Annual report of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program

              ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM 2010-2 11 ANNUAL REPORT
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Dee Freeman, Secretary Beverly Perdue, Governor Michael Ellison, Deputy Director
This annual report is designed as primarily an electronic
document. It features interactive applications using Web
technologies that will invite reader participation in EEP's
work. Front Cover: EEP's Needmore Tract High Quality
Preservation Site and Wildlife Resources Game Land.
Photo by Hal Bryson. Back Cover: EEP's Crooked Creek
#2 Wetland Restoration Site. Photo by Deborah Amaral.
The mission of
the Ecosystem
Enhancement
Program (EEP)
is to restore
and protect
North Carolina’s
natural resources
for future
generations
while supporting
responsible
economic
development.
click
for
more >
Executive Summary
Key Developments
Continuous Improvement Initiatives and Program Partnerships
EEP In-Lieu Fee Programs
EEP Watershed Planning and Mitigation Projects
Watershed Planning
Property Acquisition
Project Implementation
Monitoring and Closeout
Stream and Wetland Programs
Long-Term Stewardship
Program Financial Information
Finanical Status of Program Funds
Project Costs
Contracts and Expenditures
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program
Program Inventory and Compliance
Actual Cost Method
Project Analysis
Annual Report Feedback
Nutrient Offset Mitigation Program
Appendices
Summary Remarks and Future Direction
3
5
7
12
15
18
19
18
20
20
15
32
35
32
21
26
27
21
31
37
36
39
40
Table of Contents (click below to select sections)
Executive Summary
Key Developments
EEP In-Lieu Fee Programs
Continuous Improvement and Program
Partnerships
EEP Watershed Planning and Mitigation
Projects
Watershed Planning
Property Acquisition
Project Implementation
Monitoring and Closeout
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program
Long-Term Stewardship
Program Financial Information
Finanical Status of Program Funds
Project Costs
Contracts and Expenditures
Nutrient Offset Mitigation Program
Program Inventory and Compliance
Stream and Wetland Programs
Project Analysis
Annual Report Feedback
Appendices
Summary Remarks and Future Direction
Actual Cost Method
Table of Contents
3
The N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program, now in its eighth year of restoring,
enhancing and preserving the state’s streams, wetlands and streamside buffers, is
an initiative within the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR). Its mission is to improve the environment and, by design, also facilitate
responsible economic development. EEP works where the need has been
identified to be the greatest through watershed planning, and collaborates with local
and state partners including willing landowners.
The N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and other developers voluntarily
use EEP as a compensatory-mitigation provider to move their projects forward in a
timely and affordable manner. EEP continues to partner successfully with the
federal, state and local governments, contractors, willing landowners and others to
provide high-quality mitigation. This vital work is achieved by outsourcing project
design, construction and monitoring to private-sector partners. During FY 2010-11,
the program paid $24,642,580.45 to private mitigation companies, design firms and
construction contractors.
As described in the following section on Key Developments, several important
events occurred this past year. These include: a change in leadership for the
program with the retirement of founding director Bill Gilmore; the enactment of new
legislation affecting local government access to EEP’s mitigation programs, and
specifying a procurement hierarchy for the outsourcing undertaken to secure
mitigation credits; and the implementation of EEP’s new operating instrument,
formally approved in July 2010.
During FY 2010-11, EEP continued to see declines in activity for all of its mitigation
programs. These declines are attributable to the current economic conditions and
state legislation that promotes the purchase of credits from mitigation banks when
they are available. Data that inform the relative influence of these factors on the
measured declines are not available to EEP at this time, but the declines have been
most pronounced in the Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset in-lieu fee programs.
While it is difficult to predict how program use will trend into the future, in the near
term EEP expects activity to remain low. Localized increases in places such as the
Jordan and Falls Lake management areas, where new regulatory requirements are
in effect, may occur.
This year’s Annual Report highlights program improvements made during FY 2010-
11. In particular, EEP has:
• Worked with NCDENR to establish a Science Advisory Panel on Aquatic
Resource Restoration that will help integrate the best available science
into the work conducted by EEP and other mitigation providers in North
Carolina;
• Improved financial transparency by sharing all contracts and receipts data
online;
• Reduced the overall time to process contracts by an average of 35 days;
• Established a mechanism during its strategic planning process to program
the purchase of credits from mitigation banks;
• Reorganized operations for enhanced efficiency and effectiveness; and
• Launched a new interactive web portal with improved program
information, including a new interactive map where visitors can view
projects on a statewide map and examine project changes over time, as
well as access reports and documents associated with individual projects.
Executive Summary
ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM 2010-4 11 ANNUAL REPORT
Also during FY 2010-11:
• EEP’s project inventory reached 582 projects in various stages of development, with 500 projects (86 percent)
in post-construction phases of monitoring or long-term stewardship. The majority (54 percent) of restoration
projects implemented by EEP are located in geographic targets developed through watershed planning.
• Regulatory compliance remained very high in EEP’s In-Lieu Fee (ILF) programs, ranging from 98 to 100
percent compliance for streams and wetlands.
• EEP remained a national leader in establishing successful mitigation credits in advance of permitted impacts
– more than 800,000 stream credits and more than 10,000 wetland credits.
• Monitoring statistics show that 95 percent of all projects are successfully meeting regulatory criteria.
• EEP updated the River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) plans for the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico and White Oak
River basins.
• EEP continued development of six local watershed plans, with 29 having been completed.
• EEP completed another year without any reportable safety incidents, bringing the total to 988 consecutive days
without work-related injury.
• The State Property Office closed on 32 transactions to acquire 657 acres of easements or property for EEP
preservation and restoration projects. Another 30 transactions (primarily temporary construction easements)
were also completed by the SPO in support of EEP restoration projects.
• Although no stream or wetland projects were closed out (i.e., regulatory agency final approval and validation of
mitigation credits generated) during FY 2010-11, 51 stream and wetland sites met all final regulatory
criteria and were closed out in August 2011. Some of these projects also included buffer assets, and
six projects with buffer and/or nutrient assets closed out during the fiscal year. The closed-out projects are
included in this Annual Report.
• Since 1996, 49,440 acres have been purchased by or donated to EEP and its predecessor, the Wetlands
Restoration Program. These properties will be protected in perpetuity.
During FY 2010-11, EEP extended its record of carrying out its mission without a single transportation-project delay
because of a lack of mitigation. EEP has assisted NCDOT in moving forward nearly $8 billion in transportation-infrastructure
improvements since its founding in 2003.
This year’s Annual Report builds upon continuing efforts to improve the program’s reporting and provide greater
understanding about EEP. While it is intended to satisfy all reporting requirements as defined in G.S. 143-214.13 and
as associated with program operating agreements, it is also meant to support the information needs of interested
parties. The report has been developed to function best as an interactive, web-based document, and a limited number
of hard copies will be produced.
This document continues the practice established last year of supplying an online Annual Report Feedback Survey for
readers. Last year’s survey responses indicated that readers approved of embedded hyperlinks that lead to other
information pertinent to the subject at hand, and expressed the desire for more photos of EEP’s work. In general,
readers found that adjustments to the reports in recent years have improved comprehension of the program; however,
because of the complexity of mitigation programs, readers may wish to consult the program’s web portal for further
information.
EEP anticipates continued progress in the year ahead on providing a more holistic approach to mitigation – facilitating
the delivery of watershed planning-based projects that help to drive the state’s economy, and restoring, enhancing and
protecting the state’s wetlands, waterways and natural areas for future generations.
Approved by:
__________________________ ___________________
Michael Ellison, Deputy Director Date
Executive Summary
Key Developments
EEP In-Lieu Fee Programs
Continuous Improvement and Program
Partnerships
EEP Watershed Planning and Mitigation
Projects
Watershed Planning
Property Acquisition
Project Implementation
Monitoring and Closeout
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program
Long-Term Stewardship
Program Financial Information
Finanical Status of Program Funds
Project Costs
Contracts and Expenditures
Nutrient Offset Mitigation Program
Program Inventory and Compliance
Stream and Wetland Programs
Project Analysis
Annual Report Feedback
Appendices
Summary Remarks and Future Direction
Actual Cost Method
Table of Contents
Signatories to the In-Lieu Fee Mitigation Instrument 5
EEP Director Gilmore Retires
A decade after helping to conceive of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program and
ultimately spearheading its operations for eight years, EEP Director Bill Gilmore retired
from state government on
June 30, 2011.
Gilmore compiled 25
combined years of service to
the state at both EEP and the
N.C. Department of
Transportation. While his
tenure as director of EEP
technically began with the
program’s founding in July
2003, Gilmore also served on
the interagency team that
formulated EEP in the early
part of the last decade.
Under his guidance, EEP won numerous national and state awards for innovation and
environmental excellence. Gilmore himself was a two-time recipient of the
Commander’s Award for Public Service from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District (an original sponsor of EEP along with NCDENR and NCDOT),
and he also received the Order of the Long Leaf Pine from Gov. Bev Perdue on his
final day at EEP, one of the highest honors that a sitting governor can bestow on a
North Carolinian.
receives Order of the Long Leaf Pine from NCDENR Secretary Dee Freeman
Implementation of new federal mitigation rule
During Fiscal Year 2010-11, EEP began operating under the provisions of EEP’s new
In-Lieu Fee Mitigation Instrument executed on July 28, 2010. The agreement was
developed and entered into to comply with the 2008 federal mitigation rule.
The new instrument enhanced EEP’s watershed planning approach to mitigation using
a new framework to guide development of plans, modified how credits from projects
are derived and how mitigation requirements are satisfied. The instrument, however,
did not change the advanced timelines and goals for providing successful in-the-ground
mitigation years before NCDOT impacts. Pursuant to the new operating
agreement, this Annual Report includes information on the status and utilization of
advance credits as defined by federal rules. In addition, the report revamps the section
on program costs to break down financial data by expenditure type, as prescribed in
EEP’s instrument.
Retiring Director Gilmore
Key Developments in FY 2010-11
ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM 2010-6 11 ANNUAL REPORT
Implementing Session Law 2011-343
On June 17, 2011 the N.C. General Assembly passed Session Law 2011-343, broadening the effects of Session Law
2009-337 and limiting most local governments from accessing EEP’s ILF programs when mitigation credits are
available from private mitigation banks. The law also developed a preference hierarchy for how EEP outsources and
contracts new mitigation procurement.
In July, NCDENR updated an implementation document originally developed in 2009 to respond to S.L 2009-337 to
address provisions in S.L. 2011-343 regarding local governments. The 2011 legislation went through numerous
modifications after being introduced, particularly on provisions addressing how EEP will procure mitigation credits from
private-sector companies. NCDENR did not oppose the legislation in its final form but had concerns about its effect on
local governments, which had been specifically exempted from similar provisions in earlier legislation.
Actual Cost Method Implemented for Nutrient Offset Fees
In FY 2010-11, EEP began implementing the Actual Cost Method (ACM) to set fees for the Nutrient Offset Program.
The rule changes were approved by the N.C. Environmental Management Commission on July 15, 2010, and the N.C.
Rules Review Commission on Aug. 19, 2010. The ACM, developed with involvement of stakeholders, compiles all of
the program's receipt and cost data, including administrative and project costs, to accurately calculate the program's
actual costs per credit. Using a new database that categorizes and stores all cost data, EEP calculates actual costs
per-unit nutrient reduction for the program on a quarterly basis. An adjustment factor is used in the calculation if the
program's total costs exceed receipts, which ensures that sufficient receipts are collected to pay the full cost of the
program. Fees were changed once during FY 2010-11 and again at the beginning of FY 2011-12. For more detailed
information about the ACM, see the end of the Program Financial Information section of this report, as well as
additional information available online.
Nutrient Offset Fees at End of FY 2010-2011
(before annual recalculation of rates)
Executive Summary
Key Developments
EEP In-Lieu Fee Programs
Continuous Improvement and Program
Partnerships
EEP Watershed Planning and Mitigation
Projects
Watershed Planning
Property Acquisition
Project Implementation
Monitoring and Closeout
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program
Long-Term Stewardship
Program Financial Information
Finanical Status of Program Funds
Project Costs
Contracts and Expenditures
Nutrient Offset Mitigation Program
Program Inventory and Compliance
Stream and Wetland Programs
Project Analysis
Annual Report Feedback
Appendices
Summary Remarks and Future Direction
Actual Cost Method
Table of Contents
7
With support and guidance from NCDENR leadership in FY 2010-11, EEP sought to
identify and implement modifications to existing processes, as well as to institute new
initiatives that improve program outcomes. In addition, the program continued to foster
key partnerships that magnify the effects of its projects. This section provides
information on initiatives undertaken during the fiscal year and highlights examples of
partnerships that are generating on-the-ground improvements to the state’s
environment.
New Initiatives for Efficiency and Effectiveness
In October 2010, EEP announced four initiatives designed to refine and improve
program operations and data sharing. Each of the initiatives is described in more
detail below.
Science Advisory Panel
The first initiative, formation of the NCDENR Science Advisory Panel on Aquatic
Resource Restoration, led to an inaugural meeting in April 2011. The nine-member
panel represents a breadth of expertise in a variety of disciplines relevant to the types
of projects implemented by EEP, and is intended to:
• Ensure that pertinent results of recent scientific studies are considered in
the selection and implementation of restoration projects;
• Support the development and execution of research projects that further
best practices for conservation and restoration projects; and
• Provide technical expertise and input on issues related to aquatic resources
restoration and management (i.e., watershed planning and project selection;
project implementation; and data management and analysis).
During its first meeting the group identified a number of possible issues that it may
consider going forward, especially project goals, measures of success, and site
selection criteria. Information on the meetings of the panel and its composition are
available on EEP’s web portal.
NCDENR Science Advisory Panel convenes, April 21, 2011
Continuous Improvement Initiatives
and Program Partnerships
ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM 2010-8 11 ANNUAL REPORT
A screenshot of EEP's new Financial Dashboard
designed to increase transparency of program finances
Improving Financial Transparency
As an outgrowth of a University of North Carolina School of Government report on EEP operations in May 2010 that
evaluated EEP mitigation procurement methods, EEP has taken significant strides towards increasing transparency,
especially as it relates to program finances. All data related to receipts and contract awards are available in summary
and detailed form through EEP’s web portal. Visitors may browse the information or download data and conduct
individualized analyses. EEP intends to continue to add new features to its web portal to continuously improve
information-sharing with interested parties.
Expediting Contracts and Amendments
Also related to the UNC School of Government report, and as part of ongoing collaboration with private-sector partners,
EEP has worked to reduce processing times for contracts and contract amendments to increase the production and
efficiency of contract administration. As a result of this initiative, overall processing time for contract administration has
been reduced by an average of 35 days. EEP is continuing to work with the N.C. Department of Administration and the
NCDENR Division of Purchase and Services to improve current procedures and develop new procurement methods
that better serve the program’s outsourcing needs.
Bank Programming Initiative
In the fall of 2010, EEP initiated an effort focused on more deliberately seeking to purchase available mitigation-bank
credits to satisfy mitigation requirements for which EEP is responsible. As part of this effort, EEP surveyed private
companies involved with the development and establishment of mitigation banks on the type and location of available
mitigation credits. This information is considered when EEP is determining the best approach to securing credits from
the private sector to satisfy state and federal mitigation requirements.
Executive Summary
Key Developments
EEP In-Lieu Fee Programs
Continuous Improvement and Program
Partnerships
EEP Watershed Planning and Mitigation
Projects
Watershed Planning
Property Acquisition
Project Implementation
Monitoring and Closeout
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program
Long-Term Stewardship
Program Financial Information
Finanical Status of Program Funds
Project Costs
Contracts and Expenditures
Nutrient Offset Mitigation Program
Program Inventory and Compliance
Stream and Wetland Programs
Project Analysis
Annual Report Feedback
Appendices
Summary Remarks and Future Direction
Actual Cost Method
Table of Contents
9
Reorganization and Changes in Leadership
In early 2011, leadership within NCDENR and EEP reorganized the program’s
organizational structure and made strategic operational adjustments to improve overall
efficiency and effectiveness. Key components of these changes included:
• A predominant emphasis on securing mitigation credits through the purchase
of credits from existing banks and use of full-delivery contracts.
• Improving project continuity by maintaining the same project manager and
consultant team throughout the life of a project.
• Utilization of matrix-management techniques to establish work teams that
promote project-focused management and communication, and ensure
that expertise from all areas within the organization are utilized optimally
on each project.
As a result, EEP’s primary organizational sections were modified and redefined as
Project Management; Science and Analysis; Contracts, Plan Review and Permitting;
Asset Management and Reporting; and Planning and Property.
FY 2010-11 also brought two major changes to EEP’s organizational leadership: Along
with the retirement of founding Director Bill Gilmore, the newly created position of
deputy director was filled with the hiring of Michael Ellison. Ellison led the
organizational restructuring and brings more than 20 years of experience in private-sector
mitigation work to the post.
New interactive map on new web portal
New Web Portal
EEP continued an emphasis on improved online interactivity with the launch of a new
interactive web portal in April 2011. The site is designed to bring greater functionality
for sharing information with EEP’s customers and partners, including an upgraded
interactive map that displays EEP mitigation projects across the state and over time,
and allows users to link directly to project data, documents and watershed plans.
Visitors to the web portal are encouraged to submit comments and feedback at
various locations throughout the site.
ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM 2010-10 11 ANNUAL REPORT
Program Partnerships
EEP has found invaluable its partnerships with government agencies, private landowners, environmental organizations
and private-sector contractors to accomplish program goals. In recent years, for example, EEP has improved and
strengthened its association with private-sector colleagues through enhanced coordination with trade associations
such as the N.C. Environmental Restoration Association and the American Council of Engineering Companies/North
Carolina.
Collaboration with these
organizations has led to
several program
enhancements, many of
which are described in this
and previous reports. EEP
will continue regular
interactions with these
organizations and will also
coordinate further with the
N.C. Association of
Environmental Professionals.
EEP’s work on watershed
planning and project
implementation involves
cooperation and teamwork
with a variety of partners
across the state. The
program has recently begun
spotlighting particular
examples on its web portal
where partnerships are
working to magnify the
beneficial effects of
compensatory mitigation as
practiced by EEP.
Of particular note in FY 2010-
11 is EEP’s participation in
NCDENR’s Watershed
Restoration Improvement
Team, a collaborative effort
that focuses the department’s
resources in priority
watersheds across the state.
The initiative is focusing on
the Indian Creek watershed,
part of Indian and Howards
Creek Local Watershed Plan
developed by EEP in October
2010.
Through this collaboration,
multiple state and local
partners including EEP, the
N.C. Division of Environmental Health, the N.C. Division of Water Quality and the Lincoln County Soil and Water
Conservation District and Lincoln County government are contributing time and resources to implement watershed
management recommendations. The initiative provides support for grant funding and water-quality monitoring and is
developing strategies to document uplift provided by cooperative watershed-improvement projects.
Indian and Howards Creeks LWP Project Prioritization Results
Executive Summary
Key Developments
EEP In-Lieu Fee Programs
Continuous Improvement and Program
Partnerships
EEP Watershed Planning and Mitigation
Projects
Watershed Planning
Property Acquisition
Project Implementation
Monitoring and Closeout
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program
Long-Term Stewardship
Program Financial Information
Finanical Status of Program Funds
Project Costs
Contracts and Expenditures
Nutrient Offset Mitigation Program
Program Inventory and Compliance
Stream and Wetland Programs
Project Analysis
Annual Report Feedback
Appendices
Summary Remarks and Future Direction
Actual Cost Method
Table of Contents
11
In-Lieu Fee Customer Satisfaction Survey
EEP’s ILF Program customers again registered overall satisfaction with the program’s
performance and fee schedule in the FY 2010-11 customer-satisfaction survey. Survey
questions can be found in Appendix A-1.
Of the 32 responses received in the online survey, 100% were satisfied and more than
60 percent responded that they were extremely satisfied. Almost 40 percent of
participants responded that the fee paid was very reasonable, and that it would have
cost more to do the mitigation without using the program. The survey results are
presented in detail in Appendix A-2.
When asked why they chose to use the program, the most frequent response was that
it was simply more convenient to pay the fee and let EEP provide the mitigation;
however, about one-third of the respondents also indicated that they were in need of
rapid permit approval, and similarly, about one-third indicated that they were not
equipped to provide the mitigation that was required.
All respondents agreed that they would use or recommend that their clients use the ILF
Program in the future. Comments received from the survey respondents praised EEP
staff for being timely, professional, courteous, helpful, knowledgeable and responsive,
and EEP as being “business friendly.”
In-Lieu Fee Program participants choose to pay the fee
and let EEP provide the mitigation
ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM 2010-12 11 ANNUAL REPORT
EEP has four separate ILF mitigation programs, each operating independently and maintaining its own financial fund
accounts under which revenues are collected, expenditures are made and funds are encumbered toward contracts for
the planning and delivery of mitigation projects. EEP does not receive any appropriations from the General Assembly.
EEP’s ILF programs include:
1) NCDOT Stream and Wetland;
2) Statewide Stream and Wetland;
3) Riparian Buffer Mitigation; and
4) Nutrient Offset.
Eligibility to participate in an EEP program is a joint decision made by the developer, EEP and the regulatory agencies
(legislative mandates in recent years have affected eligibility in various ways for participation in EEP’s ILF programs).
In each of the mitigation programs, applicants make payments to EEP instead of providing mitigation themselves.
Upon payment, EEP assumes the full legal responsibility for planning, developing and implementing the required
types and amounts of mitigation, and applicants are no longer liable for the mitigation requirement.
Ecosystem Enhancement Program Customers
EEP In-Lieu Fee Programs
Executive Summary
Key Developments
EEP In-Lieu Fee Programs
Continuous Improvement and Program
Partnerships
EEP Watershed Planning and Mitigation
Projects
Watershed Planning
Property Acquisition
Project Implementation
Monitoring and Closeout
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program
Long-Term Stewardship
Program Financial Information
Finanical Status of Program Funds
Project Costs
Contracts and Expenditures
Nutrient Offset Mitigation Program
Program Inventory and Compliance
Stream and Wetland Programs
Project Analysis
Annual Report Feedback
Appendices
Summary Remarks and Future Direction
Actual Cost Method
Table of Contents
13
NCDOT Stream and Wetland Program
The NCDOT Stream and Wetland Program has been a national leader in producing
mitigation credits in advance of unavoidable environmental impacts, which is the primary
objective of the program. The goal is to produce sufficient mitigation credits to offset
impacts from the implementation of the entire NCDOT seven-year Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) in advance of the permitting phase of those roadway
projects. By 2015 mitigation projects will be designed, constructed and monitored for at
least two years prior to the letting of any specific TIP project. To date, the NCDOT
Stream and Wetland Program has more than 790,000 stream credits and more than
8,500 wetland credits ready to use for future NCDOT projects that are already
programmed.
The NCDOT Stream and Wetland Program historically operated under the 2003
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among NCDENR, NCDOT and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE). In 2010, the program began operating under the In-Lieu Fee
Mitigation Instrument. Both documents outline the procedures for NCDOT’s utilization of
EEP as an ILF program for NCDOT’s offsite stream and wetland mitigation needs, and
specifies performance metrics for the delivery of that mitigation.
Each February, NCDOT provides EEP with a programmatic mitigation order by
forecasting NCDOT’s future impacts and mitigation needs for the TIP. EEP secures the
mitigation needed by NCDOT following the timelines and protocols outlined in the 2003
MOA and 2010 Instrument.
In FY 2010-11, EEP received permits for 36 NCDOT transportation projects that required
stream and/or wetland mitigation to offset impacts associated with TIP and NCDOT
division-level projects across the state. Due to the scope, scale and advanced nature of
the NCDOT Stream and Wetland Program, NCDOT makes quarterly invoice payments
to EEP based on the next quarter’s projected cash-flow costs of implementing the
program. Costs are primarily comprised of existing mitigation projects in development,
new projects that have expenditures expected to start in the next quarter, and
administrative costs.
For the 36 permitted projects, EEP provided 66,014 stream mitigation credits and 283
wetland mitigation credits. In addition to these projects, EEP received five additional
division-level permits representing 735 stream credits that are in the process of
mitigation responsibility transfer to EEP. As a matter of procedure, EEP provided the
mitigation for division-level permits during the fiscal year.
Statewide Stream and Wetland Program
A voluntary, receipt-based ILF program available to the general public, the program
provides applicants for Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, Section 401 Water Quality
certifications, and/or Coastal Area Management Act permits an option to satisfy
compensatory mitigation requirements for their wetland and stream impacts. Permit
applicants (commercial and residential developers, governmental agencies including
municipalities and military installations, among others) have three primary options for
satisfying mitigation needs:1) produce the mitigation themselves; 2) purchase credits
from a mitigation bank; or 3) request that EEP satisfy the mitigation requirement. (Note:
EEP is not an option for nongovernmental entities when mitigation banks have available
credits. S.L. 2011-343 redefined all local governments except Charlotte, Greensboro
and Raleigh as non-governmental entities.)
EEP generates mitigation in all of North Carolina’s 17 river basins. If no private
mitigation banks exist in the service area of the wetland or stream impacts, applicants
may pay into EEP’s ILF program. All payments collected (receipts) and expenditures for
this program are made from the Statewide Stream and Wetland Fund.
ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM 2010-14 11 ANNUAL REPORT
Upon acceptance of a mitigation requirement and subsequent payment, EEP provides the off-site compensatory
mitigation necessary to satisfy the regulatory requirement. The work may consist of restoring, enhancing and/or
protecting streams and wetlands. The availability of this program helps the general public by providing a service that is
cost-effective and expedites the regulatory processes.
Protocols for mitigation delivery under this program are specified in the 2010 In-Lieu Fee Mitigation Instrument. Stream
and wetland payment data are now available on EEP’s web portal.
In FY 2010-11, 62 payments were made into the Statewide Stream and Wetland Program, totaling $7,466,303.75. Of
this amount, 28 payments resulted from requirements of both USACE (CWA Section 404) and DWQ (CWA Section 401),
31 payments had requirements from USACE only, and three had requirements from DWQ only. Payments represented
13,381 stream credits and 51.82 wetlands credits.
Thirty-four percent of payments into this program were from government entities. A majority of these projects were local
infrastructure projects such as water lines, sewer improvements, schools and roads. Sixty-six percent of payments for
wetlands and streams came from private developers, including utility companies, retailers, industry/manufacturing and
other commercial developers, farms, schools and residential projects.
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program
The Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program is an option to meet compensatory-mitigation requirements associated with
riparian-buffer impacts in the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico and Catawba River basins, and the Randleman Reservoir and Jordan
Lake watersheds in the Cape Fear River basin. Payments and expenditures are managed in the Riparian Buffer
Restoration Fund (Fund Code Account 2982) according to the regulatory schedule of fees for buffers. Payment data for
the Riparian Buffer Program are available on EEP’s website.
In FY 2010-11, EEP received 24 payments for 717,585 square feet (16.5 acres) of buffer mitigation. Approximately 40
percent of the requirements came from NCDOT, while other government entities and private developers represented 32
percent and 28 percent respectively of buffer requirements paid. Development projects supported by this program
include local government water and sewer projects, roads, schools, utilities, farms and commercial and residential
development projects. At the close of the fiscal year, EEP has accepted responsibility for 686.23 acres of buffer-mitigation
requirements since the program’s inception in the applicable river basins.
Nutrient Offset Program
The Nutrient Offset Program is an option to meet compensatory-mitigation requirements associated with nutrient
loadings under the Neuse, Falls Lake and Tar-Pamlico nutrient-management strategies. Applicants seeking permits for
construction-related impacts to upland areas may elect to undertake additional on-site measures to meet nutrient-reduction
requirements, purchase nutrient reductions from a private mitigation bank or pay a fee to EEP to produce the
mitigation. (Note: Session Law 2009-337 and Session Law 2011-343 established that nongovernmental entities,
including most local governments, may not elect to use EEP’s Nutrient Offset Program if private mitigation banking
credits are available.)
During FY 2010-11, 41 nutrient-offset payments were made to offset nutrient loading for development projects authorized
by Durham and Franklin counties and the municipalities of Durham, Greenville, Henderson, Kinston, Raleigh, Rocky
Mount and Washington. Payments covered 988 pounds of nitrogen reduction in the Neuse River basin, 3,307 pounds of
nitrogen and 34 pounds of phosphorus reduction in the Falls Lake watershed, and 9,107 pounds of nitrogen reduction
and 431 pounds of phosphorus reduction in the Tar-Pamlico River basin.
Development projects supported by this program include local-government services, schools, churches and commercial
development projects. Seventy-five percent of payments came from private developers. Nutrient Offset payment data
are now available on EEP’s web portal.
Executive Summary
Key Developments
EEP In-Lieu Fee Programs
Continuous Improvement and Program
Partnerships
EEP Watershed Planning and Mitigation
Projects
Watershed Planning
Property Acquisition
Project Implementation
Monitoring and Closeout
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program
Long-Term Stewardship
Program Financial Information
Finanical Status of Program Funds
Project Costs
Contracts and Expenditures
Nutrient Offset Mitigation Program
Program Inventory and Compliance
Stream and Wetland Programs
Project Analysis
Annual Report Feedback
Appendices
Summary Remarks and Future Direction
Actual Cost Method
Table of Contents
Adkin Branch Stream Restoration Project in Kinston, NC 15
The development and delivery of high-quality mitigation projects by EEP involves
activities related to watershed planning, property acquisition, project implementation
and long-term stewardship. This section provides a high-level description of program
activities within these categories during FY 2010-11.
Watershed Planning
EEP’s enabling legislation, the 2008 federal compensatory-mitigation rule and EEP’s
ILF Mitigation Instrument require EEP to implement mitigation projects based on
watershed planning. All of EEP’s stream and wetland mitigation projects developed
after July 2010 must be implemented using a watershed planning approach, with
exceptions requiring approval by the state-federal Interagency Review Team. EEP’s
adherence to the watershed approach outlined in the 2008 federal rule is documented
in the Compensation Planning Framework included as Appendix I of the In-Lieu Fee
Mitigation Instrument.
Watershed planning is used to determine the best locations for mitigation projects
based on an analysis of watershed needs. EEP does this by conducting both River
Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) planning and Local Watershed Planning. More
information about EEP watershed planning, including documents searchable by county
or river basin, and contact information for EEP planners in each area, is available on
EEP’s web portal.
EEP Watershed Planning and
Mitigation Projects
ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM 2010-16 11 ANNUAL REPORT
River Basin Restoration Priority Plans
RBRPs outline where watershed restoration or protection is most needed and identify watersheds in which EEP and its
partners may best implement conservation through both restoration and preservation of natural resources. In FY 2010-
11, EEP staff updated RBRP documents for the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico and White Oak basins. All RBRP documents are
posted on the EEP web portal, searchable by river basin or county.
By statute, EEP must develop RBRPs a minimum of every five years for each of the state’s 17 river basins. EEP
continues to coordinate with DWQ regarding water quality monitoring data updates and basinwide planning schedules
to develop priorities. RBRPs are produced by conducting a detailed screening analysis for each eight-digit catalog unit
(CU) within a river basin. In addition to office-based assessments using spatial and other data for a river basin, EEP
visits each of the CUs for field verification of the data and meetings with local experts, including resource professionals
from other agencies. RBRPs list restoration goals for each CU within a river basin and identify Targeted Local
Watersheds (TLWs), which are 14-digit hydrologic units that have an appropriate mix of not just problems, but also
assets and opportunities that will support watershed improvement.
Local Watershed Plans
Local watershed planning merges identified Targeted Local Watersheds with projected impacts from development
projects (primarily NCDOT road projects) to determine where future mitigation investments can provide the greatest
benefit for the state’s aquatic resources. The development of local watershed plans is typically a four-phase process:
preliminary watershed characterization (Phase I); detailed assessment (Phase II); development of a watershed
management plan, that includes a project atlas of potential watershed improvement projects (Phase III); and
implementation of identified projects (Phase IV). Stakeholders representing local interests and expertise participate
extensively in the local watershed planning process, often bringing current knowledge to the table and helping to
promote watershed improvement activities beyond the formal reach of the LWP, through their engagement with local
citizens and landowners.
Executive Summary
Key Developments
EEP In-Lieu Fee Programs
Continuous Improvement and Program
Partnerships
EEP Watershed Planning and Mitigation
Projects
Watershed Planning
Property Acquisition
Project Implementation
Monitoring and Closeout
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program
Long-Term Stewardship
Program Financial Information
Finanical Status of Program Funds
Project Costs
Contracts and Expenditures
Nutrient Offset Mitigation Program
Program Inventory and Compliance
Stream and Wetland Programs
Project Analysis
Annual Report Feedback
Appendices
Summary Remarks and Future Direction
Actual Cost Method
Table of Contents
17
Photo Credit: Tar River Land Conservancy
Landowners sign closing papers on an EEP conservation easement
EEP also supports watershed plans developed by other state, federal, tribal and/or
local government agencies or non-governmental organizations that demonstrate the
six key elements outlined in the Compensation Planning Framework included as part of
EEP’s ILF Instrument. Organizations seeking EEP acceptance of watershed-planning
initiatives may complete a LWP submittal form available on EEP’s portal. Once a plan
is accepted, EEP may augment the existing plan and will work to implement projects
identified in the watershed plan as mitigation needs develop.
The plans are defined as completed by EEP at the end of Phase III with the production
of a watershed-management plan and project atlas that details mitigation and other
opportunities for improvement and protection of the watershed. Phase IV focuses on
outreach and implementation of projects derived from the planning process, often with
the involvement and support of stakeholders who participated in plan development.
The plans are designed such that they result in a suite of watershed-restoration
recommendations (such as changes to local ordinances and public education to
improve stormwater management) that can be implemented by a myriad of public and
private entities over an extended period of time. At the close of FY 2010-11, EEP had
completed 29 plans; a summary of plans completed and the status of Phase IV efforts
is included as Appendix B-1.
EEP is continuing work on watershed analysis across the state, with six plans in
various stages of development. Four other plans are currently on hold due to
decreases in mitigation needs. Appendix B-2 presents a summary of the ongoing
plans; these are efforts that haven’t yet resulted in a final watershed management plan
or project atlas. Appendix B-3 summarizes funding for additional watershed projects
conducted by EEP planning partners and leveraged by EEP watershed plans. Fact
sheets summarizing EEP’s local watershed planning efforts and links to associated
timelines and reports are available on EEP’s portal. A clickable map, also on the
portal, shows the current EEP planning areas and provides an alternative path to
information on specific plans.
EEP is developing modifications to the planning process so that plan products are
more conducive to full-delivery outsourcing. Next year’s annual report will include
ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM 2010-18 11 ANNUAL REPORT
Property Acquisition
In addition to acquisition of mitigation properties in a timely manner through the State Property Office, EEP is charged
with protecting the conservation values of the lands that the program has acquired or restored. An important part of this
is the prevention of encroachments or violations of conservation-easement restrictions.
In recent years, new policies have been established and carried out to refine boundary placement and marking
techniques to help partnering property owners, the public and adjacent landowners recognize protected areas.
Improvements in electronic data-sharing have allowed EEP to compile electronic records for most of the protected
properties and to complete quality assurance on most of the conservation easements, deeds and survey plats.
Information is now available to allow all EEP staff, other state and federal agencies, partnering landowners and other
citizens to view a subset of the restored or protected areas on the new web portal. Work is underway to finalize
information and provide it during the coming year through the EEP portal.
All properties connected to EEP mitigation projects are permanently protected through fee-simple property acquisition
or by acquisition of a permanent conservation easement. During FY 2010-11, the State Property Office closed on 61
transactions totaling 657 acres associated with EEP’s enhancement, restoration, and preservation projects, including
31 permanent conservation easements and two fee-simple acquisitions.
Twenty-four transactions were temporary construction easements, and one transaction was recorded of each of the
following types: modification of conservation easement, technical correction, allocation of property interest and notice
of sale. All properties that closed during FY 2010-11 are shown in Appendix C-1. Landowners formally agreed to give
EEP the right to acquire an easement or property for 33 parcels, listed in Appendix C-2.
A full inventory of all properties acquired for compensatory mitigation since the inception of the Wetlands Restoration
Program in 1996 is presented in Appendix C-3. More than 49,440 acres have been purchased or donated to date.
Project Implementation
In FY 2010-11, EEP used two primary contracting methods for outsourcing the design, construction and monitoring of
restoration projects needed to meet compensatory mitigation compliance obligations: Design-Bid-Build and Full
Delivery. Both of these methods are critical to EEP’s success in meeting the state’s mitigation needs. Since EEP’s
2010-11 Full Delivery project contracts were awarded during the fiscal year and executed in June and July 2011, these
projects are included in this report. A more detailed description of contracts executed and payments made to
contractors during the period can be found in the Program Financial Information section of this report and additional
data concerning contracts and payments for project implementation are provided in the Appendices. The EEP project
inventory consists of 582 projects, including 37 in design, 45 in active construction, 177 in monitoring, 99 in the
closeout process with regulatory agencies and 224 in long-term stewardship.
Executive Summary
Key Developments
EEP In-Lieu Fee Programs
Continuous Improvement and Program
Partnerships
EEP Watershed Planning and Mitigation
Projects
Watershed Planning
Property Acquisition
Project Implementation
Monitoring and Closeout
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program
Long-Term Stewardship
Program Financial Information
Finanical Status of Program Funds
Project Costs
Contracts and Expenditures
Nutrient Offset Mitigation Program
Program Inventory and Compliance
Stream and Wetland Programs
Project Analysis
Annual Report Feedback
Appendices
Summary Remarks and Future Direction
Actual Cost Method
Table of Contents
19
Monitoring and
Closeout
Of the 177 projects in the
monitoring phase; EEP studied
a sample of 110 projects to
evaluate degrees of success
these projects are showing at
attaining regulatory performance
standards. EEP evaluated
stream stability, wetland
hydrology and vegetative
performance.
(Note: The projects are still developing sites and the evaluation was designed to show a
snapshot of project performance, specifically for the 2010 monitoring year.)
2010-11 Project Performance Statistics
The 110-project sample evaluated projects spanning all phases of post-construction
measurement. The overall sample included approximately 200 stream reaches. Three
main indicators of channel stability were assessed: 1) bed stability; 2) bank stability; and
3) the stability of engineered structures. The results of the study indicate that greater
than 95 percent of all stream reaches exhibit stability for all three measures and are
meeting regulatory standards. These data indicate that overall, the majority of the
program’s stream reaches are exhibiting acceptable levels of stability.
Wetland hydrology is measured to assess the degree to which the water table is raised
sufficiently to support wetland systems previously drained and impacted. Of the 110
projects in the overall sample, 49 projects included wetlands. Wetland hydrology was
measured using about 350 groundwater-elevation gauges. The majority of wetland
gauges and associated acreage (79 percent) exhibited requisite hydrology in 2010.
Riparian and wetland vegetation was monitored through a combination of visual
assessment and fixed plots. All 110 projects were evaluated using more than 1,000
vegetation plots; 84 percent of plots equaled or exceed the regulatory standard of 320
woody stems per acre. The mean density for these plots was approximately 1,200
stems per acre. These wetland data indicate that overall, the majority of the program’s
wetlands are exhibiting requisite hydrology and vegetation measures.
2010-11 Project Maintenance
The process of restoring and rehabilitating small-scale ecosystems requires nurturing
during the initial stages and even repair in some cases, until the systems can achieve
their own equilibrium. This often involves the suppression of aggressive non-native
plants and supplemental planting of areas within the site that are subject to attrition or
poor growth due to a variety of factors including drought, variation in soil conditions,
encroachment and wildlife pressures.
In FY 2009-10, 32 projects were identified by EEP staff and contractors for invasive plant
control and 29 projects identified as requiring supplemental planting within EEPs design-bid-
build project inventory. All of those projects identified as requiring invasive plant
control were treated in 2010 and again in the 2011 growing season. Ten of those
projects identified for supplemental planting were planted in the 2010-11 dormant
season, with the remaining 19 planned for the 2011-12 dormant season.
ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM 2010-20 11 ANNUAL REPORT
Approximately 20 additional sites have been identified for supplemental planting and invasive control based on
observations from 2010 monitoring. The majority of these projects identified in 2010 represent small supplemental
planting efforts in localized areas or early preventive maintenance to control aggressive invasive vegetation before they
become problematic. Structural repairs were either contracted or implemented in 2010-2011 for eight projects, four of
which were stream projects. Four others included both streams and wetland features. Seven of the eight projects were
stream repairs, with the eighth involving an adjustment to stream features to better support target wetland hydrology.
Appendix D-1 contains a list of 184 projects that EEP actively monitored during FY 2010-11. Monitoring reports can be
viewed in the EEP portal library.
In coordination with state and federal regulatory agencies through the IRT, 30 EEP projects will be proposed for closeout
during FY 2011-12 (closeout is the process by which the regulatory agencies give final approval to projects and validate
the number of mitigation credits generated). These projects are shown in detail in Appendix D-2 and comprise a total of
270,275 stream mitigation credits, 185 riparian-wetland mitigation credits, 846 nonriparian-wetland mitigation credits,
and 3,308,382 riparian-buffer mitigation credits.
Long-Term Stewardship
At the close of FY 2010-11, EEP had 224 projects in long-term stewardship. Of these, EEP has transferred
responsibility for 132 sites to the NCDENR Stewardship Program. No significant easement violations on any of these
sites have been reported.
Because of economic impacts of falling interest rates, reduced revenue and re-evaluation of stewardship needs, the
NCDENR Stewardship Program is revisiting its current fee structure and stewardship model. Representatives from EEP,
NCDOT and the NCDENR Stewardship Program are working to develop a modified framework for stewardship
administration during the coming year. Advice from financial advisors and other experts will be sought prior to the
development and implementation of the final long-term stewardship model.
In the interim, stewardship of newly closed-out sites either will be the responsibility of the agency or nonprofit that has
formally accepted management of the site or, depending upon the holder of the property interest, will be temporarily
retained by EEP or NCDOT. EEP remains committed to the long-term protection of all its compensatory mitigation sites.
Project Analysis
EEP’s reorganization, described in the Continuous Improvement Initiatives and Program Partnerships section of this
report, renewed its commitment to the development of sound scientific data, continual analysis of mitigation strategies
and collaboration with the scientific community. The new EEP Science and Analysis section was created from the
Monitoring and Research group and was expanded to include technical expertise in hydrologic modeling, watershed-scale
functional changes, wetlands, vegetation, databases and geographic-information systems.
The new section will review emerging research and technologies and coordinate closely with the scientific community. It
will evaluate the performance of projects at both the site and catchment scale, as well as make recommendations for
future project-implementation and project-repair techniques.
In FY 2010-11, EEP:
• Began partnering with local universities to develop wetland hydrology and stream geomorphology databases;
• Participated in the formation of the NCDENR Science Advisory Panel as described in the
Continuous Improvement Initiatives and Program Partnerships section of this report; and
• Evaluated a sample of EEP restoration projects to demonstrate water-quality benefits; and
• Initiated a study that focuses on evaluating channel morphology and bank scour along
stream reference reaches to better determine what success criteria should be used to evaluate
stream-restoration projects.
Executive Summary
Key Developments
EEP In-Lieu Fee Programs
Continuous Improvement and Program
Partnerships
EEP Watershed Planning and Mitigation
Projects
Watershed Planning
Property Acquisition
Project Implementation
Monitoring and Closeout
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program
Long-Term Stewardship
Program Financial Information
Finanical Status of Program Funds
Project Costs
Contracts and Expenditures
Nutrient Offset Mitigation Program
Program Inventory and Compliance
Stream and Wetland Programs
Project Analysis
Annual Report Feedback
Appendices
Summary Remarks and Future Direction
Actual Cost Method
Table of Contents
21
Revenues collected by EEP through its ILF programs are used to implement mitigation
projects that will provide maximum environmental benefits to the state’s natural
resources. A small part of EEP’s revenues are used to administer the program. EEP
may apply for and receive grants that may supplement non-mitigation efforts such as
restoration-technology research, restoration training, environmental-resource
information and educational outreach.
Financial Status of Program Funds
The sections below provide details for each program’s complete financial status for FY
2010-11. Common terms used in each of the sections are defined, below.
Definitions for Terminology Used in the
Description of Fund Status
Program Financial Information
ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM 2010-22 11 ANNUAL REPORT
NCDOT Stream and Wetland Program (Fund 2984)
This program applies only to stream and wetland mitigation supplied to NCDOT. At the request of NCDOT, payments
made for mitigation production are programmed on a cash-flow basis. As a result, EEP invoices NCDOT for the actual
cost for the work being processed to include administration, payments made to engineers, contractors and full-delivery
providers.
EEP invoices NCDOT on a quarterly basis and secures only those funds required to cover anticipated operating costs
for the upcoming quarter. Future-year obligations are guaranteed to be paid in accordance with an MOA between
NCDOT and NCDENR. The current total amount of NCDOT obligations are listed as the “Net Accounts Receivable.”
Appendix E-1 lists the NCDOT Stream and Wetland Program permitted requirements.
Detailed information is reported to NCDOT on a quarterly basis during routine invoicing processes. Also, as a matter
of normal business practice, the NCDOT Inspector General’s office audits the financial files at EEP quarterly before
payment is made and has had no significant findings in nearly 30 inspections. In addition, no discrepancies have been
found in each of the Federal Highway Administration’s two on-site audits of EEP.
Status of Fund 2984
Statewide Stream and Wetland Program (Fund 2981)
This program is a voluntary, receipt-based ILF program available to the general public. All payments collected
(receipts) and expenditures for this program are made from the Statewide Stream and Wetland Fund (Fund 2981).
EEP's fees for the program are listed on the EEP web portal.
The program is currently sound but has seen a steady decrease in cash balances as the cost of completing existing
projects and requirements is paid out. The recent downturn in the economy, coupled with the effects of Session Law
2009-337 and Session Law 2011-343 that prevent non-governmental entities from purchasing credits from EEP in
certain cases, has had a negative effect on fund receipts. Appendix E-2 lists Statewide Stream and Wetland Program
FY 2010-11 receipts and requirements.
Executive Summary
Key Developments
EEP In-Lieu Fee Programs
Continuous Improvement and Program
Partnerships
EEP Watershed Planning and Mitigation
Projects
Watershed Planning
Property Acquisition
Project Implementation
Monitoring and Closeout
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program
Long-Term Stewardship
Program Financial Information
Finanical Status of Program Funds
Project Costs
Contracts and Expenditures
Nutrient Offset Mitigation Program
Program Inventory and Compliance
Stream and Wetland Programs
Project Analysis
Annual Report Feedback
Appendices
Summary Remarks and Future Direction
Actual Cost Method
Table of Contents
23
A condition identified during FY 2009-10 is that the projected cost of completing all
existing projects and requirements exceeds the current cash and accounts receivable.
Counterbalancing this condition, the fund has unused and unobligated credits valued
at approximately $30 million that may be applied to customers seeking mitigation in the
areas where those assets exist. EEP will continue to closely monitor projected
expenditures and revenues related to this fund over the next year and will consider
what actions may be necessary to protect its integrity.
EEP also will closely monitor the rate at which fees are paid. For this fund, accounts
receivable are comprised mostly of NCDOT payments associated with an agreement
between NCDOT and EEP’s precursor, the Wetlands Restoration Program. Under that
agreement, NCDOT agreed to pay the actual cost of mitigation associated with
payments made to the Wetlands Restoration Program.
The projects with which those payments are associated are in the process of being
completed. As each project is completed, EEP and NCDOT determine the final amount
of additional payment or reimbursement necessary for that project, based on the original
receipt and actual costs of that project. The rate of these collections is based on the
rate at which these projects are deemed completed by the regulatory agencies.
Payments from NCDOT will be made over the next several years as projects are
completed. The cash flow of expenditures and collections for this fund is closely
monitored to ensure that sufficient cash integrity is retained.
Status of Fund 2981
ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM 2010-24 11 ANNUAL REPORT
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program (Fund 2982)
This program collects payments and makes expenditures from the state’s Riparian Buffer Fund for the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico
and parts of the Catawba and Cape Fear River basins. Applicants seeking permits for unavoidable impacts to protected
buffers along stream systems may elect to produce the mitigation themselves, purchase credits from a mitigation bank or
pay EEP to produce the mitigation and satisfy permit requirements.
However, under Session Law 2009-337 and Session Law 2011-343, non-governmental entities may not use the Riparian
Buffer Mitigation Program if a private mitigation bank has credits available. Because of decreased development activities
and the recent session laws, receipts in FY 2010-11 were down by approximately 83 percent when compared to the last
three fiscal years. Appendix E-3 lists Riparian Buffer Program FY 2010-11 receipts and requirements.
The program’s expenditures include the costs associated with mitigation production (contract engineering, construction, land
acquisition and long-term protection of mitigation sites) and the administrative costs of implementing the program. The types
of projects produced consist of re-establishment and protection of buffers (primarily involving the planting of vegetation)
along streams and riverbanks in the protected basin. The availability of this program helps the general public by providing a
service that is cost-effective and simplifies the permitting processes. The fee for a square foot of buffer mitigation was set at
$0.96 when the program started in 1999 and has remained unchanged.
The N.C. General Assembly withdrew and transferred to the N.C. General Fund $488,118.59 from Fund 2982 during FY
2010-11. Despite this, the program appears sound at this time and probably has sufficient cash reserves to complete
existing projects and program requirements. Any reserve funds available are a necessary safety factor since the monitoring
periods on most of the projects in the program are not complete and unforeseen costs sometimes materialize during this
period.
Furthermore, two new buffer program areas are being implemented in the Falls Lake and Jordan Lake watersheds. The cost
of implementing projects in these areas is expected to be substantially higher than in other areas of the state. The initial rate
of collections in the Falls and Jordan Lake areas also is not expected to completely cover the cost of implementing the first
round of projects. In general, it can take dozens of payments to fully fund a single riparian-buffer mitigation project. Thus,
any cash reserves are expected to be consumed during the initial development of these new areas.
Status of Fund 2982
Executive Summary
Key Developments
EEP In-Lieu Fee Programs
Continuous Improvement and Program
Partnerships
EEP Watershed Planning and Mitigation
Projects
Watershed Planning
Property Acquisition
Project Implementation
Monitoring and Closeout
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program
Long-Term Stewardship
Program Financial Information
Finanical Status of Program Funds
Project Costs
Contracts and Expenditures
Nutrient Offset Mitigation Program
Program Inventory and Compliance
Stream and Wetland Programs
Project Analysis
Annual Report Feedback
Appendices
Summary Remarks and Future Direction
Actual Cost Method
Table of Contents
25
Nutrient Offset Program (Fund 2982, Account 9829)
The Nutrient Offset Program collects payments and makes expenditures from the state’s
Nutrient Offset Account (Fund 2982-9829). The account has been in existence for the
Neuse River basin since 1998, but in March 2006 the Tar-Pamlico River basin was
added, and the Falls Lake and Jordan Lake watersheds are also being added as
nutrient-program areas. Like all of EEP’s ILF mitigation programs, this program is a
voluntary program that provides an option to the regulated community.
The types of projects produced by EEP may consist of best management practices such
as stormwater retention structures and stormwater wetland projects, or vegetated buffers
that will reduce nitrogen and phosphorus loadings into river basins. The program’s
expenditures include the costs associated with mitigation production (contract
engineering, construction, land acquisition and long-term protection of mitigation sites)
and the administrative costs of implementing the program. The availability of this
program helps the general public by providing a service that is cost-effective and
expedites permitting processes. Appendix E-4 lists the FY 2010-11 Nutrient Offset
Program receipts and requirements.
The overall financial condition of this program is sound. During FY 2010-11, new rules
were implemented that changed the program’s nutrient fees to an actual cost basis. As
the program moves forward, the fee rates charged for nutrient offsets will be based on
the actual costs of the program and will be automatically updated annually (or quarterly if
the costs increase by 10 percent or more, according to Environmental Management
Commission rule). The rates are locally specific to the costs and receipts collected in
multiple regions.
During FY 2010-11, the N.C. General Assembly withdrew and transferred to the N.C.
General Fund $738,784.25 from the Nutrient Offset Program Account (Fund 2982-9829).
Despite these withdrawals, the program remains financially sound. The condition of the
program is similar to the Riparian Buffer Program in that cash reserves are a necessary
Status of Fund 2982 - Account 9829
ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM 2010-26 11 ANNUAL REPORT
Project Costs
The total cost of a mitigation project is the sum of the costs of individual development phases, and may not be precisely
known until the project has been completed, which can take seven to 10 years. Individual development phases include
land acquisition; project design; project construction; maintenance; monitoring for project success; and long-term
stewardship of the perpetually protected property.
In addition, a small amount of program funds are associated with EEP staff time to oversee contracting, project delivery,
quality assurance and administration. It is important to recognize that individual project costs-per-credit do not
represent the program’s overall cost-per-credit. Overall costs would include all other costs incurred by the program
such as administrative, watershed planning, feasibility studies, terminated projects, and inventory overhead, among
others. The cost-per-credit numbers detailed below are limited to specific project costs implemented during FY 2010-11.
EEP employs two primary outsourcing methods to deliver mitigation and these procurement methods, described below,
are referenced in the project cost discussion:
1) The Full Delivery method procures compensatory mitigation by issuing requests for proposals (RFPs) through
the state Department of Administration. Each RFP specifies the river basin and CU within which mitigation is being
sought, and the amount and type of mitigation needed (i.e., buffer, stream and/or wetland). Offerors are required to
submit both a technical proposal and a cost proposal for each prospective submittal. The technical proposal details 1)
the experience, qualifications and financial stability of the firm submitting the proposal; 2) the geomorphic features of
the site that make it suitable for restoration; and 3) the conceptual plan for restoring the site to a more natural, stable
condition, both physically and biologically. The cost proposal provides a unit cost per mitigation credit for the submittal.
Qualifying proposals are evaluated based on the technical merits of the proposed restoration and the overall per-unit
cost. Firms associated with selected proposals enter into a contract with EEP to convey a conservation easement to
the state on the project area; develop and implement a restoration plan; and monitor the project for a minimum of five to
seven years to verify that the restoration meets established success criteria.
2) The Design-Bid-Build method uses on-call design and consulting service authorizations to contract with private
design and consulting firms for professional services for all stages of project development, including watershed
planning, environmental resource investigations; restoration-site design and construction management; and post-construction
monitoring. All construction contracts are awarded through a qualified competitive-bidding process.
EEP Project Costs for FY 2010-11
Average per-unit costs of project implementation for the last fiscal year have been determined by examining both Full
Delivery and Design-Bid-Build contracts awarded in FY 2010-11. Project costs this year have increased since last
fiscal year. Reasons leading to per-unit cost increases include extended monitoring periods and standards required by
agencies, changing regulatory policies and increasing maintenance and stewardship costs.
In FY 2010-11, EEP contracted the following types and amounts of mitigation for which average forecasted costs are
presented. The costs below represent the specific project costs associated with the projects initiated this year, and do
not reflect the overall program cost per credit for all projects and program costs. In FY 2010-11, no new design or
construction contracts were issued for nutrient-offset projects.
• $328 per unit of stream mitigation (82,836 stream mitigation units);
• $63,095 per unit of riparian-wetland mitigation (113.75 riparian-wetland mitigation units);
• $34,119 per unit nonriparian-wetland mitigation (14.75 nonriparian-wetland mitigation units); and
• $1.21 per unit of riparian-buffer mitigation (2,962,080 units of riparian-buffer mitigation)
safety factor, since most of the projects in the program have not completed the monitoring period and unforeseen costs
sometimes materialize during this period.
Furthermore, the Falls Lake and Jordan Lake watersheds are newly established nutrient program areas, and the cost of
implementing projects in these areas is expected to be substantially higher than in other areas of the state because of
land prices and the potentially high cost of finding suitable sites. Also, the rate of collections is not expected to
completely cover the cost of implementing the first round of projects. In general, it can take more than 100 payments to
fully fund a single nutrient mitigation project. Thus, the current cash reserve is expected to be consumed during the
development of these first few projects.
Executive Summary
Key Developments
EEP In-Lieu Fee Programs
Continuous Improvement and Program
Partnerships
EEP Watershed Planning and Mitigation
Projects
Watershed Planning
Property Acquisition
Project Implementation
Monitoring and Closeout
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program
Long-Term Stewardship
Program Financial Information
Finanical Status of Program Funds
Project Costs
Contracts and Expenditures
Nutrient Offset Mitigation Program
Program Inventory and Compliance
Stream and Wetland Programs
Project Analysis
Annual Report Feedback
Appendices
Summary Remarks and Future Direction
Actual Cost Method
Table of Contents
27
EEP continues to take measures to produce cost-effective mitigation through actions
such as training contractors on wetland and stream construction techniques. A course
taught in collaboration with N.C. State University has been offered several times in
recent years, including November 2010. As understanding improves, cost efficiencies
are provided through increased competition, and improved quality in project
implementation is promoted.
Based on measured cost increases and anticipated regulatory changes that could
increase costs, EEP is considering modifications to the program’s fees for streams and
wetlands. In September 2010, rate setting for the Nutrient Offset Program was
converted to the Actual Cost Method, which allows rates to adjust based on actual
costs incurred by the program. EEP is monitoring the performance of the method and
is considering pursuit of its application in the Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program.
Cost Analysis of Private Mitigation Banks
Reporting requirements of G.S. 143 214.13 require EEP to compare the cost of
mitigation of EEP projects and private mitigation banks. To obtain the data necessary
to accomplish this task, EEP sent a web-based survey requesting restoration cost
information to the sponsor of each approved bank in North Carolina. Appendix F-1
includes a listing of the banks that were requested to respond and a copy of the survey
distributed.
All private mitigation bank sponsors were contacted by e-mail. The sponsors of those
banks were requested to complete the brief survey found in Appendix F-2. Of 32
banks contacted by email, five total responses were received during FY 2010-11.
Respondents described nonriparian-wetland, riparian-buffer and nitrogen credits, some
of which are currently available for sale in the Neuse river basin. The results are
presented in Appendix F-3.
Contracts and Expenditures
This section provides information regarding the number and types of contracts currently
active and awarded during FY 2010-11 for Full Delivery and Design-Bid-Build mitigation
procurement. In addition, data on payments made to vendors in these different
programs is provided. EEP provides comprehensive contract data on the web portal.
EEP also uses NCDENR and federal agencies to provide planning, design, construction
and monitoring services. This approach constitutes approximately four percent of the
DBB process, and is authorized by NCDENR as described in the N.C. Administrative
Code (see N.C. General Statue 143-59).
Total Contracted Services
In FY 2010-11, the state awarded 70 new contracts to support EEP full-delivery,
watershed-planning, project-implementation, monitoring and maintenance activities. The
value of these new contracts was $41,466,446.95. The following table summarizes the
contract amounts by activity. Full delivery activities account for the majority of the work
engaged. Appendix G-1 lists all the contracts awarded this year.
FY 2010-11 Payments to Vendors
EEP continues to contract with many vendors to support the implementation of the
hundreds of projects within the program. This fiscal year, payments to vendors totaled
$24,563,135.45. The figure on the next page illustrates payments to private businesses
by broad contract categories: Full Delivery, Design and Construction. Appendix G-2
details the vendor payments by these contract categories. In FY 2010-11, more than 96
percent of all payments to vendors totaling $24,642,580.45 were to private businesses.
ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM 2010-28 11 ANNUAL REPORT
Total Encumbered Contracted Services FY 2010-11
Executive Summary
Key Developments
EEP In-Lieu Fee Programs
Continuous Improvement and Program
Partnerships
EEP Watershed Planning and Mitigation
Projects
Watershed Planning
Property Acquisition
Project Implementation
Monitoring and Closeout
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program
Long-Term Stewardship
Program Financial Information
Finanical Status of Program Funds
Project Costs
Contracts and Expenditures
Nutrient Offset Mitigation Program
Program Inventory and Compliance
Stream and Wetland Programs
Project Analysis
Annual Report Feedback
Appendices
Summary Remarks and Future Direction
Actual Cost Method
Table of Contents
29
Expenditures by Fund
In accordance with the In-Lieu Fee Mitigation Instrument, EEP now reports the program
expenditures by fund. Appendix G-3 provides a listing of expenditures by payment type
and fund. Intra-program Direct Purchases represent credit purchase expenditures made
internally between EEP programs. These transactions simply alter the ownership of
already procured EEP credits between EEP's four ILF programs. The following figures
summarize the expenditures for each fund.
ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM 2010-30 11 ANNUAL REPORT
Executive Summary
Key Developments
EEP In-Lieu Fee Programs
Continuous Improvement and Program
Partnerships
EEP Watershed Planning and Mitigation
Projects
Watershed Planning
Property Acquisition
Project Implementation
Monitoring and Closeout
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program
Long-Term Stewardship
Program Financial Information
Finanical Status of Program Funds
Project Costs
Contracts and Expenditures
Nutrient Offset Mitigation Program
Program Inventory and Compliance
Stream and Wetland Programs
Project Analysis
Annual Report Feedback
Appendices
Summary Remarks and Future Direction
Actual Cost Method
Table of Contents
31
Actual Cost Method
Pursuant to S.L. 2007-438, on Sept. 1, 2010, EEP established nutrient-offset rates
based on an Actual Cost Method (ACM), a procedure that ensures that the EEP Nutrient
Offset Program sets rates based on the actual cost of providing nutrient load-reduction
credits. The ACM was developed through a stakeholder process in which participants
were asked to contribute to the method itself and the rules that would establish it as the
means to set EEP nutrient-offset fees. During the development of the ACM, EEP also
developed a database that categorizes and stores EEP cost data to allow for per-unit
nutrient reduction costs to be calculated accurately and efficiently.
ACM Goals:
• All costs must be accounted for in the method.
• Must be understandable and easy to use.
• Must be predictable and equitable.
• Rates must adjust as actual costs change.
• Method must be applicable at various geographic scales.
• Method must be applicable to either nitrogen or phosphorus offsets.
The Actual Cost Rate is calculated using cost data from EEP projects, adjusted for
inflation. The rate includes an adjustment factor that is used if the EEP Nutrient Offset
Program’s total costs are greater than receipts. The adjustment factor ensures that
sufficient receipts are collected to pay for the full cost of the program.
Actual Cost Method Rate Formula
The ACM established general and special rates for the following specific watersheds:
• Neuse River basin (eight-digit CUs 03020202, 03020203, 03020204).
• Tar-Pamlico River basin (CUs 03020101, 03020102, 03020103, 03020104).
• Falls Lake watershed (a portion of Neuse 03020201).
• Jordan Lake watershed.
• Neuse 03020201 exclusive of Falls Lake.
The rules require that rates be evaluated using the ACM at least annually, with more
frequent, quarterly adjustments if program costs increase more than 10 percent. One
quarterly adjustment was made, and an annual adjustment was made on July 1, 2011.
In new rate areas where there are no nutrient-reduction projects, the highest program
rate is used until two projects are available for use in determining the rate for that area.
Special rates are allowed in any eight-digit CUs in which costs are 40 percent greater
than in the river basin, for example Neuse 03020201. The current rates, as well as a
more detailed description of the ACM, are available on the program’s web portal.
ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM 2010-32 11 ANNUAL REPORT
This section provides detailed tables and charts regarding EEP mitigation assets, permit requirements and permit
compliance for each of EEP’s four ILF mitigation programs. EEP is accountable for mitigation production in 17 river basins
and 54 watersheds under 15 federal and state mitigation categories. EEP is required to track and apply credit assets to
specific permit requirements by program, mitigation type and mitigation location. Appendix H-1 lists all non-HQP assets
and Appendix H-2 lists all HQP assets. For simplicity, all assets summarized below have been converted from physical
quantities (feet of stream, acres of wetland, square feet of buffers and pounds of nutrients) into mitigation credits.
The inventory includes a summary of the total amount of mitigation credits produced in the program to date (gross assets),
as well as the amount of unused advanced-mitigation credits currently available in the programs (net assets). Unused
credits are advance mitigation in that they have been developed in advance of environmental impacts, as is part of EEP’s
charge. Program inventory is broken into the four ILF programs described earlier in this report. (Note: "Applied Credits"
can be greater than "Mitigation Due (credits)" because of additional permit-specific conditions and/or because of debits
made to requirements before they are due.)
Stream and Wetland Programs
Advance Credits
The In-Lieu Fee Mitigation Instrument allocated advance credits by river basin and eight-digit cataloging unit for use by
EEP. Available advance credits may be transferred from one CU to another within the same river basin with prior approval
from the agencies that are party to the Instrument. No transfers were made during this fiscal year. Pursuant to the new
operating agreement, this Annual Report includes information on the status and utilization of “Advance Credits” as defined
by federal rules, in Appendix I-1.
NCDOT Stream and Wetland Program
The NCDOT Stream and Wetland Program established a model for ILF programs nationwide, and is a national leader in
producing compensatory mitigation in advance of unavoidable environmental impacts. The advancement of mitigation
ahead of permitted impacts reduces temporal loss of ecosystem functions. It is an important tenet of the agreement
among NCDOT, NCDENR and USACE, which has allowed NCDOT to move forward with almost $8 billion in road
development projects without delays associated with compensatory mitigation since 2003.
NCDOT Stream and Wetland Program Inventory
The charts on the next page represent the program’s credit inventory at the end of FY 2010-11. The NCDOT Stream and
Wetland Program’s gross inventory totaled 1,153,648.6 stream credits and 11,259.6 wetland credits. The vast majority of
these credits are unapplied and available for future permit requirements as projected in the TIP. Detailed information
about the NCDOT Stream and Wetland Program inventory can be found in Appendices J-1 and J-2.
NCDOT Stream and Wetland Requirements and Compliance
The NCDOT Stream and Wetland Program continued to achieve excellent compliance with meeting its permit
requirements during FY 2010-11. The table below summarizes these results.
NCDOT Stream and Wetland Requirements - FY 2010-11
Program Inventory and Compliance
Executive Summary
Key Developments
EEP In-Lieu Fee Programs
Continuous Improvement and Program
Partnerships
EEP Watershed Planning and Mitigation
Projects
Watershed Planning
Property Acquisition
Project Implementation
Monitoring and Closeout
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program
Long-Term Stewardship
Program Financial Information
Finanical Status of Program Funds
Project Costs
Contracts and Expenditures
Nutrient Offset Mitigation Program
Program Inventory and Compliance
Stream and Wetland Programs
Project Analysis
Annual Report Feedback
Appendices
Summary Remarks and Future Direction
Actual Cost Method
Table of Contents
33
NCDOT Stream and Wetland Program Inventory 10,822 total wetland credits (gross)
NCDOT Stream and Wetland Program Inventory 1,114,745 total stream credits (gross)
Silt collection device for
sediment removal during
pumping operations
ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM 2010-34 11 ANNUAL REPORT
Statewide Stream and Wetland Program
The Statewide Stream and Wetland Program began under legislation passed in 1996 and is the oldest ILF program in
North Carolina.
Statewide Stream and Wetland Program Inventory
At the end of FY 2010-11, the Statewide Stream and Wetland Program’s gross inventory totaled 554,059.68 stream
credits and 1,347.33 wetland credits. Detailed information about the Statewide Stream and Wetland Program’s
inventory can be found in Appendix J-3. The charts on this and the next page represent the program’s inventory status
of applied and unused advance mitigation at the end of FY 2010-11.
Statewide Stream and Wetland Requirements and Compliance
For FY 2010-11, the Statewide Stream and Wetland Program had satisfied 99.61 percent of all requirements. The table
below summarizes these results. The Statewide Stream and Wetland Program also measures compliance by
percentage of permits satisfied. EEP continues to implement projects to address all of EEP’s permit requirements.
Statewide Stream and Wetland Requirements - FY 2010-11
Statewide Stream and Wetland Program Inventory 544,713 total stream credits (gross)
Executive Summary
Key Developments
EEP In-Lieu Fee Programs
Continuous Improvement and Program
Partnerships
EEP Watershed Planning and Mitigation
Projects
Watershed Planning
Property Acquisition
Project Implementation
Monitoring and Closeout
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program
Long-Term Stewardship
Program Financial Information
Finanical Status of Program Funds
Project Costs
Contracts and Expenditures
Nutrient Offset Mitigation Program
Program Inventory and Compliance
Stream and Wetland Programs
Project Analysis
Annual Report Feedback
Appendices
Summary Remarks and Future Direction
Actual Cost Method
Table of Contents
35
Statewide Stream and Wetland Program Inventory 1,072 total wetland credits (Gross)
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program
The EEP Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program started in 1999 in the Neuse River basin.
The program later expanded to the Tar-Pamlico and Catawba River basins and a
portion of the Cape Fear basin (Randleman Watershed). This mitigation option is also
now available to permit applicants who are required to comply with 2009 legislation
requiring riparian buffer mitigation in the Jordan Lake and Falls Lake watersheds.
Before accessing the program, developers must verify compliance with S.L. 2009-337
and S.L. 2011-343 and other rules that govern when EEP’s ILF program may be an
option for satisfying compensatory mitigation.
Riparian Buffer Credit Inventory
The table on the next page summarizes the Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program’s
inventory, permit requirements, compliance and available (unused) advance mitigation
at the end of FY 2010-11. Overall, compliance remained good throughout the fiscal
year and finished at 92.86 percent overall, with 100 percent compliance in the Catawba
basin, 98.04 percent compliance in the Neuse basin, and 86.89 percent compliance in
the Tar-Pamlico basin. EEP plans to issue a new request for Full Delivery proposals in
2011 to satisfy the remaining permit requirements in the Tar-Pamlico basin.
The Cape Fear basin has one permit that is lowering the overall program compliance
rate. This permit represents 67.3 percent of the unmet requirements across all river
basins. Twice in the past, EEP initiated a project sufficient to satisfy this permit, but
discovered legal constraints that made the projects infeasible. EEP successfully
initiated multiple projects in 2011 to address the Cape Fear needs and has issued a
new request for Full Delivery proposals in 2011 to satisfy the remaining permit
requirements. Detailed information about the Riparian Buffer Program’s inventory can
be found in Appendix J-4.
ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM 2010-36 11 ANNUAL REPORT
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program Requirements - FY 2010-11
Nutrient Offset Mitigation Program
EEP’s Nutrient Offset Program assists developers and others who must comply with Neuse and Tar-Pamlico nutrient-management
strategies and are unable to meet their reduction requirements onsite. The voluntary program allows
developers to choose to make a payment to EEP rather than construct mitigation onsite. EEP then becomes
responsible for the nutrient reduction and implements projects to meet the nutrient-reduction needs. EEP accepts
payments for nitrogen reduction in the Neuse basin and nitrogen and phosphorus in the Tar-Pamlico basin, the Falls
Lake watershed and (as of Sept. 1, 2010) in the Jordan watershed.
Overall compliance remained good throughout the fiscal year and finished at 99.21 percent, with 100 percent
compliance in the Neuse basin and 79.47 percent compliance in the Tar-Pamlico basin for nitrogen and 84.34 percent
for phosphorus. Detailed information about the Nutrient Offset Program’s inventory can be found in Appendix J-5. The
status of the Nutrient Offset Program is shown below.
Nutrient Offset Program Requirements - FY 2010-11
Executive Summary
Key Developments
EEP In-Lieu Fee Programs
Continuous Improvement and Program
Partnerships
EEP Watershed Planning and Mitigation
Projects
Watershed Planning
Property Acquisition
Project Implementation
Monitoring and Closeout
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program
Long-Term Stewardship
Program Financial Information
Finanical Status of Program Funds
Project Costs
Contracts and Expenditures
Nutrient Offset Mitigation Program
Program Inventory and Compliance
Stream and Wetland Programs
Project Analysis
Annual Report Feedback
Appendices
Summary Remarks and Future Direction
Actual Cost Method
Table of Contents
37
EEP continued to serve the mitigation needs of the state’s development community
during FY 2010-11 while seeking to maximize the environmental returns realized from
the implementation of successful wetland, stream and riparian-buffer mitigation projects.
As described in the Key Developments and Continuous Improvements and Program
Partnerships sections of this report, the program also implemented changes to improve
program performance and
outcomes. And as discussed
in the FY 2009-10 Annual
Report, EEP’s work focus has
shifted as projects have
matured from the development
stage into construction and
post-construction monitoring.
Statistics derived from a
sample of 110 restoration
projects in post-construction
monitoring show that the vast
majority of EEP’s project
investments are meeting and
exceeding regulatory
standards. While EEP
conducted eight repairs during
the fiscal year, these projects
represent only 2.6 percent of
the total population of projects
that are in post-construction
monitoring. EEP is now
seeing an increase in the
number of projects moving through to regulatory closeout. Feedback from the regulatory
community during final project review has been positive.
In FY 2011-12, EEP will focus on compliance with the new In-Lieu Fee Mitigation
Instrument, technical excellence and process efficiency. Compliance with the new
Instrument is a core function of the program that is supported by other initiatives and
needs no further discussion. But the remaining two focus areas are described below.
South Fork Hoppers cross
vane during construction
Summary Remarks
and Future Direction
ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM 2010-38 11 ANNUAL REPORT
While technical excellence has been important to the program since its inception, EEP is seeking to heighten this
commitment. The establishment of the NCDENR Science Advisory Panel is principal to this initiative, with appointees
bringing a high caliber of expertise to the panel. The panel’s efforts are designed to support the potential development
and implementation of new standards for improved restoration outcomes. In addition, EEP is developing technical
databases that will catalog the vast amount of data it holds. This will support analyses that will contribute to the
advancement of restoration practices within North Carolina and throughout the nation.
Additional actions that have been taken and will be implemented over the next year to promote technical excellence
include:
• Elevation of the Science and Analysis group within the program’s organizational structure;
• Development of new criteria for project selection;
• Encouraging the use of more rigorous assessment and design tools;
• Increased use of numerical simulations to promote better restoration outcomes; and
• Encouraging program partners in higher level technical analyses through project scoring criteria.
In general, improvement in technical excellence as implemented by EEP and private sector colleagues, especially in
early phases of project development and implementation, will reduce the risk of the need for repairs on projects and will
increase positive outcomes for targeted functional uplift.
As described in the Continuous Improvement Initiatives
and Program Partnerships section of this report, EEP has
recently placed increased emphasis on procurement of
credits from existing mitigation banks and full-delivery
contracts. This initiative expedites contracting and
reduces the program’s administrative burdens by
decreasing the number of contracts needed; improves the
program’s compliance posture and reduces EEP’s risk
related to project performance
Finally, EEP recognizes that having consultants and other
contractors maintaining responsibilities throughout the life
of a project will improve process efficiencies. The
organizational changes described in this report employ the
use of project teams that include representatives from
each of EEP’s core sections to facilitate project delivery.
EEP is promoting cradle-to-grave project management
continuity, both internally and externally, with its
contractors.
Large beaver dam on Terrible Creek
Bog turtle, pitcher plants and tree frog
ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM 2010-11 ANNUAL REPORT
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program strives to provide quaility reporting. EEP this year builds on last
year's effort in reporting (based on feedback from last year's Annual Report Feedback form) with the goal of
providing a more informative and reader-friendly report.
The following questionnaire gives you the opportunity to help EEP continue to improve the clarity and
usefulness of its reports. Thank you for reading the annual report, and for taking an interest in the program.
1. Select the affiliation with which you most identify:
a. Environmental organization
b. Engineering/Construction
c. Mitigation Bank
d. Regulatory community
e. ILF customer
f. Landowner doing business with EEP
g. NCDOT board member
h. NCDOT employee
i. NCDENR employee
j. Other
2. If you noticed tool-tips provided in this report, did you find them beneficial?
a. Yes
b. No
3. This 2010-11 report highlighted EEP continuous improvement by making that topic its
own section. Would you like more information on continuous improvement at EEP?
a. Yes
b. No
4. Select the section of greatest interest to you:
a. Executive Summary
d. EEP Programs
b. Key Developments
e. Watershed Planning & Mitigation Project Delivery
f. Program Financial Information
g. Program Inventory & Compliance
h. Summary Remarks & Future Direction
5. In addition to the standard charts and tables historically provided in EEP annual reports, this year a
summary of expenditures by category is provided. Did you find this format helpful?
a. Yes
b. No
c. I did not notice the expenditure data, please show that information.
(Note: Please use the latest standard pdf reader to submit form.)
c. I did not notice any tool-tips.
c. EEP Programs
Annual Report Feedback
ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM 2010-11 ANNUAL REPORT
A. Surveys
1. Ecosystem Enhancement Program - In-Lieu Fee Customer Satisfaction Survey
2. Ecosystem Enhancement Program - In-Lieu Fee Customer Satisfaction Survey Results
B. Local Watershed Planning
1. Local Watershed Plans – Completed Through Phase III
2. Local Watershed Plan Initiatives in Progress
3. Summary of funding Leveraged in EEP Local Watershed Planning Areas
C. Property Information
1. Properties Closed
2. Properties Optioned
3. Cumulative Properties
D. Closeout and Monitoring
1. Projects EEP Actively Monitored During FY 2010-11
2. Projects Proposed for Closeout During FY 2010-11
E. Fiscal Year Program Receipts and Requirements
1. NCDOT Statewide Stream and Wetland Program Permitted Requirements
2. Statewide Stream and Wetland Program FY Receipts and Requirements
3. Riparian Buffer Program FY Receipts and Requirements
4. Nutrient Offset Program FY Receipts and Requirements
F. Mitigation Banking Survey
1. List of Mitigation Banks Solicited for Mitigation Bank Survey
2. Mitigation Banking Survey Questions
3. Mitigation Banking Survey Results
G. Contracts & Expenditures
1. Contracts Awarded by Contract Type
2. Vendor Payments
3. Expenditures by Fund
H. Total Asset Project Lists
1. Tier 1 Non-HQP Asset Project List - Total Asset Project List
2. Tier 1 High Quality Preservation Sites - Total Asset Project List
I. Advanced Credit Summary
1. EEP Advance Credits - Beginning Balance, Applied Credits, and Net Remaining
J. Program Credit Assets
1. NCDOT Statewide Stream and Wetland Program Gross Assets (Not Incl. HQP Gross Credits)
2. NCDOT Statewide Stream and Wetland Program Gross High Quality Preservation Assets
3. Statewide Stream and Wetland Program Gross Assets
4. Riparian Buffer Program Gross Assets
5. Nutrient Offset Program Gross Assets
Appendices Click on each to download, or download full appendix file