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.

CHAPTER 3 Assessments Partner Collaboration Assessment The Partner Collaboration Assessment was intended to pinpoint areas in which existing process or team dynamics were not supportive of collaboration. Figure 3.1 shows the results of the TCAPP Partner Collaboration Assessment that was undertaken by project team members on August 29, 2013, at the agency workshop. The assessment was completed by each attendee representing the SCDOT and several partner agencies. The findings from the assessment mostly affirmed what the project team already knew: challenges existed within the environmental process that inhibited collaboration among the agencies and the SCDOT. Figure 3.1. Results of TCAPP Partner Collaboration Assessment. Review of Partner Collaboration Assessment During the SCDOT and agency partner site visit and meeting on September 27, 2013, Tidewater provided an overview of the Partner Collaboration Assessment results. The purpose of this overview was to highlight areas of consensus and obtain feedback from the agency partners on the results. Figures 3.2 through 3.5 depict the total number of responses in each Likert category •Practitioner Communication Weak •Process Steps •Data and Information •Organizational Support •Tools and Technology •Participant Stability •Role Clarity •Shared Goals •Sense of Ownership Average Strong 30

for the overall collaboration metric. The results of the TCAPP Partner Collaboration Assessment, particularly the Questions to Consider and Things You Can Do sections, were used to facilitate discussion among the SCDOT and partner agencies. Figure 3.2 shows the overall opinions of the SCDOT and agency partners about practitioner communication. Approximately half of the responses strongly disagreed or disagreed with the assessment’s statements about practitioner communication; the remainder felt neutral, agreed, or strongly agreed with the statements. Agency partners provided the following recommendations to improve practitioner communication: • Communicate earlier and more effectively; • Provide adequate time to review information before agency and SCDOT meetings (2 to 3 weeks); • Coordinate site visits at agency request; • Provide project locations to help agencies identify important resources and their need to participate; and • Understand that unforeseen issues may arise during the public notice period. Figure 3.2. Overall opinions on practitioner communication. Figure 3.3 provides overall opinions of the SCDOT and agency partners about role clarity. According to the results of the TCAPP Partner Collaboration Assessment, the SCDOT and agency partners felt that partner roles and responsibilities were not understood by the decision-making group or stakeholders. Confusion over the partner roles identified in the TCAPP Decision Guide may have contributed to the overall disagreement with role clarity statements in the Partner Collaboration Assessment. 7 25 14 13 4 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 31

Figure 3.3. Overall opinions of role clarity. Figure 3.4 provides overall opinions of the SCDOT and agency partners about shared goals. The results diverged for most statements regarding shared goals. Only half the participants felt they shared goals during the environmental permitting and NEPA process. After reviewing the results of the TCAPP Partner Collaboration Assessment, the SCDOT and agency partners discussed their goals during the environmental permitting and NEPA processes. The SCDOT emphasized that its role is to build and provide safe transportation and the ESO’s role is to ensure that the project minimizes environmental impacts. Personnel are never “for” or “against” a project; rather, the SCDOT is seeking authorization from the partner agencies. The permitting agencies (SCDHEC and USACE) indicated that their administrative and regulatory processes are mandated. The USACE emphasized that its role is to examine permit applications and ensure the project will be constructed in accordance with the regulations. When the SCDOT requests guidance on environmental issues of concern or project alternatives, the agencies felt they could not provide such guidance. Despite a lengthy discussion, the SCDOT and agency partners could not agree on a shared goal. 2 14 8 4 2 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 32