In an email dated October 9, 2014, Mr. Bodnar wrote to learned today that you are teaching an online class on the Triennial Review through UW. Could you please tell me more about this?" responded the same day indicating that ?online content features the downloadable TR workbook and GIR and functions under the metaphor that the TR is actually an ?open book? most common exercise is to practice and gain experience using the workbook to look up the ?answer" and explanations for the questions in the To our knowledge, Mr. Bodnar did not express any concerns tc 1bout his use of the~materials or his teaching the course generally. Based on the above, does not believe that had an ?actual or potential conflict of interest. The Triennial Review Program Contract, at clause H. 12, defines con?ict of interest as follows: - An organizational con?ict of interest means that because of other activities or relationships with other persons or entities, a Contractor is unable, or potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the Government, or the Contractor?s objectivity in performing the contract work is, or might be otherwise impaired, or - the Contractor has an unfair competitive advantage. Organizational Con?ict of interest includes situations where the capacity of a Contractor [including the Contractor?s executives, directors, consultants, subsidiaries, parent companies or subcontractors) to give impartial, technically sound advice or objective assistance is or may be impaired or may otherwise result a biased work product because of any past, present or planned interest, ?nancial or otherwise, in organizations regulated by or assisted by DOT or in organizations whose interest may be substantially affected by Departmental activities. Karolina Starr March 6, 2015 Page 3 does not believe that - teaching engagements, including the above mentioned class regarding Triennial Reviews, place him in a position wherehe would be unable to render impartial advice to FTA, impair or potentially impair his objectivity. His role as an instructor does not incentivize him to treat Grantees more or less favorably. He is merely sharing his knowledge and experience with the course participants. Nor does role as a reviewer on the FT A contract provide him an actual or potential unfair competitive advantage in any other endeavor. It is not ?unfair? for him to merely drawn on his experience when he is teaching courses. If FTA disagrees with this assessment, and continues to believe that teaching engagement presents an actual or potential con?ict of interest, please let us know. As we previously informed you, we temporarily removed from the program pending our investigation into this matter. We reinstated based on our investigation, but takes its obligations to FTA very seriously and would work with FTA to come to a mutually agreeable avoidance and mitigation plan regarding ?if PTA believes one is necessary. ?2,631 labile) an a o? - . .44. 0?1. Karoline Starr March 6, 2015 - -, . Page 4 (Ltd Burp) We look ferward to [16211ng From you. In the meantime, will canvass all of its reviewers to determine whether they are engaged in any other activities that :11 any way involve the FTA grantees or the Triennial Review program. I?hank you. Sincerely yours, Rodrigo T. Garcia Rodrigo T. Garcia William Vera . Joint Venture co: Camille F. Manuel, DOT John Bodnar, DOT Sherry Snyder, DOT Anthony Foster, DOT From: Tu: Somme); Wm Cc: - Subject: RE: coma 11?! Schedule meme: 6 Date: Thursday, March 25, 2015 12:30:52 pm Ka roline: While the start visit start date column is the column that indicates when wonld Visit the grantee, please be aware that the reviewer?s interaction with FTA regional staff and grantee regional staff begins much earlier. I suspect that has already been working with all of the highlighted grantees, and has de?nitely been working with Fta regional staff. . Best regards, John A. Bodnar,? CT Chief Division of Performance and Quality Assurance Of?ce of Program Oversight Federal Transit Administration 1200 New?ersey Ave SE . Rm E44-414 Washington, DC 20590 202?366-9091 Sent with Good Original Message-?w- From: Snyder, Sherry Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 11:59 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Starr, Karolina Cc: Bodnar, John Foster, Anthony (PM) Subject: TR Schedule FY2015.xls:x Ka r'oline, Attached is the spreadsheet listing all of Triennial Reviews for FY15, with those currently . assigned to . highlighted. Please let me know if'you need additional Information regarding this attachment. Best Regards, Sherry Snyder Oversight Program Manager Of?ce of Program Oversight 1 Transit Safety Oversight Federal Transit Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washtington, DC 20590 202366-1281 0 Department . . 1200 New Jersey Ave se of Transportation Washington. [15.20590 Federal Transit March27, 2015 Mr. Rodrigo Garcia CDIIDCI Joint Venture 99 South Lake Ave, Suite 210 Pasadena, CA 91101 Subject: Con?ict of Interest Triennial Review Program Contract - 343-00014 Dear-Mr. Garcia: . We are in receipt of your letter dated March 6 2015, responding to our request for details on a report of Con?ict of Interest ?'onr February 23,2015. The con?ict of mag tars around two individuals you employ, and . f) The chuel Transit Administration (ETA) has determined that con?ict of" mterest exists for Randall Pine and - Iinstructed a course at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee entitled Triennial Review: Overview aird Tips? while also parlor-rains as key personnel on the Triennial Review Program. na- Activities such as the aforementioned are clearly de?ned in detail in Section H, and particularly H. 12 and [-1.13 of the contract and are clearly prohibmd. In accordance with 1-112 the Contracting Of?cer has the rightto determine whether the Contractor?s actual, apparent, or potential con?ict of interest remains and will direct a course of action designed to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate the COI. Your letter does not . In addition; per 3.13 of the contract. you are contractually required to notify the Contacting Of?cer of any actual or potential con?ict of interest. In the case that the Contractor o??ers no mitigation and the Contracting Of?cer decides that Conflict ofInterest still exists, 1-1.12 and allow the CO to terminate for default. At this time, the FTA would like CDIIDCI to acknowledge the contents of this letter. Should the COI issues continue, the CO will seek all allowable remedies under the law, as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs Ifyou should have any questions, please feel free to contact Camille Manuel, Carnille.manuel@dot.gov (202) 366-1 146 and the Contracting Of?cer, Karoline Starr, MW (202) 366-2147. 5' 1y Contracting Of?cer CI 7- Joint Venture March 31 2015 Via E?mar?l (karoline.starr@dot.gov) Karoline Starr Contracting Of?cer Federal Transit Adminisn'ation US. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE 12542-322 Washington, DC. 20590 Re: Triennial Review 4 - ReSponse to Letter of Con?ict of Interest Dear Ms. Starr: We have received your letter dated March 27, 2015 in which you determine that there are con?icts of interest involving and viiho serve as consultants to Joint Venture under the Triennial Review Program Contract, number As stated in prior communications, takes Federal Transit Administration concerns regarding these individuals seriously and we are taking the following actions to mitigate and neutralize ?ndings. will immediately notify a that we are terminating his consulting services agreement with us. We will reassign the Triennial Reviews assigned to him to our other staff members- (1M, 5N ?92 Furthermore, to assure you that no COL as outlined' in Section occurs with our remaining staff and consultants, we have and will continue to follow our COI Procedure, copy attached and remind them that no actual or potential COI will be, allowed by us and that they are to report to both Mr. Vera and myself any potential immediately. We will directly report to you any such matter as we become aware of it, and ask for your guidance and direction. Please note that this written notice fonnalizes existing procedure, that had previously been communicated verbally to our staff. If you believe that our proposed measures are insuf?cient for. any reason, or that additional measures are needed, please recommend a course of action that will satis?r the we will cooperate with you to the fullest extent possible. Sincerely'yours, Rodrigo T. ?Moment-?mandi- Garcia mm ?mm Rodrigo T. Garcia William Vera Principals Joint Venture hm? cc: Camille F. Manuel, DOT From: . Starr, Karolina (PTA) To: Win. Ce: MmeLCamilleLEEm; owe Subject: RE: Response: Triennial Review DTFT60-13-D-00014 COI Date: - Wednesday, April 01. 2015 1:44:00 PM Mr. Garcia, The FTA is satis?ed with your letter. No further action on this matter will be forthcoming from us at this time. I encourage you to keep the line of communication open and we look forward to continuing our business with you. Sincerely, 'Karcifine Jinan Contracting Officer - Team Lead Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Office of Administration - Acquisition Management 1200 New Jersey Ave SE Washington, DC 20590 P: [202) 366-2147 F: (202) 366-7164 From: Rodrigo Garcia - Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 4:34 PM To: Starr, Karolina (FTA) Cc: Manuel, Camille Bill Vera Subject: Re: Response: Triennial Review C01 Dear Ms. Starr: Attached is our letter in response to your 3?27-15 letter. Rodrigo T. Garcia, PE, Century Diversi?ed, Inc. 323 265-4443 . On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Rodrigo Garcia wrote: Dear Ms. Starr: This email is to acknowledge that we have received and read your letter dated March 27, 2015 as you requested. In addition, we plan to send You a more comprehensive letter addressing the content of your letter so on, no later than tomorrow. Rodrigo T. Garcia, PE Principal JV On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 6:50 AM, wrote; Mr. Garcia, Please review the attaohed ietteras to the ?ndings. The FTA is seeking your acknoimledgment of the ?contents of the letter by 31 March 2015, 5:00 pm. EST. - If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Manuei at?ami?gm?nu?l?dmm or 12921 W. V/r, Kara?na Starr . Contracting Of?cer -?Team Lead Department of Transportation Federai Transit Administration Office of Administration - Acquisition Management 1200 New Jersey Ave SE Washington, DC 20590 P: F: me: Bodnar, John (FM) To: Subject: RE: Con?ict of Interest Date: .Thursday, April 02, 2015 9: 11:00 AM Lauren Please cal! me when you get a chance. I Best regards, John A. Bodnar, CTL Chief Division of Performance and Quality Assurance Of?ce of Program Oversight Federal Transit Administration 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Rm E44414 Washington. DC 20590 202?366-9091 W391 Follow FT A on: ?t it :i From: ?Pessoa, Lauren Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 9:10 AM To: Bodnar, John Snyder, Sherry Subject: FW: Conflict of Interest Hi John and Sherry, Do either of you have time to talk about the conflict of interest Issue today with I just wanted to close out the conversation so i can brief Dudley. Thanks, Lauren From: doorstrom? Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 8:56 AM Cit. To: Pessoa. Lauren (FFA) . . Cc: Subject: Conflict of Interest Lauren, . Also, taught an on-lino class in TRs through the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. He was also found to have a con?ict of interest. Yesterday, both were terminated from out team. For still working through the . (EX 9) issues, but all of I :views scheduled for May may need to be re?cheduled. I will let - you know sometime next week the plan that we?llave developed. 9)an CDIIDCI Joint Venture Chief Executive Of?cer 210 Hardy Way Warmington, OH 43085 (614:) 975-3767 March 12, 2015 Of?ce of Civil Rights US. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration East Building 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Re: Civil Rights Issue Involving ?Faculty Member/Triennial Reviewer and University Online Training, FTA Issue of Con?ict of Interest and Academic Freedom Type of Civil Rights Complaint: Academic Freedom Named Parties in Civil Rights Complaint: Federal Transit Administration and Complicit Parties as determined Complainant: Background: On October 9, 2014, I responded to an inquiry from the FTA COTR about my upcoming plan to .test theiconcept of self-paced, online, programmed instructional training on the FTA Triennial Review process at the University of Wisconsin~Milwaukee (UWM) School of Continuing Education, Center for Transportation Education and Development. (1) The online course was entitled Triennial Review: Overview and I also teach other online courses at their transit hub program and have been af?liated with three universities over the course of my career. I have developed dozens of transit related professional development courses and workshops and have been involved in transit education and research for many years. I am also an independently contracted Triennial Reviewer with JV with ten years of TR experience. Four months after notifying the TA COTR of the course, on February 23, 2015, ETA sent a letter to JV referencing this TR courseand me. I was not copied. I have no clear information on who or what department at TA sent the letter and JV would not disclose that information. The portion of the letter did-reveal to me regarding the ?Complaint? (3) contained the term con?ict of interest and my name and appeared to ask for a response to the allegation. Understandably, this letter unmediately put JV in a fear?rl and defensive position. As a result of the letter and its inference of guilt by association, JV 5 against my advice, suspended me from TR work on February 25, 2015 for two wee . The letter associating me with con?ict of interest for developing. this course has raised a number of highly signi?cant issues, not the least of which are TA procedure for dealing with academic freedom issues, due process and the protection of academic ?eedom as a civil right. Further damage needs to be avoided. wardingthe Letter?and Due Process: I developed this course under my own initiative and under employ as faculty of the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. I had revealed in my email to the FTA COTR four months prior that I used publicly funded and publicly available, downloadable material as part of the educational curriculum. The primary purpose of the course was to pilot testthe viability and concept of an online instructional methodology for those with no other TR training opportunity. JV had no knowledge of or participation in thiscourse. They do not have the ability, nor, in my opinion, the responsibility to respond to this letter regarding my academic activities. The letter should have been sent to me for a response. I have informed JV that I have chosen not to respond to FTA through them regarding my academic endeavors with UWM. Ignarding the Content and Tone of the letter: The portion of the FTA letter that was revealed to me by JV did not identify any actual issue of con?ict of interest and its content was confusing and seemed to just describe the course . offering. The same information is available on the UWM website. letter contained the following comment. . .?outdated Triennial Review practices were part of course content.? In reality, the course was about process, not practice. I ?ndthis comment to be inaccurate, belligerent, and totally irrelevant to the issue of C01. In fact, only a person enrolled in the class would have access to course content. . Regarding the Issue of Academic Freedom?and Civil Ri?: Enrollees in the course in question are by law, afforded rights of con?dentiality along with the privileges and responsibilities of being a student. They are not enrolled as FTA grantees and the course is Open to anyone?and everyone. Enrollees are participants of the university. It is not the requirement, duty or business of faculty to check with any student to see if they are af?liated with a transit agency that receives federal ?mds and/or are in line for a Triennial 2 Review. The issue of faculty/student con?ict of interest is an agreement between the university and the faculty member. In fact, C01 is addressed in detail by UWM employment contract. Solicitation of any business outside the course is strictly prohibited. . Faculty should not have to act defensively or in fear with their attempts to ?rtther academic opportunities to those with interest in transit. Experienced transit professionals should have the opportunity to pass their knowledge and experience on to others without interference, harassment and harm. Academic freedom is a?'orded to university faculty as part of the freedom of speech entitlement of the First Amendment. It is faculty?s ?rm belief that judicial precedent has established this academic freedom as a civil right that is entitled to certain protections ?om harm, harassment and ?nancial loss. There is certainly evidence in this 'case that the latter have occurred as a direct result of this letter from PTA and the manner in which it was handled. Position and Follow-up: The ability and authority of FTA personnel to address issues with these consequences at this level, with no identi?able issue, and without knowledge of or training in academic ?eedorn issues or input ?om counsel is of great concern. The motivation behind the letter is questionable, the tone of the letter is unnecessarily aggressive and the placement of the contractor in a defensive position is regrettable. Through inference and association with 001, this letter ?om PTA and subsequent suspension have caused me embarrassment in ?ont of family, ?iends and colleagues, harmed my reputation, impeded my ability to conduct my TR work, impacted me ?nancially and caused disharmony with my contractor. I believe this action ?om its initiation to the current ?investigation? is in violation of my civil right of academic freedom. Does FTA have a policy or protocol for handling issues of academic freedom? If so, was this process followed? I have discussed the issue with staff at UWM and have their concern and support. Obviously, this issue has the potential to draw national interest, particularly from public advocacy groups promoting academic freedom. I?m con?dent this unfortunate incident is not consistent with the Administrator?s vision of progress. Remed Even though this action by FTA has harmed me, I have no 'desire to showcase FTA in an unfavorable position based on the independent actions of -a few. I have been open with my academic actions and intentions. I want to work with FTA, not against FTA, in premoting and expanding educational Opportunities for those with an interest in transit. Please see that the letter from FTA associating me with C01 is retracted and the investigation is discontinued and that there will be no retaliation or retribution. As there is obviously the potential _for serious damage from inference and association, please also take steps to ensure that TA participants in this matter are any informed and quali?ed to handle the issue of academic ?reedom and faculty rights under the First Amendment and please help to ensure that any future reference to an individual or contractor involving the term con?ict of interest is based on some evidence of misdeed or probable cause and not based purely on whim, Speculation, or ulterior motive. I am available to answer any questions and to provide copies of additional documents if - requested. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully, UKDUOS (ll/Q? The University of Wisconsin?M?waukee (1) CCQUDB ?ctcuor 9. 25 L: Jr 31? Fl?s? a To: Bodnar John dohnhodnariddotgoys . 1 Fla: Tttennial Review onttne class Hi John. Be glad to. You may imply that tire been involved in transitotganizationai development [or years and teach at both the University of South Florida Centerior Urban Transportation Research and at the University at Wisconsin Mdurauiree Center iorTransportalion Education and Development. And I?ve had my ?ngerprints on the curriculum tor the annual FEATrienniai Review regional workshops as well While there?s no substitution tor the excellence oi the annual are regional Workshops and the opportunity tor- attendees to Interact with both the experienced presenters and each other. there is a large segment oi the transit oommunhy who either cannot or choose not to attend. In some cases the workshops till up and there isn?t space. . i ran theidea at an onlineTFt course by Amy Jemigan a couple of years ago and she through {tyres an excellent idea. The idea recently resurfaced and WM wanted to sponsor a pilot test starting October 20 this year. The notice content features the doinntoadabie TR workbook and GIH and functions under the metaphor that the TB is actually an ?open book? test. The cotuse is meaning that attendees can work on the material at their own pace and interact with both the instructor and each most common exercise is to practice and gain experience using the workbook to look up the ?answer" and explanations torthe questions in the SIR. I believe the course proddes an opportunity for transit personnel who. because at cost considerations or tacit ctpersonnet availability, miss the annual workshops and are left with no 'educattonat? opporttmities to get up to speed. There rs also added emphasis on consenting to ?nd solutions. 1 certainly hope you agree and I'll be happy to keep you updated on how things progress during this pilot test and answer any questions. Any support or advice you might otter would be greedy appreciated. Thanks. On Oct 9. 2014. at 4:57 PM, iohnhodnarlddotg? wrote: i teamed today that you are teaching an onttne class on the Triennial Review through UW. Could you please tell me more about this? Best regards. John A. Bodnar. CTL Transportation Program Analyst - Office of Program Oversight Federal Transit Administration 1200 New Jersey Ave SE Rm Edd-414 Washington. DC 20590 202-366-9091 ]ohn.bcdnat@dotggy (2) The?link to the course in question :l . wup> (3) Rodrigo Garcia emamia?odiaengnoomr Fl February 23. 2015 at ?xi? F't-a To: 6e: Vere Elli and Triennial Review Contract (301 Complaint Dear We received a letter today from the TA stating the following; The Department ot?Transnortatiom Federal Transit Administration has received infonnati on about con?ict of interest issues for who is currently working under Conn act Number In accordance with this contract Semi on 11.12 Organizational Con?ict of Interest, the FT A IS asking for an explanation ot the concerns outlined below: ?Randall Pine: FTA received noti?cation that an online course had been offered and conducted by the Universityr of WiseonsimMilwankee in the Fall entitled Triennial Review: Overview and Tips". This eotnse was instructed by e. ?It has been con?rmed that there was a registration fee for this course. However the tee Is no longer available to he viewed on the University's website Further investigation suggests the fee was $300. Review of the course materials and syllabus shows that the Triennial Review workbook and Grantee Information Request {om} terms were need and that outdated Tri enniai Review practices were part of the course content. At this time. this course is. no longer listed in the University's Spring 20 i5 course directory. This Is a serious matter: please send us an explanation by 12 noon PST on 2-24-15 Tnieeday Rodrigo'l?. Garcia, century Diversified, Inc. 323 26571443 corn (lb aw April 13, 2015 Of?ce of Civil Rights U.S. Department of Transportation . Federal Transit Administration East Building 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Re: Addendum and Follow up information regarding Civil Rights Complaint Filed March 17, 2015 Issue Involved Faculty Member/Triennial Reviewer and University Onljne Training, FTA Issue of Con?ict of Interest and Academic Freedom Type of Civil Rights Complaint: Academic Freedom Named Parties in Civil Rights Complaint: Federal Transit Administration and Complicit Parties as determined . Complainant: Updated Information: On April 1, 2015 I received a notice of termination of my contract with IV to perform Triennial Reviews. I was instructed to immediately cease all work in progress and informed that I would receive no further task assignments. JV informed me that FTA had made a determination of Con?ict of Interest as a result of my developing a continuing education, programmed instructional online course offered one time last October 2014 on the Triennial Review process at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. FTA had reaffirmed to .TV that they had the right to terminate their contract by default due to this issue and appeared to have forced the issue. Be advised that I have no ?rst hand information on any correspondence between IV and FTA regarding this issue. I Was not copied on any emails or letters. There is much confusion as to how a determination of this type could be made given that there was no direct contact between students and instructor during the course and the information provided on the TR process is similar in content to the annual TR workshops conducted by FTA in each region. As a result of this regrettable action by the FTA Contracting Of?cer, I have suffered considerable ?nancial loss and the smooth conduct of IRS by JV has been disrupted. . The TA Of?ce of Civil Rights received my complaint on March 17, 2015, approximately two weeks prior to the FTA notice of determination of con?ict of interest. To date, I have not received acknowledgement from FTA OCR that my complaint has been logged or processed. . Please advise as to the status of my complaint. You may contact me at the email address on this letterhead. Thank you. Ce: The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee 0 East Bonding. Floor?TOR U.S. Depam?? Headquarters 1200 New Jersey Avenue. SE of Transportation . Washington. as 20590 Federal Transit - Administration May 22, 2015 you? The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Of?ce of Civil Rights has received your correspondence dated March lZ-and April 13, 2015, regarding a ?conflict of interes and ?academic freedom issue? involving a university course you taught while you were also engaged with PTA under a JV contract. The Of?ce of Civil Rights is responsible for ensuring that providers of public transportation comply with the requirements pertaining to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program, and the external Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) program. . We have ?nished our review of your correspondence. We appreciate your taking the time to contact us; however, we cannot take further action on your concerns. The Of?ce of Civil Rights does not have jurisdiction under the authorities mentioned above to investigate issues regarding con?ict of interest and academic freedom. We understand you have communicated with other FT A of?ces regarding your concerns. This concludes our processing of this matter. Sincerely, 79mm Dawn Sweet Program Manager, . Complaints and Communications Of?ce of Civil Rights Cato/E551 A27 U. S. Department of?nnspo?a?on Federal Transit Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE DC 20590 CA Lap) E60438 856?? Sipee, Nancy . (to) From: maria tones - Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 10:00 AM - To: Sipes. Nancy Patel, Elizabeth valerie Hauser; ngabriel@achp.gov; cvaughn@achp.gov; cwilson@achp.gov; gee.randy@epa.gov; Patrick, Robert Harvey, Danna maria torres Subject: . Re: The Pacuache Clan of Texas tO'FederaI Transit Administration FOIA Request Service Center . Attachments: EIiz.Pate Nancy Sipes FOIA Public Liaison Federal Transit Adn?nistration (202) 366-7164 Ms.. Sipes, Greetings. Enclosed please ?nd our Tribe FOIA Request Letter to you for a copy of the Preliminary Documentation EA Environmental Assessment Streetcar Proposed Project at San Antonio Texas Bexar County completed on August 20, 2014. Please con?nn/replay. Thank you. The Pacuache Clan of Texas The Coahuilteca Indian Tribe Nation Mary Torres . Tribal Chairwoman 4.445%) WE .DATE: la a. The Pacuache Clan of Texas GAE Missions indians San Juan Baustista?San Bernardo-San Francisco De Solano Missions our Ancestral Scared lands Anacacho Dacate Sacatsol Mountains, Chotilapacquen, Ona River, Elm Creek, Pilapaxam- Pulapaoram River, Nueces River and Rio Grande River, San Antonio Missions Yanaguana land lndigen aus Missions Linea] Descendants to Texas a North eastern Mexico. Tribal Nation Sovereign, lnherent and Self- Government. 1575 Foundation February 26, 2015 Federal Transit Administration Ms. Elizabeth Zelasko Patel FFA Federal Preservation Of?cer 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE E45-340 Washington, D.C. 20590 (202) 366-0244 FOIA Request Service Center, Federal Transit Administrator 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 4th Floor East Building Washington, D.C. 20590 - Attn: Nancy Sipes, FOIA Public Liaison (202) 366-7164 Re: The Pacuache Clan of Texas Request amended a complete copy of The EA Report Preliminary the EA Documentation Environmental Assessment Report for the Proposed Streetcar Project completed on August 20, 2014 at San Antonio, Texas Bexar County under FOIA, Freedom of Information Act. Dear Ms. Patel, C/o to Ms. Nancy Sipes Greetings. Our Clan is requesting to you a complete copy of The Environmental Assessment Report the EA Documentation Environmental Assessment Report for. the Proposed Streetcar Project completed on August 20, 2014 for San Antonio, Texas Bexar County under the FOIA, Freedom of Information Act. Please send us Report if possible via electronically mail. Our Clan appreciates your assistance in our Request. Respectfully, The Pacuache Clan of Texas The Coahuilteca Indian Tribe Nation Mary Torres Tribal Chairwoman 210) 433-3879 'cc Valerie Hauser National Council on Historic Preservation Of?ce of Native American Affairs Najah Duvall-Gabriel National Council on Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Specialist Charlene Dwin Vaughn National Council on HistoricPreservation Assistant Director, FPLAS Section Chris Wilson National Council on Historic Preservation Program Analyst Mr. Randy Gee US Environmental Protection Agency Of?ce of Environmental Justice and Tribal Affairs USEPA Region 6 Regional Coordinator Federal Transit Administration Robert C. Patrick Regional Administrator for Region 6 Eepartment Headquarters . . 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE. 0f Transportation - Federal Transit . - DC 20590 Administration February 27, 2015 Mary Torres, Tribal Chairwoman The Pacuache Clan of Texas The Coahuilteca Indian Tribe Nation @3wa Our File No. Dear Ms.Torres: This is to acknowledge receipt of your request dated February 27, 2015, requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Your request has been given . the identi?cation number FY2015-0122. If you need to contact us regarding your request, please refer to the identi?cation number so we can better assist you. The appr0priate Federal Transit Administration of?ce' 18 currently reviewing your request. Normal tinnaround time IS 20 business days ?ora the date of recerpt as set forth' 49 CFR Part 7. 31. However, processing time for some requests may take longer than 20 business days. We will do our best to process your request 131 a timely fashion. - Processing fees may apply for FOIA requests as set forth in 49, CFR Part?7.42. Please contact me at 202?366-2496 if you have any questions. Sincerely, in Nancy Sips O?ice of Management Planning 9 Headquarters 1200'New Jersey Avenue 3.5. OfTranSportation . - ede ralT it - Dc 20590 Administration March 31 2015 - lMary Torres, Tribal Chairwoman The Pacuache Clan of Texas The Coahuilteea Indian Tribe Nation Ge) Le) Our File No.: FY 15?0122 Dear Ms. Torres! This letter is in response to your e-mail of February 27, 2015, requesting infonnation under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Speci?cally, you requested copies of ?The Environmental Assessment Report the EA Documentation Environmental Assessment Report for the Proposed Streetcar Project completed on August 20, 2014 for San Antonio, Texas Bexar County? We have searched our records and ?nd that we have records reaponsive to your request. However, FTA is withholding this documnt under 01A Exemption 5, 5 USC 552 as implemented by the Department of Transportation?s regulations, 49 CFR Exemption 5 incorporates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product . doctrine and the deliberative process privilege, all of which protect documents from disclosure. Exemption 5 concerns ?con?dential communications between an attorney and his client relating to a legal matter for which the client has sought professional advice? Exemption 5 also incorporates the deliberative process privilege. The basis for the privilege 1s to protect these working documents and to encourage open, frank - exchange of opinions and recommendations between government personnel, to protect against premature disclosure of proposed policies before they are ?nally adapted, and to protect against public confusion that might result from disclosure of reasons and rationale that are not in fact ultimately the grounds for an agency? 5 action. The persons responsible for this determination are the undersigned and Stephen Pereira, an attorney Of?ce of Chief Counsel. To the extent that the material IS being withheld, this IS a denial of your request. If you are not satis?ed with this response, you may appeal by writing to the Deputy Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, East Building, 5til Floor, Washington, D. C. 20590. Ifyou prefer, your appeal may be sent via electronic mail to FTA. FOIA.Appeals@dot. gov. An appeal must be received within forty-?ve calendar days from the date the initial detennination is signed and. should include the FTA ?le or reference mnnber assigned to the request and any information and arguments you may wish to rely on. The envelope in which a mailed appeal is sent or the subject line of an appeal sent electonically should be prominently marked APPE The Deputy Adminish'aior?s detem?na?on will be administratively ?nal: Sincerely, Nancy Sipes Of?ce of Management Planning . - . .. From: maria torres :ent: . - Wednesday, May 13, 2015 4:09 PM o: FTA FOIA Appeals; Sines, Nancy maria torres Subject: Fwd: The Pacuache Clan of Texas Request to FTA EIS Final Report Appeal FY15-0122 Attachments: Request EIS for Valera MissionEl Alamopdf Please enclosed Tribe Appeal PTA for E13 Report Request. - Forwarder? From: maria torres Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 3:05 PM Subject: Re: The Pacuache Clan of Texas Request to FTA BIS Final Report Appeal FYIS- 0122 To: FTA.F01A.Appeal@dot.gov; n.ancy sipes@dot. gov, elizabeth. nate1@dot. gov. valerie Hauser , cwilson@achp. gov, gee.randy@epa.gov, maria ton-es To the Deputy Administrator of The Federal Transit Administration our Tribe summit Appeal FY 15-0122 our Tribe Request to FLA for the EIS Report dated August 20,2015 conducted at San Antonio, Texas Bexar County conducted at San Antonio De Valera Mission The Alamo. . Enclosed document. Please con?rm/reply. Thank you. The Pacuache Clan of Texas Coaguilteca Indian Tribe First Nation San Antonio Missions Indigenous People Many Torres - Tribal Chairwoman ?iire Pocooche Clan of Texas Missions Indigenous tin eol DescendantsSon .iuon BoutE'to-Soo Bernardo De la Condelo our Sacred Anococho Docote Socotsol Mountains; Ciro tiiopocquen Ono River; Elm creek, Piiopoxom-Pulopoorom River; Nueces River, Yonoguono RiverSon?Antoriio Missions, Indigenous Missions lineal Descendants to South Texas and Northeastern Merdco, Tribol notion inherent Sovereign, Eek-Government, Foundation 1675 . May 11, 2015 Re: The Pacuache Clan ofTexas Appeal File No. HIS-0122 our'l?ribe request under the FOIA the Final EIS Report dated August 20, 2014 conducted at our Indian Religious Ancestral Sacred Site of San Antonio De Valera Mission/El Alamo. . To The Deputy Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration 1200 NewJersev Avenue, 5.8, East Building Floor, Washington, 0.0. 20590 To The Deputy Administrator, Enclosed please ?nd our?l?ribe Appeal File No. F?i 15-0122 to our requested on February 27, 2015 fora copy of the EIS Report conducted PTA and dated August 20, 2015 conducted at San Antonio, Texas BexarCountyatSan Antonio De Valera Mission/El Alamo an Indian Religious Sacred Burial Site and a National Treasure. requested this EIS copy Report under our Indian Religious Practices in protecting our Sacred Site under Executive Order 13007 the Protection of Religious Sacred Sites. Presently the Site is in great fragile state of preservation and is a proposed World Heritage Nomination inscription and with a final decision oniune 2015 bvthe UNESCO Cultural Fund at Bonn Germany and where ourT?be is protected under the UNESCO Indigenous Human Rights Declaration and ourTribe cites NAQPRA, he Native American Graves Protection Repatriation Act, The Native American Religious Freedom Act and where . purTribe follow protocol with yourAgency FTA and timely requested Consultation, submitted . commentaries for the EIS Report. Our'i'ribe is been injured and continue to be injured hyvourAgency PTA under our indian Religious Practices and Indigenous Human Rights in depraving us under our Indigenous Human Rights, the United States Constitutional Rights underAmendments 5th, the Fourteen Amendment Equal Protection and for you to provide our Tribe with a copy of this EIS Report necessary for our Tribe in the protection of our Religious Sacred Site the San Antonio De Valera Mission the Alamo ourAncestral Land. Our'i'rlbe understands your-Agency the PTA in assisting us to provide us a copy of this Eis hepok if necessary Rejort can be re-readed or highlighted. Atom-[seated - Our Tribe in the Interest ofiustice is asking you assist us in providing us a copy of this EIS Report where this information will greatly provide our Tribe direct and indirect adverse effects in the protection our . Religious Sacred Archeologimi Site of San Antonio De Valera Mission Alamo Archeologimi Historical Cultural Resources. Our Tribe In the Interest oflustice is in great need of this EIS Report copy. OurTribeis sending this appeal via electronicallyI email to FfAFOIAAppeaIs?dotgom Respectfully, The Pacuache Clan of Texas The Coagultecl Indian Tribe First Nation San Antonio Missions Indigenous People Mary'i'oma Tribal Chairwoman acacia) Cc: National Council Historical Preservation . Valerie Hauser, Director of Native American Affairs Chris Wilson, Project Analyst EPA Region 6 - Randy Gee. EPA Coordinator of Native American Affairs Elizabeth Patel FTA Historical Preservation Of?cer NancvSipes . FTA Of?ce of Management Planning SiEes, Nana - . . From: - maria torres (153L015 Sent: Wednesday, May 13 2015 4: 06 PM To: FTAFOIAAppeal@dot.gov; Sipes, Nancy Patel Elizabeth valerie Hauser; cwilson@achp. gov; gee. randy@epa. gov; maria torres Subject: Re: The Pacuache Clan of Texas Request to FTA EIS Final Report Appeal Attachments: Request for Valera Mission El Alamo To the Deputy Administrator of The Federal Transit Administration our Tribe summit Appeal FY 15-0122 our Tribe Request to FTA for the EIS Report dated August 20, 2015 conducted at San Antonio, Texas Bexar County conducted at San Antonio De Valero Mission The Alamo. . Enclosed document. Please con?rm/reply. Thank you. The Pacuache Clan of Texas Coaguilteca Indian Tribe First Nation San Antonio Missions Indigenous People Mary Torres Tribal Chairwoman (baa) The Pocuache Cian of Texas Missions indigenous Linea! Descendants San Juan Boutista-Son Bernardo De la Candeia our Sacred An acacno Dacote Sacco-oi Mountains, Chadiapacquen Ona Riven Eim Creek, Piiapaxam-Puiapooram River, Nueces Riven Yanoguano RiverSan Antonio Missions, Indigenous Missions iineai Descendants to South Texas and Nordieastern Mexico, Triboi nation inherent Sovereign, SeiFGovernment, Foundation 1675 May 11, 2015 Re: The Pacuache Clan of Texas Appeal File No. arm-0122 ourTrihe request under the FOIA the Final EIS Report dated August 20, 2014 conducted at our lndian Religious Ancestral Sacred Site of San Antonio De Valera Mission/El Alamo. To The Deputy Administrator ofthe Federal Transit Administration - 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., East Building 5"1 Floor, Washington, 0.6. 20590 To The DeputyAdministrator, . Enclosed pleaSe ?nd ourTnbe Appeal File No. FY 15-0122 to our requested on February 27, 2015 fora copy ofthe 515 Report conducted by yourAgency the PTA and dated August 20, 2015 conducted at San AntonIo, Texas Barter County at San Antonio De Valera MissionIEl Alamo an Indian Religious Sacred Burial Site and a National Treasure. OufT?bE requested this Els copy Report under our Indian Religious Practices in protecting our Sacred Site under Executive Order 13007 the Protection of Religious Sacred Sites. Presently the Site is in great fragile state of preservation and is a proposed World Heritage Nomination Inscription and with a ?nal decision on June 2015 by the UNESCO Cultural Fund at Bonn Germany and where our Tribe ls protected under the UNESCO Indigenous Human Rights Declaration and our Tribe cites NAGPRA, The Native American Graves Protection Repatriation Act, The Native American Religious Freedom Act andwhere our Tribe follow protocol with your Agency PTA and timely requested Consultation, submitted commentaries for the 515 Report. Ouerbe is been injured and continue to be injured hyyourAgency FTA underour Indian Religious Practices and indigenous Human Rights byyourAgency the FTA in depraving us under our Indigenous Human Rights, the United States Constitutional Rights underAmendments 5th, the Fourteen Amendment Equal Protection and foryou to provide ourTribe with a copy ofthis EIS Report necessary for ourTribe in the protection ofour Religious Sacred Site the San Antonio De Valero Mission theAIamo our Ancestral Land. OurTribe Fm in assisting us to provide us a copy of this EIS hepok if necessary Report can he re-readed or highlighted. Our Tribe in the interest ofiustice is asking you assist us in providing us a copy of this as Report where this information will our Tribe direct and indirect adverse effects in the protection our Religious Sacred Archeologltal Site of San Antonio De Valera Mission' El Alamo Archaeological Historical Cultural Resources. Our Tribe in the interest ofJustice Is in ?great need of this Report copy. Our Tribe is sending this appeal via electronimllv email to Respectfully, The Pacuache Clan of Texas The Coaguiteca Indian Tribe First Nation San Antonio Missions Indigenous People an; Torres Tribal Chairwoman 935 W. Silver Sands Dr. Apt. if 2705 San Antonio, Texas 78216 Ch) Lia) CC: National Council Historical Preservation Valerie Hauser, Director of Native American Affairs Chris Wilson, Project Analyst EPA Region 6 Randy Gee, EPA Coordinator of Native American Affairs Elizabeth Patel Historical Preservation Of?cer - Nancy Sipes . FTA Office of Management Planning Si?es, Nana . 2 E2 . From: - - maria torres Sent Wednesday, May 13 2015 4: 06 PM To: FTAFOIAAppeaI?dotgow Sipes. Nancy Patel Elizabeth valerie Hauser; cwilson@achp. gov; gee. randy@epa. gov; maria torres Subject: . Re: The Pacuache Clan of Texas Request to FTA Final Report Appeal FY15-0122 Attachments: Request as for Valero Mission El Alamopdf To the Deputy Administrator of The Federal Transit Administration our Tribe summit Appeal FY 15-0122. our Tribe Request to FTA for the EIS Report dated August 20, 2015 conducted at San Antonio, Texas Bexar County conducted at San Antonio De Valera Mission The Alamo. Enclosed document. Please con?rmfreply. Thank you. The Paeuache Clan of Texas Coaguilteea Indian Tribe First Nation San Antonio Missions Indigenous People Mary Torres Tribal Chairwoman The Pacuoche Clan of Texas Missions Indigenous Linea! Descendants San Juan Bautisto?Son Bernardo De la Candelo ourSocred Anemone Docote Somtsol Mountains, Cirodiopocquen Ono River; Elm Creek, Pilopoxom-Puiopooram River; Nueces River; Yonoguono RiverSon Antonio Missions, Indigenous Missions lineal Descendant: to South Texas and Nordreostern Mexico, Tribal notion Inherent Sovereign Self-Govemrnent. Foundation 1675 May 11. 2015 Re: The Pacuache Clan ofTexas Appeal File No. WIS-0122 our-Tribe request under the FOIA the Final EIS Report dated August 20, 2014 conducted at our Indian Religious Ancestral Sacred Site of San Antonio De Valera Mission/El Alamo. To The Deputy Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 5.5., East Building Floor, Washington, 13.6. 20590 . To The Enclosed please ?nd our'l?ribe Appeal File No. FY 15-0122 to our requested on February 27, 2015 for a copy of the EIS Report conducted by your PTA and dated August 20, 2015 conducted at San Antonio, Texas Bexar County at San Antonio De Valera Mission/El Alamo an lndlan Religious Sacred Burialsite and a National?i?reasure. OurTribe requested this E15 copy Report under our Indian Religious Practices in protecting our Sacred Site under Executive Order 13007 the Protection of Religious Sacred Sites. Presently the Site is in great fragile state of preservation and is a proposed World Heritage Nomination Inscription and with a ?nal decision on June 2015 bythe UNESCO Cultural Fund at Bonn Germany and where our Tribe is protected under the UNESCO indigenous Human Rights Declaration and ourTribe cites NAGPRA, The Native American Graves Protection Repatriation Act, The Native American Religious Freedom Act and where ourTribe follow protocol with your Agency FFA and timely requested Consultation, submitted commentaries for the EIS Report. Our Tribe is been injured and continue to be injured by your Agency under our Indian Religious Practices and indigenous Human Rights byyour Agency the FDA in depraving us under our Indigenous Human Rights, the United States Constitutional Rights under Amendments 49', 5th, the Fourteen Amendment Equal Protection and for you to provide our Tribe with a copy of this Report necossary for our Tribe in the protection of our Religious Sacred Site the San Antonio De Valera Mission the Alamo ourAncestral Land. OurTribe understands your Agency the FM in assisting us to provide us a copy of this BS Repel: if necessary Report can be re-rcaded or highlighted. . /LCommente-d the Interest of Justice is asking you assist us In providing us a copy of this BS Report where this information will greatly provide our Tribe direct and indirect adverse effects in the protection our Religious Sacred Archeologlcai Site of San Antonio De Velcro Mission El Alamo Archeological Historical Cultural Resources. Our Tribe in the interest ofiustice is in great need of this EiS'iieport copy. Our Tribe is sending this appeal via electronically email to FTAFOIAAppeaIs?Idotgov. Respectfully, The Pacuache Clan of Texas The indlan Tribe First Nation San Antonio Missions indigenous People Marv Torres Tribal Chairwoman . . Cb) ?023 Cc: . National Council Historical Preservation Valerie Hauser, Director of Native American Affairs Chris Wilson, Project Analyst EPA Region 6 Randy Gee, EPA Coordinator of Native American Affairs ,Eiizabeth Patel Historical Preservation Officer Nancy Sipes Fm Of?ce of Management Planning Fran-n: madam To: male: madness: Subject: Re: The Pacuache Clan of Texas Request-Appeal to FTP. a copy of the EIS Report dated August 20 2014 Date: Thursday, May 14 2015 1: 47: 26 PM Atladimenls: To the Deputy Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration c/o Nancy Slpes Enclosed please ?nd our Tribe information Request Letter. Please con?rmlreply. Thank you. The Pacuache Clan of Texas Coguiteca Indian Tribe ?rst Nation San Antonio Missions Indigenous People Mary Torres Tribal Chairwoman (.49 (in U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE of Transportation Executive Director Washington, DC 20590 Federal Transit Administration JAN 1,2?12015 Ms. Mary Torres Tribal Chairwoman The Pacuache Tribe of Texas cash 5 . Re: Appeal of FOIA request No. WIS-0102 I?I?np Dear Chairwoman Torres: This letter responds to your appeal of the Federal Transit Administration?s (PTA) response to your request for records pursuan'tto the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, as implemented by the U.S. Department of Transportation at 49 C.F.R. Part For the reasons de- scribed below, decision is amt-med in part and reversed in part. Background 0n.behalf of the Pacuaehe Tribe of Texas, you submitted FOIA request on February 27, 20 15, requesting the ?Environmental AsseSSment Report for the Proposed Streetcar Project completed on August 20, 2014 for San Antonio, Texas Bexar County?. The search for records produced an unissued dra? of 'an environmental assessment, pre? pared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for a proposed San Antonio streetcar project. The draft was prepared jointly by PTA and the local-project sponsor, VIA Metropolitan Transit. As a dra?, the document was never endorsed or issued by FTA, and has ?no completion date. The document is written with the anticipation that, had it been issued, a public hearing to discuss the document would have been held on August 20, 2014. Ultimately, no such hearing occurred because the proposed project was suspended and the environmental assessment was never completed. The FTA responded to request on March 31, 2015. In its response, FTA stated that a search had identi?ed a record responsive to your re quest, however A is withholding this document under FOIA Exemption The reSponse explained that Exemption 5 incorpo- rates common civil discovery privileges such as the attorney-client privilege and the executive deliberative process privilege. - Ms. Mary Torres Page 2 You made the present appeal on May 13, 2015. Your appeal reiterates your request for a copy of an?Environmenta1 Inspect Statement (EIS) Report conducted by.. .the PTA and dated August 20,2015? for San Antonio, Texas. To support your argument that the record should be made available under the FOIA, your appeal also refers to Executive Order 13007, 3 C.F.R. 13007 (1996), which relates to the protection of Native American sacred sites by Federal land management agencies; the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013, which requires Federal agen- cies to restore Native American human remains and ?merary objects to Native American tribes; and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 U. S. C. 1996, which expresses the United States? policy of protecting Native American religious practices, including the protection of sa~ cred objects and sites. Applicable Law Under the FOIA, an agency must disclose all records requested by any person, 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3), unless the records sought fall within a speci?c statutory exemption. 5 U. S. C. 552(d). When only part of a record is exempted ?om disclosure, an agency must dis~ close any reasonably segregahle non?exempt portion of that record after deleting the exempted portions. 5 U. S. C. 552(b). Exemption 5 of the FOIA protects from disclosure ?inter-agency or intra-agency? records which Would not be available by law to a party in litigation with an agency. 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5). Courts have incorporated within this exemption common civil discovery privileges, including the ?deh'berative process? or ?executive? privilege, which shields ?documents re?ecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which government decisions and policies are formulated.? Dep? of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users, 532 U. S. 1, 8 (2001). This privilege serves three primary purposes: (1) to encourage policy makers to speak candidly with each other without fear that their choice of language will be subject to public in? Spection; (2) to prevent premature release of proposed policies before they are adopted; and (3) to protect against the public confusion and the spread of erroneous information that might result ?om disclosing rationales that were not ultimately the grounds for an agency? action. Russell v. Dap? of the Air Force, 682 F. 2d 1045,1048 (D. C. Cir.1982) (citing Jordan v. Dep? I. of Justice, 591 F. 2d 753, 773 (D. C. Cir. 1978)). Thus, to qualify for protection under the deliberative process privilege of Exemption 5, a docu- ment must satisfy two conditions: it must be inter- or intra?agency in nature, and it must form part of an agency?s deliberative process. The threshold inquiry when applying Exemption 5 is whether the record in question is inter- or intra?agency. For purposes of the FOIA, the term ?agency? refers to the agencies and corporations of the executive branch of the Federal Govern- ment, including independent regulatory agencies, and not to State or local government agencies. 5 U.S.C. 551(1), 552(t)(1). Ms. Mary Torres Page 3 The term ?agency? also includes the many non-Federal experts and consultants whose docu? ments are incorporated into an agency?s deliberative process, whether those consultants are serv- ing as formal contractors, volunteers, or in certain other capacities. See. Klamaz?h, 5 US. at 9?11 (recognizing the so-called ?consultant corollary? to Exemption the particular scenario of a Federal agency cooperatively preparing NEPA documents with a project sponsor that 13 non- Federal, the non-Federal entity acts as. a consultant to the Federal agency, and the documents passed between them are considered intra?agency. E. Judicial Watch Inc. v. Dep? of Tramp, 950 Supp. 2d 219 (D D. C. 2013) (holding that documents shared between the Federal Railroad Administration and the California High Speed Rail Authority as part of NEPA process were intra-agency for purposes of Exemption 5). The second consideration' at applying the deliberative process privilege of Exemption 5 is whether the record. in question forms part of an agency 3 deliberative process, i. whether the record' rs both predecisicnal and deliberative. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA, 449 F. 3d 141,151 (D. C. Cir. 2006). A document 15 predecisional ?if 1t was generated before the adoption of an agency policy and deliberative if it re?ects the give-and-take of the consultative process.? Id Generally, information that is merely factual is not covered by the deliberative process privilege because the release of factual information does not expose the deliberations or opinions of agen?i cy personnel. EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 91 (1973) (declining to extend privilege to f?factu? a1 material otherwise available on discovery merely because it was placed in a memorandum with matters of law, policy, or opinion If 1t is reasonably segregable ?om protected portions of a record, an agency is required by U. 552(b) to disclose such non-protected factual material. Discussion The draft environmiental assessment_is-an intra?agency document. The present situation is the same as that considered by the court in Judicial. Watch: aFederal agency has cooperated with a non?Federal project sponsor as required by NEPA to produce an environmental analysis. VIA . Metropolitan Transit acted 1n the role of a consultant to ETA, and the communications between PTA and VIA Metropolitan Transit are eligible for Exemption 5. protection as 1f they had oc- curred entirely within FT A. The draft environmental assessment is also predecisional. As stated above, the streetcar project was suspended and the assessment was never issued. The Opinions, policy expressions, and con- clusions contained within the document are, therefore, not agency decisions, but only proposed decisions that FTA may or may not adopt 1n the future.- To safeguard the internal candidness of agency decision-malaria to prevent the premature release cf unadopted policies, and to protect the public from confusing and erroneous information, the deliberative portions of the environ- mental assessment are entitled to Exemption 5 protection, and denial is af?nned as to the deliberative portions of the document. Ms. Mary Torres Page 4 I However, not all of the draft environmental assessment is deliberative in nature. Much of the document is a factual recitation?of earlier actions taken by FTA, VIA Metrop olitan Transit, other agencies, and the city of San Antonio, of the factual results .of environmental investigations in the San Antonio area, are already publicly known or that could be obtained by the public. The factual portions of the dra? environmental assessment do not expose agency delib- erations or agency decisions that could be made based on those facts. To the extent that any por- tions of the draft environmental assessment are factual, rather than deliberative, and can be rea- sonably segregated from the deliberative portions of the document, decision is reversed as to those portions. Conclusion The decision denying your FOIA request is af?rmed in part and reversed in? part. The de- nial is a?rmed as to the deliberative portions of the draft environmental assessment and reversed as to any purely factual and segregable elements of the draft. A redacted copy of the draft envi- ronmental assessment is provided enclosed with this decision. Attorney Claire McKenna has concurred with this decision on behalf of Thomson, the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Transportation. This decision is the ?nal administra- tive action with regard to FOIA request You-may appeal this decision to the U.S. District Court for the district in which the requester resides or has its principle place of business, the district in which the requested records are located, or the district for the District of Columbia Sincerely yours, W999 Executive Director Enclosure Sipes, Nancy From: man?a torres Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 10:00 AM To: Sipes. Nancy Patel, Elizabeth (FT valen'e Hauser; ngabriel@achp.gov; cwilson@achp.gov; gee.randy@epa.gov; Patrick, Robert Harvey, Danna maria torres Subject: Re: The Pacuache Clan of Texas to Federal Transit Administration FOIA Request Service Center Attachments: Eliz.Patel Nancy Sipes FOIA Public Liaison Federal Transit Administration (202) 366-7164 Ms. Sipes, Greetings. Enclosed please ?nd our Tribe FOIA Request Letter to you for a copy of the Preliminary Documentation EA Environmental Assessment Streetcar Proposed Project at San Antonio Texas Bexar County completed on August 20, 2014. Please con?rm/replay. Thank you. The Paeuache Clan of Texas The Coahuilteca Indian Tribe Nation Mary Torres Tribal Chairwoman 935 W. Silver Sands Dr. #2705 San Antonio, Texas 78216 (210) 483-3 879 RUE DATE: - . . Est? EWGNW The Pacuache Clan of Texas EASE I =11 Q. Missions in dians San Juan Baustista?San Bern ordo-San Francisco De Solano Missions our Ancestral Scared lands Anacacho Dacate Sacatsol Mountains, Chotilapacquen, Ono River, Elm Creek, Pilopaxam- Pulapacxom River, Nueces River and Rio Grande River, San Antonio Missions Yanaguano land Indigenous Missions Linea] Descendants to Texas a North eastern Mexico. Tribal Nation Sovereign, Inherent and Self- Government. 1675 Foundation February 26, 2015 Federal Transit Administration Ms. Elizabeth Zelasko Patel FTA Federal Preservation Of?cer 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE E45340 Washington, D.C. 20590 (202) 366-0244 FOIA Request Service Center, Federal Transit Administrator 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Floor East Building Washington, D.C. 20590 - Attn: Nancy Sipes, FOIA Public Liaison (202) 366-7164 Re: The Pacuache Clan of Texas Request amended a complete copy of The EA Report Preliminary the EA Documentation Environmental Assessment Report for the Proposed Streetcar Project completed on August 20, 2014 at San Antonio, Texas Bexar County under FOIA, Freedom of Information Act. Dear Ms. Patel, C/o to Ms. Nancy Sipes Greetings. Our Clan is requesting to you a complete copy of The Environmental Assessment Report the EA Documentation Environmental Assessment Report for the Proposed Streetcar Project completed on August 20, 2014 for San Antonio, Texas Bexar County under the FOIA, Freedom of Information Act. Please send us Report if possible via electronically mail. Our Clan appreciates your assistance in our Request. Respectfully, The Pacuache Clan of Texas The Coahuilteca Indian Tribe Nation Mary Torres Tribal Chairwoman 210] 483-3879 cc Valerie Hauser National Council on Historic Preservation Of?ce of Native American Affairs Najah Dwell-Gabriel National Council on Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Specialist Charlene Dwin Vaughn National Council on HistorioPreservation Assistant Director, FPLAS Section Chris Wilson National Council on Historic Preservation Program Analyst Mr. Randy Gee US Environmental Protection Agency Of?ce of Environmental Justice and Tribal Affairs USEPA Region 6 Regional Coordinator Federal Transit Administration Robert C. Patrick Regional Administrator for Region 6 U-S- Eepartment Headquarters 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE. 0f Transportation Washington DC 20590 Federal Transit Administration February 27, 2015 Mary Torres, Tribal Chairwoman The Pacuache Clan of Texas The Coahuilteca Indian Tribe Nation 935 W. Silver Sands Drive, #2705 San Antonio?I?X 78216 Our File No. FY15-0122 Dear Ms.Torres: This is to acknowledge receipt of your request dated February 27, 2015, requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act (F Your request has been given the identi?cation number FY2015-0122. If you need to contact us regarding your request, please refer to the identi?cation number so we can better assist you. The appropriate Federal Transit Administration of?ce is currently reviewing your request. Normal turnaround time is 20 business days ?om the date of receipt as set forth in 49 CFR Part 7.31. However, processing time for some requests may take longer than 20 business days. We will do our best to process your request a timely fashion. Processing fees may apply for FOIA requests as set forth in 49? CFR Part 7.42. Please contact me at 202-366?2496 if you have any questions. Sincerely, in as Nancy Sips Of?ce of Management Planning 0 US. Department Headquarters 1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E. Of Transportation . Washington DC 20590 Federal Transit Administration march 31, 2015 - Mary Torres, Tribal Chairwoman The Pacuache Clan of Texas The Coahuilteca Indian Tribe Nation 935 W. Silver Sands Drive, #2705 San Antonio, TX 78216 Our File No.: FY15-0122 Dear Ms. Torres: This letter is in response to your e-mail of February 27, 2015, requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Speci?cally, you requested copies of ?The Environmental Assessment Report the EA Documentation Environmental Assessment Report for the Proposed Streetcar Project completed on August 20, 2014 for San Antonio, Texas Bexar County? We have searched our records and ?nd that we have records responsive to your request. However, FTA is withholding this document under FOIA Exemption 5, 5 USC 552 as implemented by the Department of Transportation?s regulations, 49 CFR Exemption 5 incorporates the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine and the deliberative process privilege, all of which protect documents from disclosure. Exemption 5 concerns ?con?dential communications between an attorney and his client relating to a legal matter for which the client has sought professional advice.? Exemption 5 also incorporates the deliberative process privilege. The basis for the privilege is to protect these working documents and to encourage open, frank exchange of opinions and recommendations between government personnel, to protect against premature disclosure of proposed policies before they are ?nally adopted, and to protect against public confusion that might result ?om disclosure of reasons and rationale that are not in fact ultimately the grounds for an agency?s action. The persons responsible for this determination are the undersigned and Stephen Pereira, an attorney in Of?ce of Chief Counsel. To the extent that the material is being withheld, this is a denial of your request. Ifyou are not satis?ed with this response, you may appeal by writing to the Deputy Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, ..E ,East Building, Floor, Washington, D. C. 20590. If you prefer, your appeal may be sent via elec1ronic mail to FTA. FOIA. Anneals@dot gov. An appeal must be received within forty??ve calendar days ?'om the date the initial determination is signed and should include the FTA ?le or reference number assigned to the request and any information and arguments you may wish to rely on. The envelope in which a mailed appeal is sent or the subject line of an appeal sent electronically should be prominently marked 01A The Deputy Administrator?s determination will be administratively ?nal; Sincerely, Nancy Sipes O?ice of Management Planning Sipes, Nancy (FT A) - . From: maria torres Sent: Wednesday, May 13. 2015 4:09 PM To: FTA FOIA Appeals; Sipes, Nancy maria torres Subject: Fwd: The Pacuache Clan of Texas Request to FT A Final Report Appeal FY15-0122 Attachments: Request EIS for Valero Mission El Alamopdf Please enclosed Tribe Appeal FTA for E18 Report Request. Forwarded message From. maria torres Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at3: 05 PM Subject: Re: The Pacuache Clan of Texas Request to FTA EIS Final Report Appeal FY 15-0122 To: PTA FOIA. Appeal@dot. gov, nancy. sipes@dot. gov, elizabeth. patel@dot. gov valerie Hauser cwilson@achp.gov, gee.randy@epa.gov, maria torres To the Deputy Administrator of The Federal Transit Administration our Tribe summit Appeal FY 15-0122 our Tribe Request to FTA for the EIS Report dated August 20, 2015 conducted at San Antonio, Texas Bexar County conducted at San Antonio De Valera Mission The Alamo. Enclosed document. Please con?mifreply. Thank you. The Paeuache Clan of Texas Coaguilteea Indian Tribe First Nation San Antonio Missions Indigenous People Mary Torres Tribal Chairwoman (210) 483-3879 The Pacuacire Ciao of Texas Mksions indigenous Linea! Descendants San Juan Baudsta-San Bernardo De io Candeia our Sacred An ococho Docote Sacatsoi Mountains, Cbodiopacquen Ono River, Elm Creek, Piiopaxom-Puiopocxom River, Nueces Riven Yonoguono RiverSan_Antoriio Missions, indigenous Missions Linea! Descendants to South Texas and Northeastern Mexico, Tribal notion inherent Sovereign, Self-Government, Foundation 1675 May 11, 2015 Re: The Pacuache Cian of'i'exas Appeal File No. Wis-0122 ourTribe request under the FOIA the Final EIS Report dated August 20, 2014 conducted at our ind ian Religious Ancestral Sacred Site of San Antonio De Valera Mission/El Alamo. . To The DeputyAdministrator ofthe Federal Transit Administration 1200 Newiersey Avenue, East Building Floor, Washington, D.C. 20590 To The Deputy Administrator, Enclosed please ?nd ourTribe Appeal File No. FY 15-0ng to our requested on February 27. 2015 for a copy of the E15 Report conducted by your Agency the Ff A and dated August 20, 2015 conducted atSan Antonio, Texas Bexar County at San Antonio De Valera Mission/El Alamo an lndian Religious Sacred Burial Site and a National Treasure. OurTribe requested this EIS copy Report under our Indian Religious Practices in protecting our Sacred Site under Executive Order 13007 the Protection of Religious Sacred Sites. Presently the Site is in great fragile state of preservation and is a proposed World Heritage Nomination Inscription and with a final decision on June 2015 hythe UNESCO Cuitural Fund at Bonn Germany and where our'i?ribe is protected under the UNESCO indigenous Human Rights Declaration and our Tribe cites NAGPRA, The Native American Graves Protection Repatriation Act, The Native American Religious Freedom Act and where our-Tribe follow protocol with your Agency PTA and timely requested Consultation, submitted . commentaries for the EIS Report. DurTribe is been iniured and continue to be injured by yourAgency under our lndian Religious Practices and Indigenous Human Rights by your Agency the FTA in depraving us under our Indigenous Human Rights, the United States Constitutional Rights under Amendments 5th, the Fourteen Amendment Equal Protection and for you to provide our Tribe with a copy of this EIS Report necessary for ourTribe in the protection of our Religious Sacred Site the San Antonio De Valera Mission the Alamo our Ancestral Land. Our Tribe understands your Agency the FTA in assisting us to provide us a copy of this EIS hepolt if necessary Report can be re-readed or highlighted. Commented [mid]: Our Tribe in the interest of Justice is asking you assist us in providing us a copy of this BS Report where this information will greatly provide our Tribe direct and indirect adverse effects in the protectlon our Religious Sacred Archeological Site of San Antonio De Valera Mission El Alamo Archlaoioglcal Historical Cultural Resources. in the interest of Justice is in great need of this Report copy. OurTribe is sending this appeal via electronically email to Respectfully, The Pacuache Clan of Texas The Coaguiteca Indian Tribe First Nation San Antonio Missions indigenous People Mary Torres Tribal Chairwoman 935 W. Silver Sands Dr. Apt. it 27(15 San Antonio, Texas 78216 [210) 483-3879 Email: muiercoahuilteca@gmail.com CC: National Council Historical Preservation Valerie Hauser, Director of Native American Affairs . Chris Wilson, Praiect Analyst . EPA Region 6 . Randy Gee, EPA Coordinator of Native American Affairs Elizabeth Patel FTA Historical Preservation Of?cer Nancy Sipes FTA Office of Management Planning SiBes, Mans: (FTA) - . From: . maria torres Sent: . Wednesday, May 13, 2015 4:06 PM To: FTA.FOIA.Appeal@dot.gov; Sipes, Nancy (FT Patel, Elizabeth valerle Hauser; cwilson@achp.gov; gee.randy@epa.gov; maria torres Subject: Re: The Pacuache Clan of Texas Request to FTA EIS Final Report Appeal FY15-0122 Attachments: Request ?15 for Valero Mission El Alamo.pdf To the Deputy Administrator of The Federal Tr'ansit Administration our Tribe summit Appeal FY 15?0122 our Tribe Request to FTA for the EIS Report dated August 20, 2015 conducted at San Antonio, Texas Bexar County conducted at San Antonio De Valera Mission The Alamo. Enclosed document. Please con?ne/reply. Thank you. The Pacuache Clan of Texas Coaguilteca Indian Tribe First Nation San Antonio Missions Indigenous People Mary Torres Tribal Chairwoman (210) 483-3879 The Pacuoche Clan of Texas Missions indigenous tineoi Descendants San Juan Bautista-Son Bernardo De la Candela our Sacred Anacacha Dacote Sacotsai Mountains, Chatiiapacquen Ona River, Elm Creel; Pilopaxam?Puiapaaram River, Nueces River; Yon oguano River San An tonia Missions, indigenous Missions iineai Descendants to So ad: Texas and Northeastern Mexico, Tribal nation inherent Sovereign, Self-Government, Foundation 1675 May 11. 2015 Re: The Pacuache Clan of Texas Appeal File No. FYISDIZZ our Tribe request under the FOIA the Final EIS Report dated August 20, 2014 conducted at our lndian Religious Ancestral Sacred Site of San Antonio De Valera Mission/El Alamo. To The Deputy Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration 1200 Newiersey Avenue, S.E., East Building Floor, Washington, D.C. 20590 To The Deputy Administrator. Enclosed please find our Tribe Appeal File No. 150122 to our requested an Fehmary 27, 2015 for a copy ofthe EIS Report conducted by your Agency the FFA and dated August 20, 2015 conducted atSan Antonio. Texas Bexar County at San Antonio De Valera Mission/El Alamo an Indian Religious Sacred Burial Site and a National Treasure. Our Tribe requested this EIS copy Report under our Indian Religious Practices in protecting our Sacred Site under Executive Order 13007 the Protection of Religious Sacred Sites. Presently the Site is in great fragile state of preservation and is a proposed World Heritage Nomination Inscription and with a ?nal decision on June 2015 by the UNESCO Cultural Fund at Bonn Germany and where is protected under the UNESCO indigenous Human Rights Declaration and our'i?rihe cites NAGPRA, The Native American Graves Protection Repatriation Act, The Native American Religious Freedom Act and where our Tribe follow protocol with your Agency PTA and timely requested Consultation, submitted commentaries for the EIS Report. Our Tribe is been injured and continue to be injured by your Agency FTA under our indian Religious Practices and indigenous Human Rights by FTA In depraving us under our Indigenous Human Rights, the United States Constitutional Rights under Amendments 5th, the Fourteen Amendment Equal Protection and for you to provide our'i'rihe with a copy ofthis EIS Report necessary for our Tribe in the protection of our Religious Sacred Site the San Antonio De Valera Mission the Alamo our Ancestral Land. Our Tribe understands your Agency the FTA in assisting Us to provide us a copy of this Els hepolt if necessary Report can be re-readed or highlighted. . Our Tribe in the interest ofiustice is asking you assist us in providing us a copy of this EIS Report where this information will greatly provide ourTribe direct and indirect adverse effects In the protection our Religious Sacred Archeologlml Site of San Antonio De Vaiero Mission? El Alamo Archeologicai Historical Cultural Resources. Our Tribe In the interest of Justice is In great need of this EIS Report copy. Our Tribe is sending this appeaivia electronically email to Respectfully, The Pacuache Clan of Texas The Coaguiteca Indian Tribe First Nation San Antonio Missions Indigenous People Mary Torres Tribal Chairwoman 935 W. Silver Sands Dr. Apt. it 2705 San Antonio, Texas 73216 (210) 483-3879 Email: mu[ercoahuilteca?gmailcom Cc: National Council Historical Preservation Valerie Hauser, Director of Native American Affairs Chris Wilson, Project Analyst EPA Region 6 Randy Gee, EPA Coordinator of Native American Affairs Elizabeth Patel Historian] Preservation Of?cer Nancy Sipes FTA Of?ce of Management Planning SiEes, Nana (FTA) From: - - maria torres Sent: Wednesday, May 13 2015 4: 06 PM To: FTAFOIAAppeaI?dotgow Sipes, Nancy Patel Elizabeth valerie Hauser: cwilson@achp. gov; gee. randy@epa. gov; maria torres Subject: . Re: The Pacuache Clan of Texas Request to PM EIS Final Report Appeal WIS-0122 Attachments: Request EIS for Valero Mission El Alamo.pdf To the Deputy Administrator of The Federal Transit Administration our Tribe summit Appeal FY 15- 0122 our Tribe Request to PTA for the EIS Report dated August 20, 2015 conducted at San Antonio, Texas Bexar County conducted at San Antonio De Valera Mission The Alamo. Enclosed document. Please con?rmfreply. Thank you. The Pacuache Clan of Texas Coaguilteca Indian Tribe First Nation San Antonio Missions Indigenous People Mary Torres Tribal Chairwoman (210) 483-3 879 Tire Pocuocire Cion ofTexas Missions indigenous lineal Descendants San Juan Boutistn~Son Bernardo Be in Candeia ourSocred Anocociro Docote Socotsoi Mountains, Chotiiopocquen One River, Eim Creek, Piiopoxom-Puiopocxom River, Nueoes River, Yanoguono RiverSon Antonio Missions, indigenous Missions Linea! Descendants to South Texas and Northeastern Mexico, Tribal notion inherent Sovereign, Self-Government, Foundation 1675 May 11. 2015 Re: The Pacuache Clan ofTexas Appeal File No. HIS-0122 ourTribe request under the FDIA the Final EIS Report dated August 20, 2014 conducted at our Indian Religious Ancestral Sacred Site ofSan Antonio De Valera Mission/El Alamo. To The Deputy Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., East Building Floor, Washington, D.C. 26590 To The Deputy Administrator, Enclosed please find ourTribe Appeal File No. FY 15-0122 to our requested on February 27, 2015 for a copy ofthe EIS Report conducted by your Agency the PTA and dated August 20, 2015 conducted at San Antonio, Texas Bexar County at San Antonio De Valero Mission/El Alamo an indian Religious Sacred Burial Site and a NationalTreasure. OurTribe requested this EIS copy Report under our Indian Religious Practices in protecting our Sacred Site under Executive Order 13007 the Protection of Religious Sacred Sites. Presently the Site is in great fragile state of preservation and is a proposed World Heritage Nomination inscription and with a ?nal decision on June 2015 by the UNESCO Cultural Fund at Bonn Germany and where our Tribe is protected under the UNESCO Indigenous Human Rights Declaration and our Tribe cites NAGPRA, The Native American Graves Protection Repatriation Act, The Native American Religious Freedom Act and where ourTribe follow protocol with your Agency and timely requested Consultation, submitted commentaries for the Report. is been injured and continue to be inIured by yourAgency FTA under our lndian Religious Practices and Indigenous Human Rights by your Agency the FTA in depraving us under our Indigenous Human Rights, the United States Constitutional Rights under Amendments 5th, the Fourteen Amendment Equal Protection and for you to provide our Tribe with a copy of this Report necessary for our Tribe in the protection of our Religious Sacred Site the San Antonio DeValero Mission the Alamo our Ancestral Land. Our Tribe understands yourAgency the in assisting us to provide us a copy of this EIS hepolt if necessary Report can be re-readed or highlighted. /[Commented [mti]: Our Tribe?in the interest of Justice is asking you assist us in providing us a copy of this EIS Report where this Information will greatly provide our Tribe direct and indirect adverse effects in the protection our Religious Sacred Archeological Site of San Antonio De Valera Mission' El Alamo Archeologicai Historical Cultural Resources. Our Tribe in the Interest ofJustice is in great need of this EIS Report copy. 0u_r Tribe is sending this appeal via electronically email to .c Respectfully, The Pacuache Clan of Texas The Coaguiteca lndian Tribe First Nation San Antonio Missions Indigenous People Mary Torres . Tribal Chairwoman 935 W. Silver Sands Dr. Apt. it 2705 San Antonio, Texas 78216 (210) 483-3879 Cc: National Council Historical Preservation Valerie Hauser. Director of Native American Affairs Chris Wllson, Project Analyst EPA Region 6 Randy Gee, EPA Coordinator of Native American Affairs Elizabeth Patel FTA Historical Preservation Of?cer Nancy Sipes Of?ce of Management Planning From: mansions-a . To: mums; Wit-131; madam Subject: Re: The Pacuaohe Clan of Texas Request?Appeal to a copy of the EIS Report dated August 20, 2014 Date: Thursday, May 14, 2015 1:47:26 PM Attachments: Wanner To the Deputy Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration c/o Nancy Sipes Enclosed please ?nd our Tribe information Request Letter. Please con?rm/reply. Thank you. The Pacuache Clan of Texas Coguiteca Indian Tribe First Nation San Antonio Missions Indigenous People Mary Torres Tribal Chairwoman (210) 483-3879 U.S. Department . 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE of Transportation Executive Director Washington, DC 20590 Federal Transit Administration JAN 1,2?2015 Ms. Mary Torres Tribal Chairwoman The Pacuache Tribe of Texas 935 West Silver Sands Drive o. 2705 San Antonio, TX 78216 Re: Appeal of FOIA request o. FY15-0122 Dear Chairwoman Torres: This letter responds to your appeal of the Federal Transit Adn?nisfration?s (PT A) response to your request for records pursuantto the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, as implemented by the US. Department of Transportation at 49 CPR. Part 7. For the reasons de- scribed below, decision is af?rmed in part and reversed in part. Background On behalf of the Pacuache Tribe of Texas, you submitted FOIA request FY15-0122 on February 27, 2015, requesting the ?Environmental Assessment Report for the Proposed Streetcar Project completed on August 20, 2014 for San Antonio, Texas Bexar County?. The search for records produced an unissued draft of an environmental assessment, pre? pared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for a proposed San Antonio streetcar project. The draft was prepared jointly by FTA and the local~proj ect sponsor, VIA Metropolitan Transit. As a draft, the document was never endorsed or issued by FTA, and has no completion date. The document is written with the anticipation that, had it been issued, a public hearing to discuss the document would have been held on August 20, 2014. Ultimately, no such hearing occurred because the proposed project was suspended and the environmental assessment was never completed. The FTA reSponded to request Y1 5-0122 on March 31, 2015. In its response, FTA stated that a search had identi?ed a record responsive to your request, however is withholding this document under FOIA Exemption The FT 5 response explained that Exemption 5 incorpo- rates common civil discovery priv?eges such as the attorney-client privilege and the executive deliberative process privilege. - Ms. Mary Torres Page 2 You made the present appeal on May 13, 2015. Your appeal reiterates your request for a copy of an ?Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Report conducted by the PTA and dated August 20, 2015? for San Antonio, Texas. . To support your argument that the record should be made available under the FOIA, your appeal also refers to Executive Order 13007, 3 C.F.R. 13007 (1996), which relates to the protection of Native American sacred sites by Federal land management agencies; the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013, which requires Federal agen- cies to restore Native American human remains and funerary objects to Native American tribes; and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 U. C. 1996, which expresses the United States? policy of protecting Native American religious practices, including the protection of sa- cred objects and sites. Applicable Law Under the FOIA, an agency must disclose all records requested by any person, 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3), unless the records sought fall within a speci?c statutory exemption. 5 USE. 552(d). When only part of a record is exempted ?ora disclosure, an agency must dis? close any reasonably segregable non-exemptportion of that record atter deleting the exempted portions. 5 U.S.C. 552(b). Exemption 5 of the FOIA protects from disclosure ?inter?agency or infra-agency? records Which would not be available by law to a party in litigation with an agency. 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5). Courts have incorporated within this exemption common civil discovery privileges, including the ?deliberative process? or ?executive? privilege, which shields ?documents re?ecting advisory Opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which government decisions and policies are formulated.? Dep ?t ofthe Interior v. Klamath Water Users, 532 US. 1, 8 (2001). This privilege serves three primarypurposes: (1) to encourage policy makers to speak candidly with each other without fear that their choice of language will be subject to public in- spection; (2) to prevent premature release of proposed policies before they are adopted; and (3) to protect against the public confusion and the spread of erroneous information that might result from disclosing rationales that were not ultimately the grounds for an agency? 5 action. Russell v. Dep ?toftheAir Force, 682 2d 1045,1048 (D. C. Cir,1982) (citing Jordan v. Dep?t. ofJustz'ce, 591 F. 2d 753, 773 (D. C. Cir. 1978)). Thus, to qualify for protection under the deliberative process privilege of Exemption 5, a docu- ment must satisfy two conditions: it must be inter? or intra?agency in nature, and it must form part of anagency?s deliberative process. The threshold inquiry when applying Exemption 5 is whether the record in question is inter- or inure?agency. For purposes of the FOIA, the term ?agency? refers to the agencies and corporations of the executive branch of the Federal Govern- ment, including independent regulatory agencies, and not to State or local government agencies. 5 U.S.C. 551(1), 552(f)(1). Ms. Mary Torres Page 3 The term ?agency? also includes the many non-Federal experts and consultants Whose docu? ments are incorporated into an agency?s deliberative process, whether those consultants are serv- ing as formal contractors, volunteers, or in certain other capacities. See Klamath, 5 U.S. at 9-11 (recognizing the so-called ?consultant corollary? to Exemption 5). In the particular scenario of a Federal agency cooperatively preparing NEPA documents with a project sponsor that is non- Federal, the non-Federal entity acts as. a consultant to the Federal agency, and the documents passed between them are considered tuna-agency. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. US. Dep ?t of Tramp, 950 F. Supp(holding that documents shared between the Federal Railroad Administration and the California High Speed Rail Authority as part of NEPA process ,were intra?agency for purposes of Exemption 5). The second consideration in applying the deliberative process privilege of Exemption 5 is whether the record in question forms part of an agency 5 deliberative process, i. whether the record IS both predecisional and deliberative. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA, 449 F. 3d 141, 151 (D. C. Cir. 2006). A document 15 predecisional ?1frt was generated before the adoption of an agency policy and deliberative if it re?ects the give-and?take of the consultative process.? Id Generally, information that is merely factual is not covered by the deliberative process privilege because the release of factual information does not expose the deliberations or opinions of agen-' cy personnel. EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 91 (1973) (declining to extend privilege to ?factu? a1 material otherwise available on discovery merely because it was placed in a. memorandum with matters of law, policy, or opinion?). If it is reasonably segregable ?orn protected portions of a record, an agency is required by 5 U.S.C. 552(b) to disclose such non-protected factual material. Discussion The draft environmental assessmentis an intra?agency document. The present situation is the same as that considered by the court inJudicial Watch: a Federal agency has cooperated with a non-Federal project sponsor as required by NEPA to produce an environmental analysis. VIA Metropolitan Transit acted in the role of a consultant to TA, and the communications between PTA and VIA Metropolitan Transit are eligible for Exemption 5. protection as if they had oc- curred entirely within TA. The draft environmental assessment is also predecisional. As stated above, the streetcar project was suspended and the assessment was never issued. The Opinions, policy expressions, and con- clusions contained within the document are, therefore, not agency decisions, but only proposed decisions that FTA may or may not adopt in the future. To safeguard the internal candidness of agency decision-making, to prevent the premature release of unadopted policies, and to protect the public from confusing and erroneous information, the deliberative portions of the environ? mental assessment are entitled to Exemption 5 protection, and denial is af?rmed as to the deliberative portions of the document. Ms. Mary Torres Page 4 However, not all of the draft environmental assessment is deliberative in nature. Much of the document is- a factual recita?onw?of earlier actions taken by FTA, VIA Metropolitan Transit, other agencies, and the city of San Antonio, of the factual results of environmental investigations in the San Antonio area, etcr?that are already publicly known or that could be obtained by the public. The factual portions of the draft environmental assessment do not expose agency delib? erations or agency decisions that could be made based on those facts. To the extent that any por- tions of the draft environmental assessment are factual, rather than deliberative, and can be rea- sonably segregated from the deliberative portions of the document, decision is reversed as to those portions. Conclusion The decision denying your OIA request is af?rmed in part and reversed in part. The de- nial is af?rmed as to the deliberative portions of the dra? environmental assessment and reversed as to any purely factual and segregable elements of the dra??. A redacted copy of the draft envi- ronmental assessment is provided enclosed with this decision. Attorney Claire McKenna has concurred with this decision on behalf of Thomson, the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Transportation. This decision is the ?nal administra- tive action with regard to FOIA request FY15-0122. You may appeal this decision to the U.S. District Court for the district in which the requester resides or has its principle place of business, the district in which the requested records are located, or the district for the District of Columbia. Sincerely yours, Executive Director Enclosure Ali redactions pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b) (5) (deliberative process). Modern Streetcar Project Environmental Assessment Main Text Draft Prepared by: .- U.8. Department of Transportation Federai'Transi?r Administration and VIA Metropolitan Transit This page is intentionally left blank. we} Environmental Assessment -Main Text Draft VIA MODERN STREETCAR PROJECT Environmental Assessment Prepared by: United States Department of TranSportation, Federal Transit Administration And VIA Metropolitan Transit Pursuant to: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 4332 and 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 771 Section 4(1) of the US Department of Transportation (USDOD Act 49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 CFR 774 Robert C. Patrick, Regional Administrator . Date Federal Transit Administration, Region 6 Jeffrey C. Arndt, President/Chief Executive Of?cer Date VIA Metropolitan Transit July 2014 Page I VIA Modern Streetcar Project Environmental Assessment -?Main Text Draft Comments on the Environmental Assessment This Environmental Assessment (EA) for the VIA Modern Streetcar Project (Project) will be made available for comment during a 30-day public and agency review period from August 5, 2014 to September 3, 2014. During that timeframe, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and VIA Metropolitan Transit (VIA) will hold a Public Hearing to provide the opportunity for comment on this document. The date, time, and location of?the Public Hearing are as follows: August 20, 2014 5:00 PM Downtovlm Public Library 600 Soledad Street, San Antonio, TX 78205 A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the EA will be published in the Express-News and La Prensa. The availability of the EA will also be noticed through e-mails and postcards to parties on the Project?s mailing list. The EA, supporting technical reports, and Section 106 of the Nationai Historic . Preservation Act compliance reports, will also be available on the Project's website at: Written comments should be submitted to: VIA Metropolitan Transit 800 West Street, San Antonio,?TX 78212 Attention: Modern Streetcar EA Comments Comments can also be e?mailed to: streetcar@viainfo.net or submitted online by going to: In order for comments to be a part of the Project?s final environmental record, they must be received no later than September 3, 2014. I July 2014 . Page ll VIA Modem Streetcar Project Environmental Assessment -Main Text Draft Table of Contents 1 PURPOSE AND NEED 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Comment Period and Next Steps 1 1.3 Project Schedule - 1 1.4 Study?Area ..1 1.5 Purpose of Preject 3 1.6 Need for Proposed Action 3 2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 4 2.1 Alternatives Development Process - 4 2.2 De?nition of Alternatives in Environmental Assessment 5 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .9 - 3.1 Transportation 1 0 3.2 Land Use 12 3.3 Socioeconomics 13 3.4 Land Acquisitions 13 3.5 Environmental Justice 14 3.6 Neighborhoods and Community Resources 14 Cultural Resources 15 3.8 .Section 4(f) Analysis 16 3.9 Noise and 19 3.10 Visual Resources . 1 9 3.11 Air Quality 19 3.12 Energy and Electromagnetic Fields 21 3.13? Water Resources 21 . 3.14 Ecosystems/Threatened and Endangered Species 22 3.15 Hazardous Materials 2 3 3.16 Safety and Security 23 3.17 Construction-Related Impacts 24 3.18 Secondary and Cumulative Effects 27 3.19 Environmental Permits, Commitments, and Mitigation Measures 27 4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .AND AGENCY COORDINATION 3.3 4.1 Agency Coordination 33 4.2 Public Involvement 33 4.3 Scoping Comments . 3 4 4.4 Environmental Justice 34 July 2014 Page i . VIA Modern Streetcar Project Vie} Environmental Assessment ?Main Text Draft Figures Figure 1-1: VIA Modern Streetcar Regional Setting and Study Area 2 Figure 2?1: VIA Modern Streetcar Build Alternative 6 Figure 3?1: View of St. Mary's Street "Looking Northeast 20 Tables Table 2-1: Build Alternative Bridge Modi?cations 7 Table 3-1: Summary of Section 4(f) Determination .. 18 Table 3-2: Annual VMT and Energy Savings of Build Alternative, 2020 21 Table 3-3: Secondary and Cumulative Effects of Build Alternative 28 Table 3-4: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Build Alternative 29 Appendices Appendix A: References Appendix B: Environmental Constraints Maps Appendix C: Agency Correspondence Appendix D: Programmatic Agreement Appendix E: Scoping Materials Appendix F: Typical Cross Sections Acronyms AA Alternatives Analysis AACOG Alamo Area.Council of Governments AAMPO Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ADA Americans with Disabilities Act AIR Air Improvement Resources APE Area of Potential Effect BMP Best Management Practices BRT Bus Rapid Transit BTU British Thermal Unit CFR Code of Federal Regulations CPS City Public Services CPTED Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design CWA CWA CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act EA Environmental Assessment EMF Electromagnetic Fields E0 Executive Order EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESA Environmental Site Assessment July 2014 Page ii . VIA Modem Streetcar Project July 2014 Environmental Assessment ?Main Text Draft Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Highway Administration . Flood Insurance Rate Map Finding of No Signi?cant Impact Farmlands Protection Policy Act Fiber Reinforced Polymer Federal Transit Administration Hemisfair Park Area Redevelopment Corporation Interstate Highway Limited English Pro?ciency Level of Service Locally Preferred Alternative Land and WatertConservation Fund Migratory Bird Treaty Act Minimum Operating Segment Memorandum of Understanding Miles Per Hour Metropolitan Transportation Plan . National Ambient Air'Quality Standards National Environmental Policy Act National Historic Preservation Act Notice of Availability National Register of Historic Places Nationwide Permit Overhead Contact System Of?ce of Historic Preservation Ordinary High Water Mark Programmatic Agreement Pro-Construction Noti?cation Rivers and Harbors Act San Antonio Housing Authority San Antonio River Authority San Antonio Water System Soil and Groundwater Management Plan Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan State Historic Preservation Of?ce Traf?c Control and Construction Phasing Plan . Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Texas Historical Commission Texas Natural Resources Code Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination ?System Traction Power Substation Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Texas Transportation Institute Time Warner Cable Texas Department of Transportation United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Code . United States Department of Transportation United States Environmental Protection Agency United States Fish and Wildlife Service VIA Metropolitan Transit Vehicle Miles Traveled Page VIA Modern Streetcar Project Environmental Assessment?Main Text Draft 3 This page is intentionally left blank. July 2014 Page iv WA Modern Streetcar Project my Environmental Assessment -Main Text Draft. 1 PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 Introduction The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as the Federal Lead Agency and VIA Metropolitan Transit (VIA) as the Local Project Sponsor jointly prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to assess the potential impacts of the VIA Modern Streetcar Project (Project) In San Antonio, Texas. The Project emerged from a local Alternatives Analysis (AA) that was conducted by VIA In 2013, resulting In a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) that was selected by the VIA Board of Trustees on September 24, 2013. Following Board adoption, the FTA and VIA advanced the LPA into the environmental review phase by initiating the preparation of this EA pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, SectiOn 4(1) of the United States Department of Transportation Act (USDOD of 1966, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as well as other regulatory requirements: The EA brie?y discusses: 1) the need for the proposed action; 2) alternatives to the proposed action as required by Section (42 United States Code 4332); 3) the environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives; and 4) lists agencies and persons consulted (40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.9). 1.2 Comment Period and Next Steps The EA document will be made available for comment over a 30-day public and agency reviewperiod. Following close of the comment period, FTA and VIA will thoroughly consider any comment submitted. Based on information contained in this EA and comments received, will determine whether environmental effects are substantial and warrant preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). If the FTA decides that there are no adverse effects, it will' Issue a Finding of No Signi?cant Impact (FONSI). The determination will be made available to the general public and all who commented on this EA. 1.3 Project Schedule Construction of the Build Alteinative for the initial Minimum Operating Segment (MOS) is to be determined. Implementation of future phases of the Project will be identi?ed as additional funding becomes available. 1.4 Study Area The Project study area is located in the downtown area of the City of San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas, as shown on Figure 1-1 (VIA Modern Streetcar Regional Setting and Study Area). It encompasses portions of Interstate Highway 35 and US. Highway 281, as well as major roadways such as Broadway Street, St. Mary?s/Navarro Streets, Martin/Pecan Streets, Frio Street, Commerce/Buena Vista Streets, Santa Rosa Avenue; and Cesar E. Chavez Boulevard. The Project would serve key destinations in San Antonio's urban core such as the future Westside Multimodal Transit Center, Robert Thompson Transit Center, Lower Broadway, Hemisfair Park, and Southtown. A wide Variety of land uses exist within the study area, including commercial of?ces, retail establishments, tourist attractions, historic resources, parklands, residences, and government facilities. The San Antonio River and San Pedro Creek are two water bodies that flow through the study area. The primary existing transit services in the study area include VIA bus and Primo bus rapid transit (BRT). July 2014 Page 1 VIA Modern Streetcar Project wig? Environmental Assessment ?Main Text Draft Mr Legend: Local Streets A (K Interstate Freeways US. Highways Rivers and Water Bodies I I - I I SIudyArea In I- an I- he i CityofSanAn'tonio 73kt} Bexar County 3" Figure 1-1: VIA Modern Streetcar Regional Setting and Study Area July 2014 Page 2 VIA Modern Streetcar Project IL I ?t Vie} us. FOIA, 5 use 552(b)(5) Environmental Assessment ?Main Text Draft July 2014 Page 3 WA Modem Streetcar Project Vlej} Environmental Assessment ?-Main Text Draft us. FOIA, 5 use 552(b)(5) 2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 2.1 Alternatives Development Process 2.1.1 Alignment and Route Alternatives VIA's early Project deveIOpment included a regional planning study, a feasibility study, and an evaluation of potential streetcar routes. VIA's 2035 Long Range Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2011) deveIOpment, resulting in balanced, multi-modal solutions for Downtown San Antonio and the entire VIA service area. The regional plan, Mobility 2035 (Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 2009), includes an urban circulator for Downtown San Antonio, with Streetcar as the targeted mode. As such, VIA advanced a feasibility study in the Inner-City Rail Streetcar Feasibility Report (VIA 2010), which recommended deveIOpment of an inner-city rail circulatqr using modern streetcar technology. In the subsequent Streetcar Route Evaluation (VIA 2012), VIA.conducted_ a high-level screening of 16 speci?c streetcar routes. Eight alignments advanced for further study and re?nement and were evaluated in the StreetcarAlternatives De?nition, Evaluation and Locally Preferred Alternative (VIA 2014). Based on the results of the evaIuation and input from agencies, public, and key stakeholders, the LPA was chosen by the VIA Board of Trustees on September 24, 2013. The LPA is more fully described in this EA as the Build Alternative in Section 2.2.2 (Build Alternative). With the adoption of the LPA, the WA Board of Trustees?also recommended that two alignment design options be considered in the NEPA process: one along North Alamo Street and the other on Flores Street. These two design options were studied in detail in the supporting technical reports for this EA. Subsequently, the VIABoard of Trustees removed these alignment design options from further consideration, with the Flores Desi ntion eliminated on A- til 29, 2014 and the North Alamo Design Option on May 27,2014. U.S. FOIA, 5 USC 552(b)(5) July 2014 . Page 4 VIA Modern Streetcar Project Illa) 2.1.2 Maintenance Facility Options Environmental Assessment ?Main Text Draft VIA previously evaluated 27 initial sites for a streetcar maintenance facility, the results of which are documented' In the Streetcar Maintenance Facility Site Evaluation Technical Report (VIA 2013). ?Subsequently, VIA prepared a Maintenance Facility Site Selection Report (VIA 2014) that further evaluated three ?nal options for the maintenance facility. The Martin/Medina Option was identi?ed by VIA as the preferred site, due to its proximity to an existing rail line and future Westside Multimodal Transit Center, as well as a compatible location in an industrial area witheabandoned vacant buildings on site. As such, the Martin/Medina Maintenance Facility site and storage track option are evaluated in this EA, as described in Section 2.2.2.5 (Maintenance Facility). 2.2 De?nition of Alternatives in Environmental Assessment U.S. FOIA, 5 USC 552(b)(5) Environmental Assessment -Main Text Draft July 2014 Page 5 VIA Modem Streetcar Project rlgure 2-1: VIA atreetcar ISUIIU Alta-mauve July 2014 Page 6 WA Modern Streetcar Project Environmental Assessment ?Main Text Draft . 1 l" 3? ??lvl??h 3" Parish ?Illa} Environmental Assessment ~Main Text Draft U.S. FOIA, 5 use 552(b)(5) July 2014 Page 7 WA Modem Streetcar Project July 2014 Page 8 WA Modem Streetcar Project was us. FOIA, 5 use 552(b)(5) Environmental Assessment -Main Text Draft I a 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section provides a summary of the environmental resources within the study area, as well as the potential effects and mitigation measures associated with the Project. The following environmental 1 resources/topics are summarized: Transportation* Air Quality Land Use and Socioeconomics?. Energy and Electromagnetic Fields Land Acquisitions* Water Resources* Environmental Justice* Ecosystemsl'l'hreatened and Endangered Neighborhoods and Community Resources" Species (in Land Use and Socioeconomics Report) Hazardous Materials* Cultural Resources? Safety and Security Section 4(f) Analysis* Construction?Related Impacts Noise and Vibration"r Secondary and Cumulative Effects Visual Resources* Additional information can be found in? supporting technical reports for some of these resources, as noted with an asterisk above. These technical reports are available on VlA?s website at: In addition, environmental resources within the Project study area are illustrated on maps in Appendix (Environmental Constraints Maps). July 2014 Page 9 . VIA Modem Streetcar Project we} Environmental Assessment --Main Text Draft Environmental Resources of No Concern The environmental resources listed below were also evaluated. However based on early coordination, scoping, database searches and analysis these resources were not found within the study area or determined to have no or negligible effects. us. FOIA, 5 use 5520: No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative involves projects that would be implemented by others independent of the Build Alternative. Any environmental compliance requirements and documentation would be done .by those agency sponsors. The No Build Alternative would result in level of service (LOS) deteriorations at some intersections due to the implementation of committed transportation projects coupled with population and job growth. ?District Hub?. scenario under the Downtown Service Plan (2012) would improve the existing bus service, and the City of San Antonio?s Complete Streets Projects as included in City of San Antonio's Downtown Transportation Study would enhance the street network. Thetransportation projects inciuded in the No Build Alternative are assumed allowable with existin- and future land uses, zoning, and consistent withlocal plans. U.S. FOIA, 5 USC 552(b)(5) a I 3.1 Transportation 3.1.1 Traf?c U.S. FOIA, 5 USC 552(b)(5) 3.1.2 Transit Existing transit services within the study area include the following VIA bus routes: Bus BRT, Frequent, Metro, Express, Skip, and downtown circulator. VIA's ?eet contains 450 vehicles that consist of diesel, compressed natural gas, diesel-electric hybrid, and electric buses and 104 paratransit vehicles. These vehicles operate along 91 bus lines with 7,080 stops. Most existing bus routes operate within Downtown San Antonio, which is the convergence area for many local transit routes. . . July 2014 Page 10 VIA Modern Streetcar Project my - Environmental Assessment -Marn Text Draft us. 5 use 552(b)(5) 3.1 .3 Parking The City of San Antonio?s Parking Division operates several surface parking lots and garages throughout downtown, as well as enforces on-street parking and loading zone regulations. On-street parking exists within much of the study area. With many large and small businesses directly fronting the study area streets, there is a mix of time-limited parking, meters, loading zones, and other restrictions. Additionally, off-street public parking facilities are found throughout the study area, some of which are privately-owned and operated. Based on the City of San Antonio's website (2014), there are 6,472 parking spaces in surface lots and garages in downtown. us. FOIA, 5 use 552(b)(5) 3.1.4 Pedestrians and Bicycles The study area contains sidewalks and intersection curb ramps for pedestrians. Each signalized intersection along the study area operates with pedestrian signal indications, with the exception of the Montana StreetllH-37 frontage road intersection. The bicycle network is re?ected in the AAMPO's . July 2014 Page 11 WA Modern Streetcar Project Environmental Assessment-Main Text Draft 2009 Bike Map and City of San Antonio?s Bicy downtown San Antonio B-C over 30 in close proximity. . cle Master Plan (2011). A bike-sharing system in ycle) Includes 9 bike stations directly on the streetcar alignment and 3.1 .5 Freight San Antonio has designated all Interstate Highways, US. Highways, and State Highways as truck routes and prohibits trucks from using any other public street exce -t for traveling the shortest uossible cath between these routes and their tn'u orioin or destination. U.S. FOIA, 5 USC 552(b)(5) 3.2 Land Use The study area is heavily urbanized, with a mix of residential, of?ce and retail, hotels and entertainment, tourist destinations, and transportation-related land uses. The predominant zoning designations within the study area in 2013 were Downtown District (33 percent), Residential (10 percent), Industrial (7 percent), and Form-Based Zoning (7 percent). By 2035, the principal land uses in the study area would include Mixed Use 43 nercent Residential 10 ercent and Government! Education (8 percent). U.S. FOIA, 5 USC 552(b)(5) July 2014 Page 12 VIA Modem Streetcar Project Vie)?? us. FOIA, 5 use 552(b)(5) Environmental Assessment ?Main Text Draft The City of San Antonio has adopted plans that are aimed to enhance the study area's potential to serve transit and encourage mixed-use, transit-supportive development. In addition, several neighborhood plans support transportation improvements. oedestrian~oriented development, and/or connections for walkina, bic dim and transit. U.S. FOIA, 5 USC 552(b)(5) Several residential and commercial developments are under construction or planned in the study area because of targeted public investments, orivate sector develo ument . rojects, and/or transit-supportive- land use alans and uolicies. U.S. FOIA. 5 USC 552(b)(5) 3.3 Socioeconomics Population in the study area for the full Build Alternative was 9,979 in 2008 and forecast to grow to 22,053 by 2035 (+121 percent). Employment is expected ?to increase from 56,645 to 77,552 jobs by 2035 (+37 percent). The number of households is projected to more than double from 4,038 to 8,307 during that same timeframe (+106 percent). Details of the analysis of pepulation, employment, and household trends for the study area, City of San Antonio, and Bexar County can be found in the Land Use and Socioeconomics Technical Report. 0.8. FOIA, 5 use 552(b)(5) 3.4 Land Acquisitions Environmental Assessment?Main Text Draft '3.5 Environmental Justice An analysis of possible disprOportionately high and adverse effects on environmental justice populations was conducted, the details of which can be found in the Environmental Justice Technical Report. Approximately 80 percent of the study area population consists of a minority group and 29 percent of the study area population is considered low?income. The study area has a higher percentage of minority and low-income population than the City of San Antonio (73 ercent and 19 3.6 Neighborhoods and Community Resources Approximately 78 community facilities were identi?ed within the study area. including government and emergency facilities, hospitals and clinics, educationai facilities, libraries, places of worship, museums, and theatres. These resources provide services to the region and the 12 neighborhoods the area's overall . uali of life and fosterin- a sense of July 2014 Page 13 WA Modem Str?etcar Project Sixteen parks and one planned restoration area were identi?ed within the study area. Several are urban arks and plazas with passive recreation, but are available for various July 2014 Page 14 VIA Modem Streetcar Project Vie) 3.7_ Cultural Resources The Project is being conducted pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470; 36 CFR 800), as well as the Antiquities Code of Texas (9 Texas Natural Resources Code_ 191). Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended, requires federal agencies to take Into account the effects of their activities and programs on historic properties. VIA is coordinating with the FTA who serves as the Federal Lead Agency to implement the Section 106 consultation process. VIA and PTA have been consulting with the Texas Historical Commission (THC), which functions as the State Historic Preservation Of?ce (SHPO), to complete the Section 106 process. Environmental Assessment ?Main Text Draft In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, agencies, historical organizations, and Tribal Governments were consulted for comments and additional information relating to known or potential historic properties and archaeological resources in the Project study area. In February 2014, the FTA and VIA invited the following parties listed below to participate in the Section 106 process: Bexar County Bexar County Historical. Commission Hemisfair Park Area Redevelopment Corporation San Antonio Conservation Society City of San Antonio Of?ce of Historic Preservation City of San Antonio Historic and Design Review Commission Historic Bridge Foundation 20 federally-recognized tribes identi?ed by the THC known to inhabit Bexar County uidelinesltribal-contacts) The only party that expressed an interest in participating (in the Section 106 process was the City of San Antonio Of?ce of Historic Preservation (OHP) and as such was added as a consulting party. As a consulting party, the OHP was included on all transmittals to the THC and were provided the opportunity to comment prior to ?nal determinations. Three responses were received from the tribes, including the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, Comanche Nation of Oklahoma, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. The Quapaw and Cherokee responded that they did not have any comments at this time. The Comanche Nation determined that ?there will be no effect to historic properties by the proposed undertaking." A full compilation of the Section 106 correspondence can be found in Appendix (Agency Correspondence), as well as on the Project website at:' 3.7.1 Historic Resources The Project?s Area of Potential Effect (APE) for historic resources was de?ned as parcels facing the proposed streetcar alignment and facilities, plus considering the health of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listed historic districts in the study area. The THC concurred with the APE on March 28, 2014. During the reconnaissance-level survey, 364 resources were identi?ed within the APE and evaluated to determine NRHP eligibility. Of the 364 resources identi?ed, 25 were previously listed in the NRHP, 162 were recommended NRHP?eligible, and 177 were recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, since they did not retain the integrity necessary to convey their signi?cance. Eleven Iisted or ?eligible districts were also identi?ed. No traditionally cultural properties were identi?ed within the APE. Details of these above-ground historic resources can be found in the Historic Resources Survey Report (HRSR) and Final Supplement to the HRSR. The THC concurred with the ?nding included in these reports in a_letter dated May 12, 2014. US. FOIA, 5 USC 552(b)(5) a July 2014 . Page 15 WA Modern Streetcar Project Environmental Assessment ?Main Text Draft U.S. FOIA, 5 USC 552 3.7.2 Archeological Resources The APE for archeolcgical resources consisted of the right~of-way footprint for the proposed Project within which all tracks and ancillary facilities would be built. The THC also concurred with the archeological resources APE on March 28, 2014, as found in Appendix 0. Most of the APE is paved or otherwise developed, rendering it inaccessible for pre-construction ?eld survey. The exception was the proposed Martin/Medina Maintenance Facility site, where an archeological survey was conducted in April 2014, as documented in the Martin/Medina Maintenance Facility Archeological Survey. These investigations revealed the existence of the NRHP?elio ible Alazan Ace-uia under an . roximatel 2 feet of ?ll. U.S. 5 USC 552(b)(5) While a pre-construction survey was not feasible in the remainder of the APE, it has been the subject of - extensive background research and coordination meetings with the THC and City of San Antonio OHP. Eight previously documented archeological resources were found within the APE and ?ve within the initial MOS. These resources include the Acequia System, a complex, multi?period, variably preserved water management network, with 18 cotential intersections of the overall APE, and of those, 12 with the initial MOS. U.S. FOIA, 5 USC 552(b)(5) 3.8 Section 4(f) Analysis Section 40?) of the of 1966 speci?es that the Secretary (of Transportation) may approve a transportation project requiring the use of publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge of local, state, or national signi?cance, or land from an historic site of local, state, or national signi?cance (as determined by the agency having jurisdiction over the park, recreation area, refuge, or historic site) only if there is (1) no prudent or feasible alternative to the use of the land; and (2) the project has included all possible measures to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, refuge, or historic site resulting from the use. Use of a Section 4(f) property, de?ned in Section 23 774.17, occurs when: Land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility; July 2014 Page 16 WA Modern Streetcar Project v15)? . Environmental Assessment ?Main Text Draft There is a temporary occupancy of the Section 4(f) property that is adverse in terms of the statute's preservationist purpose; or, When there is a constructive use of land, which occurs when the transportation project does not incorporate land. but its proximity to the property substantially impairs the activities. features, or attributes that qualify a resource for protection under Section 4(f) (23 774.15). The City of San Antonio Department of Parks and Recreation owns and maintains parks within the City of San Antonio. Hemisfair Park property is owned the but administered the Hemisfair Park Area RedeveIOnment Co oration HPARC . U.S. FOIA, 5 USC 552(b)(5) -. I a July 2014 Page 17 WA Modern Streetcar Project Environmental Assessment ?Main Text Draft it; h: '9 Mary- 3 a, .r ALT$?$2an?gu a: .. $35" 3:1" is . 1" fs?QE??M??w . ?wg? I . i July 2014 Page 18 VIA Modem Streetcar Project i my . Environmental Assessment ?Main Text Draft 3.9 Noise and Vibration The noise and vibration analysis (details can be found in the Noise and Vibration'Technical Report) 18 based on the Fl'A?s guidance manual on Transit Noise and Vi ration Impact Assessment (2006),. which presents the basic concepts, methods, and procedures for evaluating the extent-and seventy of noise and vibration impacts from transit projects. Accordingly, sensitive receptors Within a 350?foot screening distance of the streetcar alignment were identi?ed within the study area, resultln - In a total of 133 sensitive rece utors that were evaluated for both noise and vibration. 5 USC 552 5 Long-term vibration impacts were predicted using the ?General Assessment? guidelines to reflect average or typical ground conditions. Existing vibration along the Pro'ect area is currentl affected vehicular roadwa traf?c, uarticularl cars, trucks, and buses. U.S. 5 USC 552(b) 3.10Visual Resources The visual resource inventory and assessment of potential impacts included the evaluation of visual character, visual quality, and viewer response to Build Alternative conditions (details can be found in the Visual Resources Technical Report. Visuall ~sensitive resources within the stud area include several aarks and historic resources. U.S. FOIA, 5 USC 552(b)(5) 3.11 Air Quality The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) develops and implements plans and programs to meet and maintain federal and Texas air quality standards. The TCEQ monitors air quality to ensure that The Air improvement Resources (AIR) Executive Committee of the Alamo Area Council of Governments (AACOG) addresses air quality issues in the region. Based on recent monitoring data, Bexar County is in attainment for all criteria pollutants (TCEQ 2013). The Build Alternative would be located in an area that has been designated by the United States Environmental Protection Aenc USEPA as in attainment for all criteria sollutants. U.S. FOIA. 5 USC 552(b) July 2014 Page 19 WA Modem Streetcar Project Environmental Assessment ?Main Text Draft I I I Exustln- View lookIn- northeast) l??l?itat}: "r?i [rt-2? ..: z, .33er? 1, I- {ii3?ij are; 3?53?Fig-"i . . . .-. ?.94 ?Jr ?h ?pgk?u-v??m h? . m. .. - Photo Simulation fBqud Alternative 0 . 15? ??5sz ?1 L: w! I '3 57!? it 'i is t?l' -. free" 904Jug! 1- .. 1} Figure 3-1: View of Street Looking'Northeast July 2014 Page 20 VIA Modern Streetcar Project v19 Environmental Assessment ?Main Text Draft 3.12 Energy and Electromagnetic Fields, U.S. FOIA, 5 USC 552(b)(5) 3.13Water Resources 3.13.1 Surface Waters The study area is located within the San Antonio River Basin, which drains approximately 4,180 square miles (San Antonio River Authority 2013). Major streams within the study area include the San Antonio River and San Pedro Creek, as shown on Figure 2-1. The TCEQ monitors stream segments for water quality. According to the 2012 Section 303(d) List, both streams San Pedro Creek and San Antonio River are listed as impaired, which do not meet various parameters for water quality. In addition, these two streams are considered jurisdictional by the US. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). us. FOIA, 5 use 552(b)(5) July 2014 Page 21 VIA Modern Streetcar Project Vin/s Environmental Assessment ?Main Text Draft u.s. FOIA, 5 usc 552(b)(5) 3.13.2 Floodplains According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS), 100-year ?oodplains are associated with the San Antonio River and San Pedro Creek within the study area. All water bodies have been channelized with concrete or under existin- streets such as at the northern terminus on Broadway . U.S. FOIA, 5 USC 552(b)(5) 3.14Ecosystems/Threatened and Endangered Species u.s. FOIA, 5 use 552(b)(5) There are no federal-listed species that have potential habitat in the Project study area. The state-listed threatened Wood Stork (Grus americana), was the only state-listed species that had potential habitat in the Project study area. It was also determined that four state species of concern [Guadalupe bass (Micropterus treoulir), Texas garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis annectens), cave myotis bat (Myotis July 2014 Page 22 WA Modern Streetcar Project like} velifer), and ghost-faced bat-(Mormoops could occur in the Project study area. Migratory birds could utilize the Project study area for nesting. Although no migratory bird nests were identified under the bridges during ?eld investigations there is the possibility that species such as the Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon or Cave Swallow (Petrochelidon fulva) couldnest under bridges prior to construction. More information is included in the E003 stems Technical Re 011. Environmental Assessment -Main Text Draft 3.15Hazardous Materials The Project study area contains commercial and industrial land uses where numerous hazardous material and petroleum product facilities were identi?ed with documented affected soil and/or groundwater (details can be found in the Hazardous Materials Technical Report). ?Additionally. numerous other non-documented facilities were identi?ed with the potential to have hazardous materials and/or petroleum products. Twenty-three potential hazardous materials locations were identi?ed with con?rmed contaminant release to soil andlor groundwater within the study area. Of these 24 facilities, 8 are located adjacent to the proposed streetcar alignment under the Build Alternative and 6 under the initial MOS. Five regulated hazardous materials facilities are located on or adjacent to the Martin/Medina Maintenance Facility. us. FOIA, 5 use 552(b)(5) Environmental Assessment -Main Text Draft crosswalks with Si. rovided to enhance the safe for Medestrians S. FOIA, )55) USC 552(b 3.17 Construction-Related lm pacts 3.16 Safety and Security Downtown San Antonio is urban in nature and the streetcar system would share the right-of?way with other modes of transit and emergency responders: Downtown San Antonio is served by public emergency responders that include ?re, rescue, and police. Throughout downtown, street lighting and July 2014 Page 23 WA Modem Streetcar: Project July 2014 Page 24 WA Modem Streetcar Project Environmental Ass?ssment -Main Text Draft Vb?ljr I U.S. FOIA, 5. use 552(b)(5) Environmental Assessment ?Main Text Draft July 2014 Page 25 VIA Modem Streetcar Project July 2014 Page 26 . VIA Modem Streetcar Project Vie} U.S. FOIA, 5 USC 552 Environmental Assessment ?Main Text Draft 3.188eco?ndary and Cumulative Effects 'Secondary effects are de?ned as those that are ?caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Secondary effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the patterns of land use, pepulation density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems? (40 CFR Cumulative effects are de?ned as ?the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively signi?cant actions taking place over a period of time" (40 CFR 1508.7). U.S. FOIA, 5 use 552(b)(5) 3.19Environmental Permits, Commitments, and Mitigation Measures U.S. FOIA, 5 USC 552(b)(5) Environmental Assessment ?-Main Text Draft . Page 28. WA Modem Streetcar Project July 2014 Page 27 VIA Modern Streetcar Project ?Inf 1303 nos spun - mu (m Environmental Assessment -Main Text Draft VIA Modern Streetcar Project Environmental Assessment ?Mafn Text Draft mam VIA Modern Streetcar Project ?mm? ?is: dH?m FIB I . Er .1 359:! no: Alnr 1? 3Mm' ?Wig??w yep-1 ?ow; I Ems: . ?an ma??ig'UHS . r? a .33: . l. $.45im?2 Wm 552(b) (5) July 2014 Page Evy . . {Emma .35 Damn isgmqwa.a?mlwm?hwmv . . kg} Await; . . 1 I. .rlth?x 44.31 1\ Vin.4111. irlan?; . 1 vibe? . .9. L. .1 I mgr?.4. malnwl-r ue .14. . I .r 1.1.0.4.. til a Hillin?llid iin?unn .3451? ?Hum A . .. . .326 LEV we: .0QO .3 Sb gonna: 2328.1 tap?.3" Environmental Assessment ?Mafn Text Draft July 2014 Page 32 WA Modem Streetcar Project Environmental Assessment ~Mafn Text Draft 4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION Coordination with agencies, key stakeholders, and the public has been integral to the planning and development process for the VIA Modern Streetcar Project since its inception. The goal of the public involvement program?is to engage anyone who has a stake in the Project?residents, community leaders, businesses, elected of?cials, local agencies, developers, and advocacy groups. Throughout the Project, VIA has strived to create, encourage, and maintain a dialogue with stakeholders about the planning and design of Project. This section provides an overview of previous efforts and presents the process for coordinating with agencies, public, and key stakeholders as part of the EA. 4.1 Agency Coordination Agency coordination has occurred through data collection efforts, consultation letters, and formal requests for evaluation and input to specific resource t0pics. Appendix 0 (Agency Correspondence) includes a compilation of the agency correSpondence on the Project. The following agencies have been involved in the agency coordination on the Project: Federal . Local 'Federal Highway Administration City of San Antonio, Department of Transportation US Army Corps of Engineers and Capital Improvements City of San Antonio, Downtown Operations/Center City Development City of San Antonio, Of?ce of Historic Preservation City of San Antonio Department of Planning and Community Development City of San Antonio, Development Services Bexar County Bexar County Historical Commission San Antonio Housing Authority US. Environmental Protection Agency US. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Emergency Management Agency State' Texas Historical Commission Texas Department of Transportation, Environmental Affairs Division and San Antonio District - - Texas Commission on Environmental QualityCPS Energy Region 13 and Remediation . . . . . San Antonio River Authority Texas Parks and Wildlife Department San Antonio Water System Regional San Antonio Conservation Society Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Hemisfair Park Area Redevelopment Corporation Organization University of Texas at San Antonio Alamo Area Council of Governments 4.2 Public Involvement Beginning in 2012, VIA began conducting a variety of public involvement and outreach activities for the Project. To date, ?ve public meetings have been held, including one public forum that presented an opportunity for the public to of?cially address VlA?s Board of Trustees with their questions and comments, as well as a public Scoping meeting that was held on March 6, 2014. In addition, meetings in a variety of formats have also been conducted with Project stakeholders throughout the community. VIA has carried out over 100 meetings with various community stakeholders. In an effort to conduct comprehensive outreach, VIA has also utilized numerous tools to reach the public and those not able to attend public meetings. This has included providing information through print, radio, internet, and television media outlets, as well as through social media. July 2014 Page 33 VIA Modem Streetcar Project 4.3 Scoping Comments Environmental Assessment ?Main Text Draft Public agencies, elected of?cials, businesses, civic association representatives, interest groups, and the general public submitted 62 comments regarding the Project during a 30-day Scoping period, which concluded on March 18, 2014. These comments were submitted to a court reporter at the public Scoping meeting and through comment cards, letters, e-mails, written statements, or a combination thereof. Comments related to the following topics: Being able to vote on Project Air quality General support or opposition to Project Utilities Environmental Justice Alignment Economic impacts Vehicles . . Traf?c and safety Existing and future transit service Noise and vibration Costs and revenues Historic resources General information VIA reviewed each statement received to identify the nature of the comment and the comments were taken into consideration in the preparation of this EA, as apprOpriate. A compilation of the public comments is provided in Appendix (Scoping Materials). 4.4 Environmental Justice Full and fair access to meaningful involvement by minority and low?income populations in project planning and development is an important aspect of Environmental JustiCe. Ensuring full and fair access means actively seeking the input and participation from those typically under-represented groups throughout all project stages. Residents can provide important information on community concerns, special sites, and unusual traf?c, pedestrian or employment patterns in the corridor. This information can be used in the design and evaluation of the Project, to avoid negative impacts to valued sites, and support the development of safe, practical, and attractive transportation options that are responsive to the concerns of Environmental Justice communities. VIA has implemented a robust outreach program, with an emphasis on meaningful exchange with minority and low-income populations, as well as populations that are characterized as Limited English Pro?cient (LEP) does not speak English well or not well at all). Of the 11 percent LEP populations within the study area, 10 percent speak Spanish, and other languages spoken were less than 1 percent. Participation of minority, low?income, and LEP populations has been advanced through: Meetings with City of San Antonio and Bexar County agency staff, local elected of?cials, and community leaders to identify leaders of local communities, particularly those traditionally under- represented in the civic process; Availability of Spanish?speaking outreach staff to establish effective communications with . residents and business owners, managers, and workers who do not speak English or have limited English pro?ciency; Translation of outreach materials into Spanish; Meetings with business owners in the study area, including independent, minority?owned businesses in environmental justice areas; and Meetings with neighborhood and minority organizations in the study area. VIA would continue to work collaboratively with business owners and the public to address their concerns. Concerns and issues raised by community members throughout this outreach program have been considered carefully in the development of the Project. July 2014 Page 34 VIA Modem Streetcar Project April 14, 2015 To: FOIA Requester Service Center Federal Transit Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 4th Floor East Building - Washington, DC 20590 - "1 TAD-10 =3 . DUE DATE: Selk/? Contact Information of FOIA Requester: . Randall Pine 601 Jefferson Hills Ct. CASE 3: [?51 Lawrence, Kansas 66044 785-841-7771 Piner@earthlink.net This FOIA request is for copies of all written correspondence, notes, emails, recollections, minutes, policies and procedures, and any other information pertinent to the issue of con?ict of interest and Randall Pine as it relates to his performance as a Triennial Reviewer with JV and as a faculty member of the University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee. Primary sources of information at FTA: John Bodnar, Contracting Of?cer?s Representative (COR) Karolina Starr, Contracting Of?cer Team Lead (CO) Of?ce of Administration ?Acquisition Management This information should include but not be limited to the following items, including dates: Source and content of information regarding the allegation of con?ict of interest, including the name of the complainant. The initial exchange between the COR and CO regarding the? allegation of 001. FTA Policy and Procedures for investigating COI allegations against TR contractors. All documentation from the C0 regarding the investigation into the allegation of 001. All correspondence between CO and JV regarding Pine and C01, from allegation to determination. A copy of Section H, Con?ict of Interest clause included in contracts with TR contractors. - Names of any and all participants consulted in the determination of 001 against Pine. FTA Policy and Procedures for Protesting or Appealing COI determinations. - FTA Oversight Procedures for Triennial Review Contractors. Randall Pine .0 US. Departrnent Head uarters omanspona?on - ?1 . Federal Transit- Administration June 2015 Randall Pine 601 Je?'ersOn Hills Court Lawrence, Kansas Q6044 Our File No.: FY15-0163 Dear Mr. Pine: This letter is in response to your e?mail of April 14, 2015, requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act (F 01A). Speci?cally, you requested COpies of ?all written correspondence, notes, emails, recollections, minutes, policies and procedures, and any other information pertinent to the issue of con?ict of interest and Randall Pine ?as it relates to his performance as a Triennial Reviewer with JV and as a faculty member of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee? This information should include but not be limited to the following items,inmc1uding a Source and content of information regarding the allegation of con?ict of interest, including the name of the complainant. The initial exchange between the COR and C0 regarding the allegation of COI. FTA Policy and Procedures for investigating COI allegations against TR contractors. All documentation ?'om the CO regarding the investigation into the allegation of C01. All correSpondence between the CO and .TV regarding Pine and COI, ?om allegation to determination A copy of Section H, Con?ict of Interest clause in contracts with TR contractors. - Names of any and all participants consulted in the determination of COI against Pine. 0 FTA .Policy'and Procedures for Protesting or Appealing COI determinations. - FTA Oversight Procedures for Triennial Review Contractors? A search of the FTA ?les has disclosed some documents responsive to your request which are enclosed. Personal privacy information has been removed from the documents. We have based these deletions on Exemption 6 of the FOIA, USC 552 . as implemented by the Department of Transportation?s regulations, 49 CFR on the grounds that the release of this information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The persons responsible for this determination are the undersigned and Stephen Pereira, an attorney in Of?ce of Chief Counsel. In response to item one, FTA searched but could not locate any documents responsive to this item. With respect to item 7 in your request, following is a list of employees 'to our knowledge who participated in a discussion of the matter: Name Organization John Bodnar FTA Of?ce of Program Oversight Selene Dalton?Kamins FTA Of?ce of Program Oversight Anthony Foster . FTA O?ce of Program Oversight Sherry Snyder TA Of?ce of Program Oversight James Harper FTA Of?ce of Acquisitions Management Karoline Starr FTA Of?ce of Acquisitions Management Stephen Pereira FTA Of?ce of Chief Counsel Cecilia Cornito FTA O?ice of Chief Counsel Dave Norstrom CI Rodrigo Garcia Bill Vera CDIIDCI To the extent that some of the material is not available, this is a partial denial of your request. If you are not satis?ed with this response, you may appeal by writing to the Deputy Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, East Building, Floor, Washington, C. 20590. It?you prefer, your appeal may be sent via electronic mail to FTA. Anneals@dot. gov. An appeal must be received within forty-?ve calendar days ?orn the date the is signed and should include the FTA ?le or reference number assigned to the request and any information and arguments you may Wish to rely on. The enve10pe in which a mailed appeal is sent or the subject line of an appeal sent electronically should be prominently marked The Deputy Adminisn?atoris determination will be administratively ?nal. Sincerely, OAlgahcy Siges O?ce of Management Planning Enclosure