fhwa ndor phase v case study june 2, 2015 prepared by: michael hughes & debra drecksel

FHWA NDOR Phase V Case Study

JUNE 2, 2015

Prepared by:

Michael Hughes & Debra Drecksel

The case study will include:

• Project background & history

• Strategies that were applied during the Environmental Conflict Resolution (ECR) process

• Challenges encountered during the ECR process

• What worked well and what did not work well during the ECR process

• Recommendations and best practices that resulted from the ECR process

Phase V - Overview

• Between 2008 and 2014 – concerns in Nebraska regarding environmental analysis and documentation requirements to satisfy federal NEPA requirements for federally aided state or local projects

• FHWA’s Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty (HEP) and the FHWA Resource Center’s technical services team (RC) investigate the concerns

• As part of the resolution process, HEP asked the Udall Foundation’s US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution to provide neutral third-party services for a Joint Project Delivery Action Plan

Background and History

- Strengthen the partnership and improve the relationship between FHWA Division and NDOR

- Develop a sustainable approach to project delivery in Nebraska that:- Ensures Federal-aid projects in Nebraska are delivered

in compliance with all applicable Federal laws and regulations;

- Reduces the duration of the NEPA decision-making set of activities within the project delivery work flow, and

- Reduces the project delivery time for projects requiring Categorical Exclusions (CEs) and Environmental Assessments (EAs)

The Objective of the Action Plan

FHWA DIVISION

FHWA DIVISIONDIVISION ADMINISTRATORASSISTANT DIVISION ADMINISTRATORPROGRAM DELIVERY TEAM LEADENGINEERING/OPS TEAM LEADENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTPLANNING, ROW & CIVIL RIGHTS SPECIALIST

STATE DOT ADVISORSOHIOMARYLAND

RESOURCE CENTER

NDOR

DIRECTORDEPUTY DIRECTORPROJECT DEVELOPMENT MANAGERENVIRONMENTAL SECTION MANAGERENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM MANAGERPROGRAM MANAGEMENT ENGINEERLOCAL PROJECTS ENGINEERROADWAY DESIGN ENGINEER

FHWA HEADQUARTERS

The Udall Foundation’s US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution and its contractor, Hughes Collaboration, served as the facilitation team that provided neutral third party support to this effort

Joint Project Delivery Efficiency Team

I. Situation Assessment Individual Interviews Assessment Report

II. Partnering Six Meetings Survey to Guide Phase III

III. Problem Solving Seven Meetings

IV. Lessons Learned Survey

V. Case Study Final Report

Five Phases

SITUATION ASSESSMENT

Substantive challenges• Complexity of project delivery• Development of a project delivery process

that is efficient, predictable, and accommodates the State’s letting schedule

• Number of projects• Complexity of laws, rules, and regulations• Retaining knowledge, skills, and experience of

staff (in both agencies and consultants)• Differences in policy, interpretation, and

implementation


Procedural challenges

• Timing and sequence• Documentation (format and content)• Staff turnover and tenure• Procedures that are adequately and

completely applied to each project


Relationship challenges

• Focusing on the past• Taking it personally• Questioning intent• Focusing on authority, power, and control• Spillover – to politicians, to higher agency

authority, etc. – in ways that deepen the divide• Thinking of this in epic terms – villain, victim,

hero – and talking about it that way inside your own team

• Maximize the value of the federal funds to the benefit of Nebraska• Efficiency and timeliness• Improve project delivery• Legal compliance• Consider impacts on the environment• Apply avoidance, impact minimization, or mitigation• Project delivery• Professional work products• No more paperwork or time than necessary to meet requirements• Respect, honesty and fairness• Follow-through and accountability• Consistency and predictability• True partnership

Common Interests

Substance• CE programmatic agreement progress• Three levels of CEs• Goal – NDOR making CE determinations for Levels 1 and 2 on

FHWA’s behalf• New guiding documents• CE form and instructions

Process and Relationship• Open dialogue• Working to produce products of mutual interest• Starting to see results• Positive outlook• Sense of teamwork

Phase II – Partnering – What Worked

Substance• CE programmatic agreement• Three levels/thresholds• Level 1 and 2 CE determinations made by NDOR on FHWA’s behalf• Smart form and instructions• Public involvement and EJ procedures• Section 4(f)• Section 106 guidance• Project efficiency improvements

Process and Relationship• Communication, • Confidence in the prospects for the future working relationship

between NDOR and FHWA• Potential to translate partnership to other agencies

Phase III - Problem Solving – What Worked

What Contributed To Success

• CE Agreement

• Between-Meeting Work

• State and Resources Center Advisors

• Agreement-Building Process

• Meeting Management

Lessons Learned Survey

What Inhibited Success

• Outside Workload

• Differing Interpretation of Law and

Regulation

• Resources

• Time


What I Had to Do Differently

• Get past the history

• Don’t look back

• Move forward

• Allow the opportunity for people to change

• Listen

• Respect

• Appreciate all points of view

• Trust that we all will do what we say we will do


Structure

Individual situation assessment interviews

Summary report and face-to-face meeting to confirm the assessment and launch the second phase

Divide the partnering phase and problem-solving phase

Evaluation at the end of each phase

Recommendations and Best Practices

Reflection and Evaluation

At the end of each phase the group had to assess their progress, evaluate the prior phase, and commit to embarking on the next phase

Regular leadership team calls

Individual check-in to evaluate

Continuous reflection and evaluation throughout the year-long process


Breaking with the Past• Look forward• Imagine that others can and will change• Create a future that is different from the past• Build a new way to do things

• New CE agreement• New way to process level-1 and level-2 projects• New tools for project review

• Use the opportunity to create a new, productive working relationship


Moving to Mutual Gain

Moving away from right or wrong

Meeting environmental compliance requirements and having NDOR make CE determination on FHWA’s behalf are complementary and simultaneous

Eliminating backward-looking discussion about who had been right and who had been wrong


Eliminating the Discord

Take an affirmative approach

Search for what will work in the future

Discord persists because we refuse to hear anything else

Listen only for the harmony


Outside Catalysts

State DOT advisors

FHWA resource center staff

Outside meeting management

Provided Reality checks Advice to try, test and rely on continuous improvement Simplified views of legal and regulatory requirements Freedom to focus on the project delivery improvements

instead of the partnering and problem-solving process


Move Quickly to Capture the Momentum

Set realistic timelines

Set measurable goals

Commit sufficient time, talent, and experience

Move quickly

Do things differently right now


Set measureable goals

Commit the necessary resources

Get outside assistance

Work to change fundamentally both project

delivery and the working relationship

Recommendation to Other States

True partnership requires looking forward, communicating carefully, and working to respect all points of view

True partners move away from who’s right and who’s wrong and focus on building something new that serves the needs of both

The NDOR-FHWA partnership produced mutual gain –making CE review simultaneously more compliant and more efficient

Agreements have to lock in – institutionalize the agreement through a set of implementing processes and procedures, forms, and instructions

It is possible to redraw responsibilities and change the way NEPA processes and project delivery are conducted in Nebraska

Conclusion

fhwa ndor phase v case study june 2, 2015 prepared by: michael hughes & debra drecksel

Documents