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.

Figure 3.4. Overall opinions of shared goals. Figure 3.5 provides overall opinions of the SCDOT and agency partners about sense of ownership for the project. Most of the responses disagreed with the statements of the TCAPP Partner Collaboration Assessment. During the discussion, agency partners expressed that they could not advocate for a project and support stakeholder buy-in. The disparity over shared goals, discussed above, also contributed to the limited sense of ownership. Figure 3.5. Overall opinions of sense of ownership. Follow-Up Questionnaire The work plan initially proposed having partner agencies take a series of the Partner Collaboration Assessments at various milestones in the environmental permitting process. The 0 33 13 32 2 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1 19 9 8 1 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 33

objective was to make a quantitative comparison of partner collaboration throughout the process. However, given the responses from the assessment during the first meeting, the SCDOT wanted greater qualitative input from the partner agencies. A questionnaire was sent to the partner agencies on November 8, 2013. Seven SCDOT and agency partners responded. Figure 3.6 shows the questions provided via Survey Monkey. Coordination and Communication 1) Does your agency encounter problems coordinating with the DOT during the environmental permitting/NEPA process? (Yes or No) a. If Yes, have the 2 previous TCAPP meetings aided communication between your agency and the DOT? (Yes or No) b. If No, how could the DOT improve interagency coordination? (open text) 2) What are the biggest obstacles to interagency coordination during the environmental permitting/NEPA process? (open text) 3) Are there obstacles ok to interagency coordination within your agency? (Yes or No) a. If Yes, please explain. (open text) Interagency Meetings 4) What aspect of the interagency meetings do you believe is the weakest? Why? (open text) a. Strongest? Why? (open text) 5) Does the DOT provide your agency with sufficient information prior to the agency meetings? (Yes or No) a. If No, what specific ideas do you have that DOT can do to improve this? (open text) 6) Does the DOT provide your agency with sufficient time to review materials prior to agency meetings? (Yes or No) Shared Goals 7) What steps in the environmental permitting/NEPA process are most important to your agency? Please rank the milestones from highest to lowest importance. • Purpose and Need • Defining Study Area • Alternatives Analysis • Avoidance and Minimization of the LEDPA • Compensatory Mitigation of the LEDPA 8) Do you feel that your agency’s role in the environmental permitting/NEPA process at SCDOT is clear? (Yes or No) 9) Have the 2 previous TCAPP meetings helped define or clarify your agency’s role in the process? (Yes or No) Figure 3.6. Survey Monkey questionnaire. 34

Results of Follow-Up Questionnaire The questionnaire identified problems with communication and coordination between the SCDOT and partner agencies. Four of the seven respondents stated their agency encountered problems coordinating with the SCDOT during the environmental permitting/NEPA process. Respondents emphasized the importance of early coordination, such as preapplication meetings, to avoid project modifications and issues during the public notice period. The respondents also identified obstacles to interagency coordination during the environmental permitting/NEPA process, including the following: • Time for submittals; • The need to have a representative from each agency at meetings; • Not being able to complete consultation until final plan is presented; • Communicating what each agency needs; • Lack of communication; • Having enough information to provide comments on; • Not receiving constructive comments from agencies during early coordination; • Agency concerns and comments not always incorporated into project designs; and • Not being engaged with resource agencies early in the project development process. The questionnaire asked respondents about potential obstacles within their agency that may limit coordination during the environmental permitting and NEPA process. Only 30% of the respondents identified obstacles, including staff availability and insufficient communication of agency needs, within their agencies. Seventy percent of the respondents felt the two previous TCAPP meetings aided communication between their agency and the SCDOT. One agency stated that the early project discussion and site visit were useful in reviewing the Hoopstick Creek project and “could serve as an example for future projects.” Additional comments stated that using TCAPP helped identify areas in which communication needs improvement. One agency felt that communication with the SCDOT was good before the pilot project and has remained that way throughout use of TCAPP. As noted earlier, ACE meetings with the SCDOT and agency partners have lapsed during the past 2 years. Respondents were asked about the strengths and weaknesses of the interagency meetings. The SCDOT plans to use this information to address weaknesses and expand strengths when regular ACE meetings are reinstated. 35