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.

Weaknesses • Attendance • Need to have a representative from each agency at meetings • Past comments not considered when presenting new projects • Delivery of project information • Receiving constructive feedback • Explanation of why options are not available or viable Strengths • Desire to develop a project that satisfies regulatory requirements • Opportunity for agencies to address information requirements before permit applications The questionnaire also revealed that half the respondents were not provided with sufficient information before the ACE meetings. Partner agencies also felt that information was not provided in a timely manner. One respondent felt that the information provided was used to support a decision already made by the SCDOT without agency input. The SCDOT discussed the possibility of resuming ACE meetings, conducting site visits, and providing information to the partner agencies a minimum of 2 weeks before the ACE meeting. The USACE suggested providing the purpose, need, and location of a project during the initial ACE meeting. If agencies have significant comments about a project, a site visit should be conducted. NOAA Fisheries suggested combining site visits in close proximity to one another on 1 day. At subsequent ACE meetings, the SCDOT will verify that agencies have an understanding of what is to be accomplished for each project. Over half the respondents felt their agency’s role in the environmental permitting/NEPA process at SCDOT was clear. One respondent emphasized that the process would only improve if all partner agencies were involved. Half of the respondents felt that the previous TCAPP meetings helped define or clarify their agency’s role in the process. Third-Party Assessment and Observations CBC was responsible for independent monitoring and attended the workshop, site visit, and meetings to evaluate their success. Meeting minutes were provided to the project team and agency partners following the meetings. Progress reports were provided to the SCDOT and Tidewater for interim feedback on the TCAPP application. During the final meeting on December 3, 2013, CBC provided verbal feedback on how the pilot project was accomplished and the extent of the participants’ involvement. CBC identified the following results of the TCAPP pilot: • Increased understanding between decision makers and the SCDOT with regard to their roles and expectations for permitting approvals; 36

• Increased the spirit of camaraderie among decision makers and SCDOT representatives; • Increased understanding of the specific information required for permit submissions, a view of how the decision makers use the information to address concerns, and how decision makers determine/process a complete application; and • Allowed/encouraged decision makers to view the permitting process from the perspective of the agency representatives. CBC also provided suggestions for future SCDOT and agency collaboration, including the following: • The SCDOT should allow more time for review of permit applications from the approving agencies and submit applications further in advance of actual time required for approval. • Decision makers should provide support to SCDOT and exercise more tolerance with the applicant in understanding regulations and laws regarding submittal requirements, as the applicant may not have in-depth understanding of the regulations. • Decision makers and SCDOT representatives should commit to establishing effective communication regarding applications/permits and submittal process for the common goals of (i) decreasing repetitive administrative efforts, (ii) assembling complete applications, and (iii) maintaining all laws and requirements. • The SCDOT should modify, enhance, and implement the checklist for submittal requirements. • Decision maker and SCDOT representatives should schedule regular meetings to discuss consistent submittal deficiencies, updated requirements, new regulations, and the approval processes. • A peer committee of decision maker and SCDOT representatives should be established to meet and discuss any concerns. 37