Pilot Testing of the TCAPP Decision Guide and Related Capacity Products: Hoopstick Creek, South Carolina (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

SHRP 2 Capacity Project C39A1 Pilot Pilot Testing of the TCAPP Decision Guide and Related Capacity Products: Hoopstick Creek, South Carolina

SHRP 2 Capacity Project C39A1 Pilot Pilot Testing of the TCAPP Decision Guide and Related Capacity Products: Hoopstick Creek, South Carolina Sean Connolly, Heather Robbins, Chad Long, and Will McGoldrick South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) John Collum and Blair Goodman Wade Tidewater Environmental Services, Inc. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD Washington, D.C. 2015 www.TRB.org

© 2015 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It was conducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program, which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. The SHRP 2 C39A1 project was managed by David Plazak, Senior Program Officer for SHRP 2. The research reported here was performed by the South Carolina Department of Transportation, supported by Tidewater Environmental Services, Inc., and Comprehensive Business Consultants, LLC. Will McGoldrick, South Carolina Department of Transportation, was the principal investigator. The other authors of this report are Blair Goodman Wade and John Collum of Tidewater Environmental Services, Inc. The authors acknowledge the contributions to this research from Sean Connolly, Heather Robbins, Chad Long, and Tracy Miller of the South Carolina Department of Transportation and Gloria Tanner and Calvin Wise of Comprehensive Business Consultants, LLC. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, or FHWA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing material in this document for educational and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from SHRP 2. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this document was a part of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the second Strategic Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.

DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this document are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the authors. This material has not been edited by the Transportation Research Board. SPECIAL NOTE: This document IS NOT an official publication of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the National Academies.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C.D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

Contents 1 Executive Summary 1 Introduction 1 Project Context 2 Scope of Project 2 Conclusions 3 Recommendations for TCAPP 5 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 5 Project Context: Hoopstick Creek 10 Challenges Addressed by the TCAPP Process 11 Project Team 12 Project Partners 13 Proposed Tasks 15 CHAPTER 2 Description of the Project and Summary of Outcomes 15 Task 1: Training 15 Task 2: Agency Workshop 21 Task 3: Agency Coordination Effort 30 CHAPTER 3 Assessments 30 Partner Collaboration Assessment 33 Follow-Up Questionnaire 36 Third-Party Assessment and Observations 38 CHAPTER 4 Recommendations 38 Lessons Learned 39 Recommendations for SCDOT and Partner Agencies 39 Recommendations for TCAPP 44 CHAPTER 5 Conclusion 45 References 46 Abbreviations 47 APPENDIX A Survey Monkey Assessment Results

Executive Summary Introduction The fundamental purpose and goal of this pilot test was to evaluate and propose enhancements to the Transportation for Communities—Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP) collaborative planning tool. The focus was on assessing the tool’s value in providing guidance to help project partners work collaboratively toward environmental permitting decisions for South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) projects. The project team, led by the SCDOT, used the tool to evaluate a proposed bridge replacement over Hoopstick Creek on Johns Island, South Carolina. The project team recognizes that the selected pilot project may be perceived as routine for most transportation agencies. These types of projects account for the greatest quantity of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews and permit applications within the SCDOT. A pilot test of TCAPP on this project is useful because routine projects typically require a disproportionate amount of time in the environmental process compared with large or complex projects. While complex projects receive greater attention and collaboration from agency partners, the SCDOT has recognized the need for improved coordination on projects like Hoopstick Creek Bridge Replacement. Project Context The pilot project used to evaluate TCAPP is a proposed bridge replacement on Bohicket Road (State Road 10-20) over Hoopstick Creek, a tidally influenced creek, on Johns Island, South Carolina, in Charleston County. Bohicket Road, a minor arterial road and scenic highway, is adjacent to sensitive environmental resources, including tidal salt marsh, essential fish habitat, and iconic live oak canopy. The existing bridge measures 60 ft by 33 ft and has been evaluated as structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. The bridge is eligible for repair, rehabilitation, or replacement through the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. The existing bridge and its approach roads do not meet current design and safety guidelines for a minor arterial roadway carrying over 12,000 vehicles per day. The curvature and geometric design of the existing roadway also contribute to poor line-of-sight conditions along Bohicket Road. The proposed project includes replacement of the existing bridge with a prestressed concrete structure measuring 90 ft by 49 ft. A turn lane is also being considered on the new bridge to accommodate turning movements onto Plowground Road and to improve the overall safety of the existing roadway. It is anticipated that a turn lane would improve the safety of the bridge and the Bohicket Road/Plowground Road intersection. The Hoopstick Creek Bridge Replacement meets the requirements of a Charleston District U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regional general permit for highway projects and is being reevaluated in compliance with NEPA as a categorical exclusion. Because of the project’s coastal location, a majority of, if not all, state and federal resource and regulatory agencies are involved in the NEPA and permitting process. 1

Scope of Project The project assessed TCAPP’s value in helping project partners work collaboratively toward an environmental permitting decision on the Hoopstick Creek Bridge Replacement project. The pilot project focused on the implementation of six “decision point files” of the TCAPP decision tool, entirely from the environmental permitting/NEPA (ENV) section. The following tasks were completed as part of the scope of the project. • Task 1. The SCDOT participated in a TCAPP training session hosted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in Atlanta, Georgia. Members of the team who attended the training session presented an overview for the remainder of the team. • Task 2. An agency workshop was conducted to provide agency partners with an overview of the Hoopstick Creek Bridge Replacement project and discuss ENV-3 (Approve Purpose and Need) and ENV-4 (Reach Consensus on Study Area). During the workshop, agency partners also reviewed components of the TCAPP Decision Guide, partner and stakeholder definitions, and where the roles of partners are defined in each key decision point. The TCAPP Partner Collaboration Assessment was conducted. • Task 3. The purpose of the Agency Coordination Effort (ACE) task was to improve interagency communication and collaboration by using the environmental permitting/NEPA section of the TCAPP Decision Guide. Two meetings and a site visit were used to progress through ENV-6 (Discuss Full Range of Alternatives), ENV-7 (Approve Alternatives to be Carried Forward), ENV-10 (Approve Preferred Alternative), and ENV-12 (Reach Consensus on Avoidance and Minimization). Other activities associated with Task 3 included review of the Partner Collaboration Assessment, collection of qualitative agency feedback, and a mitigation workshop. Conclusions Before initiating the pilot project, the SCDOT and agency partners were aware that communication could be improved during the environmental permitting/NEPA process. Applying TCAPP resulted in an increased understanding among the agency partners and SCDOT regarding their roles and expectations for permitting approvals. The pilot project created an opportunity for dialogue among the SCDOT and partner agencies that not only improved the level of environmental analysis for Hoopstick Creek Bridge Replacement but provided insights for process improvements as well. The SCDOT gained an increased understanding of the information required and the level of detail to be submitted for permits, a view of how the decision makers use the information to address concerns, and how decision makers process a complete application. Agency partners gained a new perspective of the processes and constraints that the SCDOT faces when evaluating projects. One of the lasting contributions of TCAPP to the team and agencies is an understanding that communication is key for all projects, all the time. 2

While TCAPP provided a forum to collaborate and exchange information, which increased the spirit of camaraderie among agency partners and the SCDOT representatives, the team encountered challenges in keeping all partner agencies engaged throughout the process. Limited or no participation by some partner agencies may have been a result of reduced travel budgets and personnel, the perception that current communication is effective, and past failed efforts to improve communication. The team found TCAPP to be helpful as a resource during the environmental permitting process; the TCAPP Decision Guide served as a reminder of what steps “should” be done, as opposed to evaluating the project using the status quo. The early project discussion and site visit were useful in reviewing the Hoopstick Creek project and were recommended by one agency as “an example for future projects.” The SCDOT will likely use TCAPP as a guide and resource to facilitate interagency coordination and cooperation when looking to advance a project having significant environmental impacts. Based on the pilot test, the SCDOT and agency partners are considering implementation of the following practices during the environmental permitting process: • Reinstate regular ACE meetings. • Establish effective communication regarding permit applications and submittal process for the common goals of o Decreasing repetitive administrative efforts, o Assembling complete applications, and o Maintaining all laws and requirements. • Schedule regular meetings to discuss consistent submittal deficiencies, updated requirements, new regulations, and the approval processes. Recommendations for TCAPP Evaluating TCAPP was useful for the SCDOT because the tool’s Decision Guide provided structure to the environmental process for routine projects. The project team evaluated key outcomes of each task and provided several recommendations for improving TCAPP. • Key outcome: Frustration with breadth and depth of information on website. o Recommendation: Greater customization based on level of practitioner experience, class of NEPA action, and/or status of project in Decision Guide. • Key outcome: Reluctance to apply TCAPP because current methods already work, time to redesign environmental processes is limited, or the team has extensive experience in transportation planning. o Recommendation: Greater emphasis on TCAPP’s value as a resource when problems arise or projects stall. 3

• Key outcome: In a state where the NEPA/permitting merger process has yet to be implemented, fitting the Decision Guide to the Hoopstick Creek Bridge Replacement project was a challenge. o Recommendation: Include a brief narrative discussion in one of the existing links, explaining that the current ENV/NEPA Decision Guide is designed to be used in the merged context. However, the TCAPP Decision Guide could be marketed as a resource to help correlate the permitting and NEPA steps until an official merger process is adopted. • Key outcome: The level of coordination and meetings to complete the key decision points was too extensive for a routine project. o Recommendation: TCAPP could be customized for application on all NEPA classes of action. However, TCAPP should be marketed to emphasize that portions of the Decision Guide are useful and can apply to routine projects. • Key outcome: Agency partners disagreed with TCAPP-identified partner roles. o Recommendation: Roles may require adjustment to state-specific partner roles as there may not be shared goals among the agencies. • Key outcome: The TCAPP Partner Collaboration Assessment was confusing and did not have analytic capabilities. o Recommendation: Enhanced analytic capabilities and results based on specific collaboration ratings would be more useful. The results provide valuable recommendations but do not adjust to the weaknesses and strengths of the particular partners. 4