Changing State Engineering Standards in Maine

Overview

Decision Situation

The Maine DOTʼs process of building and replacing culverts was facing a hurdle due to long biological assessment reviews by USFWS. Approval from the federal wildlife agency is required for all culvert projects in critical habitat due to the need for Atlantic salmon to pass through culverts. With roughly two-thirds of the state considered critical habitat, the Maine DOT required many of these assessments (Maine Audubon Society n.d.).

Our job as leaders is to recognize when things have to change.
—Joyce Taylor
Chief Engineer, Maine DOT

The primary issue was that USFWS wanted increased culvert spans to promote fish passage. The DOTʼs existing policy was to use a culvert that was as large as the full width of the stream or river, while USFWS wanted to see culverts 1.2 times the width of the full waterway. Because USFWS and the DOT disagreed on whether the proposed culverts were sufficient for wildlife needs, approvals were taking months and even years longer than they would have if there had been no disagreements. With 100% of projects needing USFWS review being pushed off schedule, staff and project managers across the Maine DOT were increasingly frustrated at the delays to their project schedules, and contractors were finding it harder to plan their staffing needs.

In the past, the Maine DOT had resisted major changes in their culvert policy due to concerns over cost and the new engineering protocols that would be required with larger culverts. However, the backlog of structural projects held up by ongoing problems was reaching a tipping point. The stateʼs chief engineer felt it was time to consider changing course on the agencyʼs longstanding resistance to change regarding this issue.

How the Decision Was Made

Repairing a Tumultuous Relationship

Joyce Taylor, Chief Engineer, Maine DOT, took a unique approach to finding a solution to the agencyʼs problem: she tasked her staff with the challenge of winning a national award for

environmental stewardship. Doing this would represent “a complete 180-degree flip” from how things had historically been done at the DOT, which was to “fight, fight, fight” environmental red tape. She knew it was necessary to repair the relationship between the Maine DOT and USFWS to break the cycle of critical evaluations, pushback, and project delays.

Taylor began by focusing her team internally to evaluate how the Maine DOT might be contributing to the friction with their federal wildlife partners. This was a major shift in thinking and practice, as anger with USFWS demands had been the primary reaction. An honest reflection showed, however, that there were inconsistencies in how the Maine DOT operated with regard to biological permitting and in how they communicated with environmental stakeholders. The team focused on streamlining how they involved biologists in project reviews and adhering to more consistent processes. After “cleaning up their issues” and having confidence in the Maine DOTʼs new way of operating, Taylor felt ready to turn outward to the agencyʼs relationship with the environmental community, starting with its fellow state agencies.

Taylor led the Maine DOT on a tour of the stateʼs environmentally focused agencies and offices, meeting with staff and leaders to share the DOTʼs new approach to handling environmental issues. Taylorʼs primary goal in this outreach was to get the people on the environmental side of the agencyʼs issues to trust the DOT. For example, the Maine DOT team met with the stateʼs top fisheries person, who had a strong interest in the DOTʼs impact on the ability of sensitive fish populations to reach breeding grounds. They outlined for him all the changes they had made to take a more constructive approach to environmental issues. A very important part of this conversation was when Taylor frankly acknowledged the Maine DOTʼs prior uncooperative stance and specifically assured him of a new way of operating.

At the state level, at least, Taylor and her team were beginning to make progress in building trust and repairing relationships.

Direct Connection to the Issues

When a conflict is clear between two parties, sometimes decision-makers need to be the only ones in the room.
—Joyce Taylor
Chief Engineer, Maine DOT

On the federal front, Taylor came to realize that a direct connection to USFWS leadership was necessary. The large group meetings that typically had been held on this issue frequently became overly deferential, with everyone avoiding the brutal honesty that was needed to address the underlying issues. Rather than sit through more meetings in which the core issues were not

directly addressed, the chief engineer resolved to find a way to have frank conversations directly with USFWS leadership.

Taylor knew that success would require close collaboration with the right people at USFWS, but without a longstanding positive relationship with the agency, she did not know for sure who those people were or how to get a meeting. This is where her campaign of building trust with state agencies provided the solution. It was the stateʼs top fisheries biologist who spoke to USFWS on the DOTʼs behalf. This state-level contact connected the Maine DOT with the assistant administrator at USFWS and assured him that the DOT was serious about finding a constructive solution. This was sufficient to convince the USFWS leader that informal discussions could be constructive, and he agreed to meet with Taylor.

Taylor and the USFWS assistant administrator were based in different parts of New England, but because these were the kinds of conversations that benefitted from face-to-face engagement, they decided to meet halfway between their offices at a DOT-owned maintenance facility. Taylor even began to bring cookies to these meetings to make them more pleasant and build a constructive relationship. The conversations were direct and focused on the main issues each side had. Over time, they were able to work through what would need to change at each agency to break the permitting impasse.

Doing Her Homework

The benefit to wildlife was the core reason for USFWSʼs requested change. However, the chief engineer recognized that there was another substantial benefit to doing what USFWS asked: structures built under the new standards would be more resilient to severe weather events.

As Taylor wrestled with the USFWS approvals issue, the agency was also reviewing data on the impacts of storm and flooding events on the Maine DOTʼs structures and on the increase in storm frequency and severity. With a background in environmental science, she was keenly aware that the increasing intensity and frequency of these events was real and posed a threat. The prospect of culverts better able to withstand more severe storms began to make Taylor increasingly confident that going along with USFWS standards would benefit the agencyʼs transportation priorities in the long term.

A Deal Is Made

After doing her research and coming to an understanding with USFWS leadership, Taylor, with the support of the DOTʼs commissioner, decided to change the bridge and culvert design standards. She knew that there would be backlash on the part of the Maine DOT staff, but she had done enough research and worked through the issues with all parties to the point that she had confidence in her decision. In the end, she reached an agreement with the USFWS assistant administrator: the Maine DOT would widen its culverts across the board in exchange for a commitment from USFWS to get expedited biological assessment approvals.

Decision Reception

A Tepid Response in the Short Term

Maine DOT staff, particularly project and engineering teams, were unsure about the change. “How can you be sure they will hold up their end of the bargain?” skeptical staff asked about USFWSʼs promise of approvals in less than a month. “He gave me his word. I trust him,” was Taylorʼs response, referencing the in-depth discussions and relationship she had built with the USFWS assistant administrator. The leader promised Taylor that USFWS would revisit staffing on their side to ensure there was sufficient capacity for these reviews, assuming there were no surprises in the designs. Because the Maine DOT would give the federal agency what they were looking for by default, Taylor felt confident that this significant degree of streamlining was possible.

There were still concerns about increased costs and the more involved engineering required for the larger culverts. The capital programming team was frustrated because, from their perspective, it looked like the agency was spending money for no reason, as there was no additional improvement on paper for the cost. Contractor teams were upset about having to spend extra time on each project. The DOTʼs commissioner was publicly supportive of Taylorʼs decision, but she still had work ahead of her to see the decision through to success.

Relentless Listening and Explanation

People will make stuff up in the absence of information.
—Joyce Taylor
Chief Engineer, Maine DOT

Taylor believes that coming to a decision prepared, with a strong understanding of the data, is crucial for effective leadership. Research and data equip decision-makers to clearly articulate

the benefits and consequences of their choices. In the culvert case, the chief engineer was convinced that the long-term benefits to infrastructure resilience, coupled with the urgently needed streamlining of the approval process, would more than outweigh the cost and logistical concerns. Convincing her agencyʼs staff would require sharing this information, but Taylor did not set out on a campaign to tout her findings across the agency. Instead, she opened her door to listen.

Taylor could sense the frustration with her decision, and she knew she needed to acknowledge and address this frustration head-on before she would get buy-in. So, she made it clear that she was willing to meet her staff where they were and talk through the decision with skeptical teams. She began approaching people in the hallway or at their desk to ask what they thought of the decision and what concerns they had. She heard them all out.

This listening in turn opened the door to talking through all the reasons why Taylor made the decision she did. She calls this “socializing the answer,” and it involves continuous and direct connection to the staff “doing the actual work.” “Itʼs hard and takes effort,” she says, but in this case and many others, it does wonders to make a tough decision stick.

Vindication in the Long Term

Over time, the benefits that Taylor envisioned began to manifest for the DOT. USFWS not only held up their side of the bargain to get biological assessments finished in a month, but the Maine DOT started getting some approvals in a week. And as the old saying goes, time is money. While the costs looked higher up front, the agency and its contractors saw real cost savings from on-time projects, predictable scheduling, and less staff time spent arguing over assessments. “Environment is never the issue on projects now,” says Taylor.

There were other practical benefits, as well. With the improved relationship and a sense from USFWS that the Maine DOT would do what was right, the DOT found it easier to get approval for special circumstances, such as needing more time to have crews working in the water. Finally, there were resilience benefits when the storms came. When a 500-year storm hit New England in December of 2023, closing roads and bridges across the region, not a single one of the new culverts failed.

Trust is an invaluable thing that can translate into financial savings.
—Joyce Taylor
Chief Engineer, Maine DOT

While there are still those at the agency that do not agree with Taylorʼs decision, the benefits to the DOT have been clear, and any remaining members of the opposition have been willing to follow the new process. Not every decision looks good in hindsight. This one has stood the test of time and proved even better than Taylorʼs early optimistic prediction.