1. FHWA NDOR Phase V Case Study JUNE 2, 2015 Prepared by: Michael Hughes & Debra Drecksel

2. 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

3. 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

4. - 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

5. FHWA DIVISION FHWA DIVISION DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR ASSISTANT DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR PROGRAM DELIVERY TEAM LEAD ENGINEERING/OPS TEAM LEAD ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST PLANNING, ROW & CIVIL RIGHTS SPECIALIST STATE DOT ADVISORS OHIO MARYLAND RESOURCE CENTER NDOR DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT MANAGER ENVIRONMENTAL SECTION MANAGER ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM MANAGER PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ENGINEER LOCAL PROJECTS ENGINEER ROADWAY 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. SITUATION ASSESSMENT Procedural challenges Timing and sequence Documentation (format and content) Staff turnover and tenure Procedures that are adequately and completely applied to each project

9. SITUATION ASSESSMENT 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. What Contributed To Success CE Agreement Between-Meeting Work State and Resources Center Advisors Agreement-Building Process Meeting Management Lessons Learned Survey

14. What Inhibited Success Outside Workload Differing Interpretation of Law and Regulation Resources Time Lessons Learned Survey

15. 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 Lessons Learned Survey

16. 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

17. 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 Recommendations and Best Practices

18. 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 Recommendations and Best Practices

19. 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 Recommendations and Best Practices

20. 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 Recommendations and Best Practices

21. 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 Recommendations and Best Practices

22. 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 Recommendations and Best Practices

23.  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

24. 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