Annual report of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program |
Previous | 5 of 9 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
“ Celebrating Its 5th Anniversary” On July 22, 2008, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program celebrated its fifth anniversary. To-gether with our partners, we have planned, designed, built and grown more than 530 stream and wetland compensatory mitigation projects for business and residential private develop-ers, municipalities, schools and the North Carolina Department of Transportation. In the process we also built a nationally recognized, award- winning organization. This annual re-port is dedicated to our staff and partners, who have been instrumental in accomplishing goals and achieving success. Table of Contents I. EEP Programs p. 1 II. Watershed Planning and Project Implementation p. 3 a. Watershed Planning p. 4 b. Project Implementation p. 7 c. Synergies Between Watershed Planning and Project Implementation p. 8 d. Collaborative Partnerships p. 9 III. Financial Accounting, Cost Data and Property Acquisition p. 15 a. Revenue, Expenditures and Encumbrances p. 15 b. Cost of Mitigation Delivery p. 18 c. Property Acquisition p. 21 IV. Program Inventory Status p. 22 a. Stream and Wetland Mitigation Inventory p. 22 b. Statewide Status of MOU and MOA Programs p. 24 c. Statewide Status of Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Programs p. 26 V. Stream and Wetland Compliance p. 28 VI. Monitoring p. 30 a Monitoring p. 30 b. Maintenance Improvements p. 31 c. Project and Program Improvement Research p. 31 VII. Stewardship p. 35 Appendices A. Watershed Planning and Project Implementation p. 39 i. Projects Identified through the Local Watershed Planning Process p. 39 ii. Local Watershed Plans Completed through Phase III as of July 1, 2008 p. 41 iii. LWP Initiatives in Progress p. 44 iv. Collaborative Projects with Government Entities p. 46 v. Local Watershed Plan Fact Sheets p. 47 B. Stream and Wetland Receipts p. 60 i. Streams and Wetlands In- Lieu Fee Mitigation Program Receipts p. 60 ii. Buffer Receipts p. 72 iii. Nutrient Offset Receipts p. 76 C. Private Mitigation Banking Survey p. 90 i. Mitigation Banking Survey Recipient List p. 90 ii. Mitigation Banking Survey Questions p. 92 D. Contracts p. 93 i. Active Full- Delivery Contracts p. 93 ii. Design and Construction Contracts Awarded 2007- 08 p. 96 iii. FY 2007- 08 Vendor Payments by Contract Type p. 98 E. Properties p. 100 i. Cumulative Properties p. 100 ii. FY 2007- 08 Properties Closed p. 109 iii. FY 2007- 08 Properties Optioned p. 119 F. Monitoring p. 120 i. FY 2007- 08 Total Projects in Monitoring and Long Term Management p. 120 ii. FY 2007- 08 Projects Submitted for Close- out p. 127 List of Figures and Tables Figures Figure 1. Map of NC River Basins p. 2 Figure 2. Peachtree- Martins Creek Local Watershed Planning Area p. 6 Figure 3. Percentage of EEP Design Bid Build Projects Located in Planning Areas FY 2007- 08 p. 8 Figure 4. Design Bid Build Wetland Credits p. 9 Figure 5. Design Bid Build Stream Credits p. 9 Figure 6. MOA Fund 2984 Fiscal Year 2007- 2008 p. 15 Figure 7. Funds 2981, 2982, 2982- 9829; Fiscal Year 2007- 2008 p. 16 Figure 8. Fiscal Year 2007- 2008 Design Bid Build - Contract Payments by Type p. 21 Figure 9. Status of EEP Stream Mitigation Program in Credits p. 25 Figure 10. Status of EEP Wetland Program in Credits p. 26 Tables Table 1. Nutrient Offset Program Fee Rate p. 17 Table 2. NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program On- call Authorizations p. 20 Table 3. Total Contracted Services FY 2007- 08 p. 20 Table 4. EEP Total Assets FY 2007- 08 p. 22 Table 5. EEP Inventory of Asset Credits, FY 2007- 08 p. 24 Table 6. Riparian Buffer ILF Program Status FY 2007- 08 p. 26 Table 7. Nutrient Offset ILF Program Status FY 2007- 08 p. 27 Table 8. MOA Program Compliance p. 28 Table 9. MOU Program Compliance p. 29 Executive Summary During its fifth full year of operations in fiscal year 2007- 08, the N. C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( EEP) took on new challenges and continued to register fresh successes in meeting its goals of improving North Carolina’s environment while facilitating responsible economic growth for the state and its residents. EEP continued to collaborate with federal, state and local governments, contractors and willing landowners to provide goods and services, basing its work on a solid foundation of watershed plan-ning that goes beyond mere environmental permitting and compliance. The initiative also extended its record of carrying out its mission without a single transportation- project delay due to the lack of mitigation, helping to move forward more than $ 4.8 billion in transportation- infrastructure im-provements since becoming operational in 2003. Key developments in FY 2007- 08 included: • Responding to changes to federal rules guiding aquatic- resource mitigation. Under the leadership of the Governor’s office, N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources ( NCDENR) and EEP petitioned the U. S. Office of Management and Budget, the U. S. Environ-mental Protection Agency and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) in late 2007 to promote in-lieu fee programs such as EEP as a method to providing third- party mitigation for public- and pri-vate- sector development. The new rule, which became effective in June of 2008, gave recognition to EEP’s unique national status and maintained ILFs as a viable option. The rule will require EEP to make operational adjustments and the details of these changes are being evaluated. • Securing fee- schedule revisions for the non- NCDOT Stream and Wetland ILF Program. In July of 2008, a two year process to revise EEP’s fees for stream and wetland mitigation came to a conclusion. The increased fees were necessary to offset increased costs for land acquisition, design, construction, maintenance, stewardship and inflation. Information on these new fees can be found at http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ fee. htm. • Implementation of Session Law 2008- 152, an act to promote compensatory mitigation by private mitigation banks, passed by the General Assembly in July 2008. The law, which took effect on October 1, disallows the use of EEP’s ILF program when credits from a private mitigation bank are available for purchase. EEP supported the development of a document that describes how the Department will implement the law. EEP and DWQ will monitor the effects of the law as a part of its regular reporting requirements to USACE and the General Assembly. • Implementation of Session Law 2007- 438, an act to establish transitional nutrient offset payments and to direct the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to develop and implement a plan to transition the N. C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program nutrient offset program from a fee- based program to a program based on the actual costs of providing nu-trient credits. In September 2007, the General Assembly established a fee schedule for the Nu-trient Offset Program and required that EEP begin the process of converting from a fee schedule system to an actual cost system. The law required EEP to provide progress reports to the Environmental Review Commission in September 2008, March 2009, and implement the plan by September 2009. The September 2008 progress report was presented to the ERC on schedule, and i. EEP expects to meet the September 2009 deadline. • Working in partnership with NCDENR, NCDOT, USACE and other state and federal agencies to reduce surplus mitigation assets. As reported last year, an interagency task force came together in August 2007 to begin addressing the issue of surplus mitigation. Since that time the task force was able to agree on provisions to allow some latitude for the application of surplus mitigation on specific highway projects. This group has generated strategies that are expected to eventually reduce an initial surplus of $ 197 million to approximately $ 40 million. NCDOT, NCDENR and USACE are continuing work to develop and implement ways to fur-ther reduce the remaining surplus inventory. Also during FY 2007- 08, EEP has continued to increase the number of projects implemented based on watershed planning. This year, 85 percent of projects implemented by EEP using the Design- Bid- Build delivery process were located in watershed- planning areas ( for more infor-mation, see section II of this report). The program continues to achieve very high compliance rates. Compliance for the mitigation program serving NCDOT exclusively ( known as the Memorandum of Agreement ( MOA) pro-gram) is 95.89 percent for streams, 98.80 percent for riparian wetlands, 98.88 percent for non-riparian wetlands and 100 percent for coastal marsh. Within the mitigation program that serves the needs of other developers and the general public ( known as the Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) program), 96.7 percent of all requirements were fully met. A statewide status summary of both programs’ inventory shows that EEP has 1,534,937 feet of stream assets and 13,118.76 acres of wetlands. The majority of these assets have been prepared in advance of NCDOT permit needs and are ready for use as permits are issued. The remaining sections in this report describe the current program status. The report is in-tended to satisfy all reporting requirements as defined in G. S. 143- 214.13 and agreements with USACE and NCDOT. EEP anticipates continuing progress in the year ahead on providing a more holistic approach to mitigation, facilitating the delivery of 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. ____________________________ __________________ William D. Gilmore, PE, Director Date ii. I: EEP Programs The Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( EEP) is an initiative within the N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources ( NCDENR) that improves our environment while facilitating economic development. EEP restores streams and wetlands where the greatest need is by working with local and state partners, including willing landowners. The N. C. Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) and other developers voluntarily use EEP to move their projects forward in a timely and affordable manner. EEP provides mitigation services through four different in lieu fee ( ILF) programs: 1) The NCDOT Stream and Wetland ILF Program ( hereafter referred to in this document as the Memorandum of Agreement ( MOA) program); 2) The General Public Stream and Wetland ILF Program ( hereafter, the Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) program); 3) The General Public Riparian Buffer ILF Mitigation Program; and 4) The General Public Nutrient Offset ILF Program. Eligibility to participate in an EEP program is a joint decision made by the developer, EEP and the regulatory agencies. Each of the mitigation programs operate as an ILF program in which applicants make payments to EEP in lieu of providing mitigation themselves, or by other means. Upon payment, EEP assumes the full legal responsibility for planning, developing and implementing the required types and amounts of mitigation. After successful payment, applicants are no longer liable for the mitigation requirement. Additional details on these programs are included within this report. 1) MOA Program: A 2003 MOA among NCDENR, NCDOT and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers outlines procedures for how NCDOT utilizes EEP as an ILF program for NCDOT’s offsite stream and wetland mitigation needs, and specifies performance metrics for the delivery of that mitigation. In February of each year, NCDOT provides EEP with its mitigation request in the form of a forecast of future impacts to aquatic resources for the seven- year Transportation Improvement Program ( TIP) list. EEP secures the mitigation needed by NCDOT following protocols outlined in the Tri- Party MOA. EEP uses Fund 2984 to track payments and expenditures for this program. 2) MOU Program: The general public MOU Stream and Wetland Program provides applicants of Section 404 Permits, Section 401 Water Quality Certifications, and/ or Coastal Area Management Act permits the option to satisfy compensatory- mitigation requirements for wetland and stream impacts in all 17 North Carolina river basins through payment into EEP's ILF program. Protocols for mitigation delivery under this program are specified in an MOU between NCDENR and USACE. Payments made into the Stream and Wetland ILF Program are deposited into Fund 2981. 1 In FY 2007- 08, 189 customers made payments into the MOU Program. Stream and Wetland ILF payments totaled $ 11,020,380. Of this amount, a total of 159 customers had requirements from both USACE ( 404) and Division of Water Quality ( DWQ) ( 401), 24 customers had requirements from USACE only and eight customers had requirements from DWQ only. 3) Riparian Buffer ILF Mitigation Program: The Riparian Buffer ILF 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 watershed in the upper Cape Fear River basin. Payments are made to the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund ( Fund 2982) according to the regulatory schedule of fees for buffers. In Fiscal Year 2007- 08, EEP received payments for 1,184,056 square feet ( 27.18 acres) of buffer mitigation. At the close of the fiscal year, EEP had accepted responsibility for 506.06 acres of buffer- mitigation requirements cumulatively since the program’s inception in the Cape Fear, Catawba, Neuse and Tar- Pamlico River basins. 4) Nutrient Offset ILF Program: The Nutrient Offset Program is an option to meet compensatory mitigation requirements associated with nutrient- offset requirements in the Neuse and Tar- Pamlico River basins. Payments made into the Nutrient Offset ILF Program are deposited into Fund 2981- 9829. During FY 2007- 08, nutrient- offset payments were made by 338 customers located in the counties of Durham, Franklin, Johnston, Nash, Pitt, Wake and Wayne, and the municipalities of Cary, Durham, Garner, Goldsboro, Greenville, Havelock, Kinston, New Bern, Raleigh, Rocky Mount, Tarboro, Washington and Wilson. These payments were for 293,850.01 pounds of nitrogen reduction and 715.74 pounds of phosphorus reduction. Figure 1. Map of NC River Basins 2 II: Watershed Planning and Project Implementation EEP’s enabling legislation ( NC 143- 218.8), its Tri- Party MOA and the new federal compensatory- mitigation rules on compensating for losses of aquatic resources ( 33 CFR Parts 325 and 332, and 40 CFR Part 230) require EEP to implement watershed planning- based restoration and preservation projects. These requirements reflect the widely held position of water resource professionals that projects based on watershed planning will provide the best environmental return on investment. Therefore, an important focus of EEP continues to be the implementation of watershed restoration and preservation projects based on environmental needs identified through watershed planning. This is accomplished through high- level and detailed planning initiatives and the coordination of project implementation in accordance with planning outcomes. EEP conducts two main types of watershed planning: 1) River Basin Restoration Priority Planning ( high- level river basin/ eight- digit CU scale); and 2) Local Watershed Planning ( detailed level, small watershed scale). The products of EEP’s planning efforts are used to direct mitigation resources to areas of need. For reasons outlined in Section V of the 2006- 2007 annual report ( http:// www. nceep. net/ news/ annualreport/ 2007/ EEP_ Annual_ Report_ 2006_ 2007. pdf), not all EEP projects implemented in the first five years of the program have been watershed planning- based projects. However, EEP’s goal is to implement all program projects in targeted watersheds. This year EEP continued to make great strides toward this goal through its Design- Bid- Build ( DBB) project- delivery process. Projects generated through EEP’s Full Delivery ( FD) program have not shown the desired level of congruence with planning targets. Consequently, in order to promote improvement in this area, EEP recently changed its approach with regard to FD project development. Where possible, EEP is only accepting projects contained within watershed targets instead of providing incentives related to technical ratings for project proposals within watershed targets. EEP will assess the success of this approach and determine whether the stated goals are being reached and whether additional adjustments are necessary. This section describes the status of EEP watershed- planning methods and assesses how well the program’s project implementation corresponds with watershed priorities. It also summarizes a survey conducted of participants in EEP Local Watershed Planning initiatives. EEP strives to have local watershed plans and associated recommendations fully implemented. Toward that end, EEP continues to work with local stakeholders and funding programs to ensure that the plans not only generate projects to satisfy mitigation needs, but also serve as a resource for communities working to implement watershed improvements. This section highlights key partnerships with state and local entities which are vital to EEP’s watershed- planning focus for project implementation, which maximizes mitigation investments for the benefit of the state’s natural resources. 3 WATERSHED PLANNING The purpose of watershed planning is to determine the best locations for watershed-restoration projects based on analysis of watersheds’ needs for restoration and protection. Simply put, it is putting watershed restoration and preservation projects where they are most needed. This is done by conducting two types of planning – River Basin Restoration Priority ( RBRP) planning and Local Watershed planning. For more information about EEPs watershed planning, including watershed plan products searchable by county or river basin, go to: http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ lwplanning. htm. River Basin Restoration Priority Plans RBRP planning is conducted in each of the 17 river basins in North Carolina. The purpose of RBRP planning is to identify through data analysis and field verification those watersheds that exhibit a combination of local resources, problems and opportunities, and therefore serve as Targeted Local Watersheds ( TLWs) to focus project implementation by EEP and other entities. TLWs represent those watersheds where restoration or protection is most needed— for instance, watersheds that include streams with impaired water quality and degraded habitat are often targeted. More information on EEP’s RBRP planning process is available through EEP’s Policy, Process and Procedures Manual: http:// www. nceep. net/ abouteep/ PPPM2/ Policies% 20and% 20Procedures/ PLN. PRO. 02.01. 01. pdf EEP’s enabling statute requires that the RBRP planning takes place based on DWQ’s Basinwide Planning update schedule. DWQ has changed its model for updating basinwide watershed plans from once every five years to a continuous update of a Web data layer with a biannual written report. EEP is adjusting procedures to deliver river- basin planning products within the biannual timeframe. The RBRP plans incorporate water quality information from DWQ Basinwide Assessment Reports and Water Quality Plans, as well as input from local resource agency professionals and the location of existing or planned watershed projects. RBRP Planning updates also take advantage of newly acquired watershed datasets produced by the N. C. Center for Geographic Information and Analysis ( CGIA) that profile the assets, problems and baseline conditions of watersheds statewide. RBRP planning documents are posted on the EEP Web site, searchable by river basin or county: http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ lwplanning. htm. In FY 2007- 08, EEP completed the Little Tennessee RBRP planning and updated portions of the Catawba and Yadkin River Basin Restoration Priority Planning documents. The Chowan, Catawba and Yadkin basins were scheduled to be completed in December 2007, but have been postponed until December 2008 in order to incorporate the new CGIA datasets. The data will also be used to update RBRP planning documents in 2008- 2009, including the Broad, Cape Fear, Hiwassee, Lumber, New, Pasquotank, Roanoke, Savannah, Watauga and White Oak. 4 Local Watershed Plans Local Watershed planning merges TLWs identified in RBRP planning with anticipated mitigation needs to determine where future mitigation investments can provide the greatest benefit for the State of North Carolina. The development of a Local Watershed Plans ( LWP) is typically a four- phase process: Preliminary Watershed Characterization ( Phase I), Detailed Assessment ( Phase II), Development of a Watershed Management Plan including identification of potential project sites within a Project Atlas ( Phase III) and Implementation of the Plan ( Phase IV). However, rapid or abbreviated plans are also utilized when the mitigation- compliance timeline is compressed, the mitigation needs are insufficient to justify an extensive planning investment, or detailed analyses are not necessary to identify the most ecologically beneficial projects. EEP watershed planners are responsible for evaluating data and local resources to identify watersheds that demonstrate both the need for functional uplift and existing restoration opportunities to satisfy mitigation needs. Detailed watershed evaluations are conducted through the use of internal and external resources. External resources include private environmental planning and engineering firms, DWQ, CGIA and various not- for- profit organizations. Watershed planners coordinate with local resource professionals, state and federal agencies, private consulting firms and EEP project managers in the development and implementation of LWPs. EEP staff is continuing work on LWPs across the state. Nine plans are underway and in various stages of development and expected to be completed later in 2008 or 2009. Appendix A( iii) presents a summary of ongoing LWPs; these are efforts that haven’t yet resulted in a final Watershed Management Plan or Project Atlas ( listing of identified restoration opportunities), but will do so within the next six to 18 months. Fact sheets summarizing EEP’s Local Watershed planning efforts and links to associated reports are available on EEP’s Web site: http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ lwplanning. htm. Completed Local Watershed Plans LWPs are defined by EEP as complete at the end of Phase III with the production of a Watershed Management Plan and Project Atlas. To date, EEP has completed 27 watershed plans through Phase III. Phase IV focuses on outreach and implementation of projects derived from LWPs and is therefore an ongoing process. LWPs are designed such that they result in a suite of watershed- restoration recommendations, including but not limited to mitigation opportunities that can be implemented by a myriad of public and private entities over an extended period of time. Therefore, while EEP’s involvement in implementation ebbs and flows based upon mitigation needs, many other entities continue to pursue recommendations and projects that result from the Local Watershed planning process. EEP is actively pursuing projects identified in many plans, previous and current, in an effort to satisfy mitigation needs. To date EEP has implemented 51 projects worth more than $ 43 million in Local Watershed planning areas. ( See Appendix A for a list of those projects). EEP completed three Local Watershed planning efforts in FY 2007- 2008: Peachtree- Martins Creek LWP in the Hiwassee 02 CU, Cove Creek LWP in the Broad 05 CU and 5 Lockwoods Folly LWP in the Lumber 07 CU. Figure 2. Peachtree- Martins Creek Local Watershed Planning Area roject fact sheets summarizing efforts on each of these plans and links to the orresponding planning documents are included in Appendix A. A summary of all LWPs ix A. Pc completed to date and the status of Phase IV efforts is also included in Append Current information on EEP’s Local Watershed planning efforts is available on EEP’s Web site by river basin or county: http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ lwplanning. htm. New Local Watershed Planning Initiatives This year EEP began work on four new Local Watershed planning initiatives: Indian/ Howards Creek LWP ( Catawba 02 CU), Franklin to Fontana LWP ( Little ( Yadkin urveyed participants in its Local Watershed planning to gauge how tection needs of EEP and local r Tennessee 02 CU), Ararat River LWP ( Yadkin 01 CU) and Goose Creek LWP 05 CU). Fact sheets summarizing current planning activities for each of these plans are included in Appendix A and available on EEP’s Web site. EEP identified one new LWP initiative in Cape Fear 06 CU to begin in FY 2008- 09 based on forecasted NCDOT mitigation needs. Local Watershed Planning Survey Summary In July 2008, EEP s well the plans are meeting the restoration and pro communities. LWPs provide an important function within EEP by identifying potential stream- and wetland- mitigation projects, but their utility extends beyond this program to communities that adopt and implement the recommendations included within the plan. EEP surveyed stakeholders of completed and in- progress LWPs to determine the types of activities occurring in Local Watershed planning areas that support improvement and protection of watersheds. Survey participants included local government representatives, resource professionals, private consultants and regulatory agencies, among others. EEP also conducted follow- up phone interviews with stakeholders willing to provide furthe 6 input on their Local Watershed planning involvement. A summary of survey results is included in Appendix A. Using a Web survey tool, EEP sent a 14- question survey to 230 LWP stakeholders. EE received 42 completed sur P veys, an 18- percent response rate. Of those that responded, 89 ercent felt that the local watershed planning process was successful or somewhat t in plement lan recommendations. Stormwater management, land preservation, riparian- buffer er hin the planning process to increase the robability of implementing watershed- improvement recommendations. Participants also , survey p successful in identifying the needs of the watershed. Sixty- seven percent of stakeholders indicated that they have been able to use the products of the LWP, most notably the watershed- management plan, water- quality data and restoration targeting. Survey results and follow- up interviews indicate that stakeholders continue to benefi Local Watershed planning areas by successfully pursuing grant funding to im p reforestation, agricultural best management practices ( BMPs), and citizen outreach are highlighted activities implemented by survey respondents. Funding sources for these activities include 47 percent from the N. C. Clean Water Management Trust Fund ( CWMTF), local funding sources ( 30 percent), Agriculture Cost Share Program ( 27 percent) and Section 319 grants ( 25 percent). In addition, 20 percent of participants stated that they are implementing watershed- improvement ordinances such as buff requirements and stormwater runoff policies. Suggestions for improvement of the Local Watershed planning process included incorporating landowner involvement earlier wit p expressed concerns about the amount of time required to produce a plan. Overall participants responded favorably to the Local Watershed planning process, with 77 percent stating that they would partner again with EEP on a Local Watershed planning effort ( the remaining respondents were: " Yes, if things were changed" [ five respondents], “ No” [ one respondent], " N/ A" [ three respondents]), with two not responding. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION The primary purpose of EEP is to produce watershed restoration and preservation and other BMPs) that meet regulatory mitigation requirements with respect to type, quality and compliance schedule in the most cost-a. tinue to be, critical to EEP’s success in meeting mitigation needs throughout the state. For more details on the df projects ( stream, wetland, stormwater effective way, while maximizing environmental return for the State of North Carolin The maximization of environmental returns from implemented projects is achieved through the watershed- planning- based approach. EEP utilizes DBB and FD project- delivery methods to implement projects. Both of these project- delivery methods have been, and con different project delivery methods and the responsibilities of EEP staff for each, see Section V of the FY 2006- 07 Annual Report: http:// www. nceep. net/ news/ annualreport/ 2007/ EEP_ Annual_ Report_ 2006_ 2007. p 7 SYNERGIES BETWEEN WATERSHED PLANNING AND PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION The foundation of comprehensive watershed restoration and protection is wate planning. As EEP mature rshed s, more of the program’s restoration projects are correlated to watershed goals. While a large amount of the mitigation credits currently managed by m s EEP are reflective of watershed plans and targets, not all of the projects in the progra are synchronized in this manner due to a number of factors, including projects that were developed prior to the establishment of EEP, advanced mitigation timeline requirement and reductions in MOA program mitigation needs. For more detailed information regarding these factors see Section V of the FY 2006- 07 Annual Report: ( http:// www. nceep. net/ news/ annualreport/ 2007/ EEP_ Annual_ Report_ 2006_ 2007. pdf). For many of the reasons outlined in the FY 2006- 07 Annual Report, EEP to increase the percentage of projects implemented in watershed- planning areas utilizing has continued the DBB process. This year, 85 percent of projects implemented by EEP using the DBB delivery process were located in watershed- planning areas ( See Figure 3). Fourteen percent of the projects derived using the FD process were located in watershed- planning areas. Figure 3. Percentage of EEP Design Bid Build Projects Located in Planning Areas 0 20 40 60 80 100 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Project Percentage TLW TLW/ LWP 8 Figure 4. Design Bid Build Wetland Credits 54% 9% 37% TLW TLW/ LWP OTHER Figure 5. Design Bid Build Stream Credits 31% 34% 35% TLW TLW/ LWP OTHER EEP is committed to watershed- planning- based project delivery. However, as described above, there are circumstances when EEP does allow and will continue to allow ( for both DBB and FD) projects outside of the watershed- planning targets when the environmental justification for such projects is substantial and consistent with watershed- planning principles. Regardless, EEP in part measures performance through statistics that describe how closely project locations line up with planning targets. The following figures illustrate the synergies that have been achieved in the DBB program for wetland and stream projects. Projects delivered through the FD program have not been as consistent with watershed- planning targets as would be desired ( 31 percent of wetlands credits and 26 percent of stream credits generated through FD procurement are contained within TLWs). EEP is committed to improving the congruence of FD projects and watershed- planning targets. In the last few years, EEP has increased the number of points given to a project that is in a watershed planning area during the technical review of Requests for Proposals ( RFPs). EEP has found that this incentive- based approach has not eet processes with the goal of maximizing watershed- planning- based yielded the desired results. Therefore, in the most recent round of RFPs, EEP employed a new strategy in some areas that required that FD projects be located in TLWs in order to be considered for contracting. EEP will analyze the results of the new approach and m with FD providers to discuss those results. EEP continues to pursue the improvement of both procurement outcomes. COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS EEP relies heavily on collaborative partnerships w to fulfill its mission of producing high- quality, cost- e based on watershed planning. Local governments watershed- planning and implementation process w knowledge, landowner contacts, donation of easem n- EEP funded watershed- restoration projects. State agenc technical and local knowledge, landowner contact and preservation partnerships and contracting capa of those collaborative partnerships. ith local, state and federal entities ffective restoration and preservation often provide invaluable input in the ith respect to technical and local ents and implementation of no y partnerships provide resources, s, shared data, watershed restoration bilities. This section highlights a few 9 Local Governments/ Municipalities as s watershed- management challenges in eir area and provide EEP with the tools needed to implement cost- effective projects ore than 30 projects with 17 overnments, including the City of Durham, Mecklenburg County, the Town of f TF EEP staff collaborate with local governments on a daily basis. This communication h resulted in valuable partnerships that benefit both EEP and local stakeholders with respect to technical capabilities, shared data, policy and technical guidance, and project implementation. Often, the most degraded watersheds exist in urbanized or developing areas where land costs are high and project design and/ or construction is complicated. Collaborative efforts allow local partners to addres th where they are most needed. EEP has partnered on m g Mooresville, the City of Kinston and others ( see Appendix A). These partnerships have resulted in the restoration and protection of more than 18 miles of stream and 50 acres o wetlands worth over $ 32 million. In addition, watershed- planning efforts have provided local governments with the ability to leverage grant monies from Section 319, CWM and other funding sources in pursuit of the implementation of stormwater BMPs, land protection and watershed- coordinator positions. State and Federal Partnerships/ Collaboration Clean Water Management Trust Fund As recommend in the 2007 Dye Management Report ( http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ DYE_ 2007_ EEP_ CWMTF_ Study_ Final_ Report. pdf) prepared for the North Carolina legislature, EEP and CWMTF are continuing to inc coordination on enhancement and restoration efforts. In CWMTF’s 2008 grant application cycle, EEP staff assisted CWMTF field representatives with field reviews of proposed restoration projects. EEP staff also performed a review of all 2008 applicatio to determine if projects occurred in watershed- planning areas, and if so, wrote letters of support for those projects. In addition to the above efforts, EEP and CWMTF are partnering within three wa located in different regions of the state: Big Harris Creek ( Broad basin), Upper Rocky River ( Yadkin basin), and Upper Neuse ( Neuse basin). EEP/ CWMTF project teams will work together to develop recommendations on strategies that address aquatic- resource issues through innovative project partnerships, educational outreach, and community support of watershed issues. These recommendations will be presented to EEP and CWMTF program executives. The goal is to augm rease ns tersheds ent each program’s resources, both me and financial, to achieve targeted watershed benefits. ivision of Soil and Water Conservation h the Division of Soil and Water Conservation to work with local Soil and Water tion ti D In August 2007, EEP signed a contract wit ( DSWC). By partnering with the DSWC, EEP is able Conservation Districts ( SWCDs) throughout the state on stream- and wetland- restora projects. Local SWCDs provide an important resource through their knowledge of farm management strategies and agricultural BMPs as well as their relationships with landowners within the watershed. In FY 2007- 08, EEP funded more than $ 100,000 of 10 agricultural BMPs, including cattle- exclusion fencing, wells and watering troughs in association with stream- restoration projects, and has scoped an additional $ 300,000 on additional projects. By partnering with SWCDs, EEP is able to restore degraded systems, macroinvertebrate community data, fish community data, ambient water quality data, a her imagery and species information, NHP identified lso s pare abitat quality in all of the state’s river basins. recognizes at WRC is uniquely qualified to provide these services because of its responsibilities e directly address sources of pollution and help ensure long- term project success while furthering the water- quality improvement goals of both EEP and DSWC. United States Geological Survey EEP continued its cooperative support for U. S. Geological Survey ( USGS) gauging station data collection in two of its LWP areas-- Fishing Creek in the upper Tar- Pamlico River basin and White Oak in the White Oak River basin. The data from these stations are used for integrated interpretation of instream conditions in conjunction with benthic chemical water quality data, toxicity bioassay data, and in some cases for water quality and quantity model calibration. These data are collected as a part of the USGS's national network of gauging and water- quality monitoring stations. Specific data from the Fishing Creek and White Oak gauging stations were analyzed and presented at the 2007 N. C. Water Quality Forum held in Charlotte, as part of other ongoing research projects. Natural Heritage Program With funding provided by EEP, the N. C. Natural Heritage Program ( NHP) completed statewide analysis to identify areas of high- quality habitat important to species sensitive to landscape integrity. These high- quality habitats, or core areas, are primarily identified based on functional considerations – response of species to habitat fragmentation – rat than on rarity or, in the case of natural communities, exceptional quality. Using data that included GIS, aerial core areas that indicate where target species groups, or guilds, reside. The analysis a identifies inter- core area connectors that serve as links between core areas and are likely to support dispersal by guild members. Overall, NHP mapped 267 core areas, covering 15,483 square miles of priority habitat and a total of 83 inter- core connectors. With the completion of the assessment, EEP gains an important tool to enhance both it LWPs and RBRP planning. For LWPs, the assessment provides a means of ranking conservation priorities for project implementation. For RBRPs, the assessment informs planners of the abundance of quality and high- functioning forest and wetland habitat within a river basin. This information is critical to gauging the assets that are present within a river basin and, because the data is to be complete statewide, is ideal to com h North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission In January 2006, the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission ( WRC) and EEP entered into an MOA to establish a working relationship between the agencies. The WRC agreed to complete stream- and wetland- associated restoration work, maintenance, monitoring and research activities at specific, unique mitigation sites managed by EEP. EEP th and experience managing North Carolina’s fish and wildlife resources. To formalize th 11 agreement, WRC entered into a formal contract with EEP that covers the period from Jan 9, 2006 to Jan. 8, 2009. . h out orth Carolina Division of Water Quality Section 319 Grant Program ers the Section 319 Grant Program, e g 0- foot stream restoration project. The Dye Branch Project, cated in Iredell County, was identified as part of the Upper Rocky River/ Clarke Creek r dditional Watershed Management Partnerships g with EEP er tracts in the Wilson Creek watershed ( upper Catawba basin) by the Foothills Conservancy [ consistent with goals of the ver and Kerr Scott Reservoir LWPs]; To date, EEP has tasked WRC with a variety of projects, including restoration and maintenance activities. In FY 2007- 08, WRC had 11 active assignments, two of whic were new authorizations, and WRC completed work on one request. EEP has placed a major emphasis on closing out projects constructed under WRC’s previous agreement with NCDOT and now assumed by EEP. These projects are all scheduled to be closed by the end of 2009. N The Nonpoint Source Program of DWQ administ which funds local jurisdictions and nonprofit organizations ( such as universities and environmental education partnerships) to restore impaired waters and improv management of problems such as stormwater runoff. EEP participated in the review of applications to the Section 319 Grant Program by scoring proposals and attendin interviews with applicants in person. In addition, EEP received Section 319 funding to implement a stormwater BMP project in association with a 3,00 lo LWP and is located in an urban watershed that receives large amounts of stormwate runoff. EEP completed the BMP installation in 2006 and is working with NCSU and DWQ to collect water- quality data to evaluate the effectiveness of nutrient removal. Construction of the stream- restoration project was completed in July 2008. A Several stakeholder groups that have worked or are currently workin LWP initiatives in Western North Carolina have utilized LWP products to support their CWMTF applications for various non- mitigation watershed projects. CWMTF grant awards approved in the summer of 2008 include the following [ note: name of associated LWP effort in brackets]: Acquisition of riparian- buff Lake Rhodhiss regional watershed planning effort, of which the Lower Creek LWP is a part]; Stormwater master planning and BMPs for the Town of Sparta in Alleghany County ( New River basin), as identified in the Bledsoe Creek Watershed Management Plan [ Little River and Brush Creek LWP]; Funding of agricultural BMPs for water quality improvement in the upper Yadkin River basin, to be implemented by the DSWC [ Ararat Ri 12 Planning monies for development of the Ararat River Corridor Conservation & Greenway Plan ( Surry County), to be administered through the Northwest Piedmont Council of Governments [ Ararat River LWP]; Restoration planning for the Town Creek watershed, in Clay County, to be implemented by the Hiwassee River Watershed Coalition [ Peachtree- Martins Creek LWP]; and dec 8. in per Ten dmore area. A preliminary list of likely impassable be f alre s. EEP watershed restoration strategies for the Lower Creek watershed. The Caldwell Low EP continues to pursue non- traditional wetland mitigation credit in the Catawba ch, enefits to a natural wetland in a watershed where traditional wetland- restoration EEP participated in a multi- party MOU to support the Chatham Conservation am County. Little Tennessee stream- and riparian- restoration program, to be implemented by the Macon County Soil and Water Conservation District [ Franklin to Fontana LWP]. These CWMTF grant awards total more than $ 6 million. Additional funding isions for EEP- supported watershed grants will be made in November 200 EEP partnered with U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, WRC, NCDOT, and others forming a collaborative study of fish passages in streams that drain to the Little nessee River near the Nee road and driveway stream crossings was developed. Problematic crossings will urther evaluated and prioritized for replacement. Project partners have ady received funds to replace one to two priority crossing has continued to work with the Lower Creek Advisory Team to implement and Burke County SWCDs applied for and received a Section 319 grant to fund a er Creek Watershed Coordinator for the next three years. E 03050103 CU. The purpose of the effort is to seek a flexible mitigation approa allowing EEP to receive credit for implementing BMPs that provide similar b opportunities are severely limited. NCSUs Watershed Education for Communities and Officials received $ 199,000 in EPA Section 319 grant funds to pursue conservation and restoration in Rocky River, an EEP LWP area where the plan was completed in 2005. Partnership ( CCP). EEP entered into this partnership to work creatively with other CCP participants to meet Chatham County’s conservation needs. CCP began in 2007 as a proactive approach to better plan for growth in the county. EEP’s Cape Fear Rocky River LWP is located in western Chath Chapel Hill and Carrboro partnered to receive $ 370,000 in Section 319 grant funds to support restoration and BMP implementation in Bolin Creek, a subwatershed within the Morgan and Little Creek LWP area. 13 Environmental Education and Outreach EEP a outreac NCDEN nel hosted the ast and crew of Aquakids, an award- winning TV show for young teens broadcast into 100 - quality North C s in central accessi sode scheduled to air in late 2008 and may lead to further collaborations in the future. EEP co EEP restorat r Teachers), an ternational program that distributes classroom- ready teaching aids to K- 12 instructors. he materials promote responsible stewardship through an interdisciplinary water science itigation sites serve as excellent o re bout EEP projects. st ff participated in a variety of opportunities for environmental education and h during the past fiscal year, and participated with ongoing efforts of the R Education and Outreach Working Group. In June, EEP person c million households nationwide. The Baltimore- based show concentrates on water issues for its programming, and approached EEP about filming a segment in arolina. For the episode, EEP staff took the Aquakids contingent to three site North Carolina to demonstrate the impacts to water quality from livestock ng rural streams, and EEP’s restoration efforts in such circumstances. The epi is ntinued to build upon efforts to engage and educate schools located near ion projects. EEP promoted Project WET ( Water Education fo in T and education program on water resources. EEP m outdoor classrooms for multiple teaching components. EEP also continued to improve its Web site, launching a series of updates and reconfigurations in December in response to user input to an on- line survey. EEP is als making progress toward the implementation of a GIS- based web portal in the coming months. The improvements are designed to satisfy the desire of the regulatory community for simple access to EEP restoration and monitoring plans and eventually will be available to the general public. EEP staff is developing voice- thread Web sites ( collaborative, multi- media slide shows that invite public input) for mitigation projects, promoting online interaction between EEP and individuals interested in learning mo a Finally, as a part of the program’s daily work processes, EEP continued to educate landowners and municipal, county and state personnel about the program. Education efforts also included presentations and exhibits for legislative committees, civic clubs, the N. C. State Fair and public- and private- sector conferences throughout the year. 14 III: Financial Accounting, Cost Data and Property Acquisition REVENUE, EXPENDITURES, AND ENCUMBRANCES The figures and tables below depict expenditures and end- of- year balances for the MOA Program ( NCDOT stream and wetland progr ), the Wetlands Restoration Program Trust Fund, the MOU Program ( general public stream and wetland mitigation program), and the buffer and nutrient offset programs. An accounting of beginning balances, revenues, expenditures, cash balances, encum rances and unencumbered balances is provided. Revenues collected by EEP through its four mitigation programs are used to implement restoration projects where they will provide maximum environmental benefits to the state’s natural resources. A small part of EEP’s revenues is used to administer the program. EEP receives no state appropriations ( some historic appropriations remain in the Wetlands Restoration Program Trust Fund but will soon be exhausted). Fund Figure 6 provides an accounting of the MOA fund and applies to the mitigation f the NCDOT, mitigation roduction and payments are programmed on a cash- flow basis. As a result, EEP invoices am b 2984: MOA Program program supplied to the Department of Transportation. At the request o p NCDOT for the actual cost for the work being processed to include administration, payments made to engineers, contractors, and full delivery providers. Figure 6: MOA Program Fund 2984 Fiscal Year 2007- 08 Fund 2984 Actual Amounts Beginning balance $ 16,099,120.68 Revenues $ 28,602,257.54 Expenditures $ 42,072,862.06 Ending Balance $ 2,628,516.16 Encumbrances $ 79,529,964.90 Future Yr. Obligations $ 76,901,448.74 $ 90,000,000.00 $ 40,000,000.00 $ 50,000,000.00 $ 60,000,000.00 $ 70,000,000.00 $ 80,000,000.00 Beg. Balance Revenues Expenditures Ending Balance $ 30,000,000.00 $ 0.00 $ 10,000,000.00 $ 20,000,000.00 Encumbrances Future Year Obligations 15 EEP invoices NCDOT on a quarterly basis and secures only those funds required to pay anticipated operating costs for the upcoming quarter. Future year obligations are guaranteed to be paid in accordance with an MOA between NCDOT and NCDENR. This information is reported quarterly during routine invoicing processes. Also, EEP is audited quarterly by the NCDOT Inspector General’s office and has been audited by the Federal Highways Administration. Fund 2980, Wetlands Restoration Program Trust Fund, is the repository for appropriated dollars and was established by the General Assembly. In 1997, the General Assembly provided a one- time initial appropriation of seed dollars for the former Wetlands Restoration Program. Th ance for this fund is $ 14,683.61. aining encumbra is ye ill be closed out sometime the next fiscal yea unds 2981, 2982, 2982- 9829: The MOU, Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset rogram Funds igure 7 below provi n LF general public wetland nd stream restoration program storation ILF Program 982) and the Nutrient Offset Reduction ILF Program ( 2982- 9829). Fund 2981, MOU ILF Program, is a voluntary, statewide receipt- based ILF program. Land- disturbing activities that require Section 404 or Section 401 permits often require e unencumbered bal Rem nces will be paid th ar and this fund w in r. FPF des an accounting of fu ( 2981), the Ri ds for the MOU I a parian Buffer Re ( 2 Figure 7: Funds 2981, 2982, 2982- 9829; Fiscal Year 2007- 08 $ 30,000,000.00 $ 35,000,000.00 $ 25,000,000.00 Beg. Balance $ 5,000,000.00 $ 10,000,000.00 $ 15,000,000.00 $ 20,000,000.00 Revenues Expenditures Ending Balance Encumbrances Unencumbered Balance $ 0.00 Beg. Balance $ 31,421,790.14 $ 2,617,656.97 $ 5,385,257.95 Revenues $ 12,999,693.73 $ 1,318,121.64 $ 5,622,143.37 Expenditures $ 15,960,457.66 $ 827,401.67 $ 245,172.14 Ending Balance $ 28,461,026.21 $ 3,108,376.94 $ 10,762,229.18 Encumbrances $ 19,265,042.20 $ 1,314,576.34 $ 1,473,270.57 Unencumbered Balance $ 9,195,984.01 $ 1,793,800.60 $ 9,288,958.61 2981 2982 2982- 9829 16 compensatory mitigation as specified by USACE or DWQ. The general public, commercial and residential developers, as well as non- NCDOT governmental agencies including municipalities and military installations, may produce the mitigation themselves, purchase credits from a private mitigation bank, or request mitigation from EEP. Upon acceptance and payment, EEP provides the off- site compensatory mitigation to satisfy regulatory requirements. The work may consist of reestablishment of wetlands and reconstruction or enhancement to degraded streams. This fund helps the general public by providing a service that is cost- effective and simplifies the permitting processes. EEP sought fee revisions for this fund as costs were not in line with the current fee schedule. New fees have been established recently and the updated fees can be referenced at the EEP Web site: http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ fee. htm. Fund 2982, Riparian Buffer Fund, is the repository for monies related to the state’s Riparian Buffer ILF Program 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 redits from a private mitigation banks or pay EEP to produce the mitigation and satisfy on-e uctions from a private mitigation bank or pay a fee to EEP to produce the itigation. The types of projects produced by EEP may consist of best management the on of mitigation sites. c permit needs. Revenues collected are used to contract engineering, construction, land acquisition and long term protection of mitigation sites. The types of projects produced consist of reestablishment and protection of buffers ( primarily involving planting vegetation) along degraded streams and river banks in the protected basin. Fund 2982- 9829, Nutrient Offset Fund, is the repository for funds of the Nutrient Offset ILF Program. This program has been in place for the Neuse River basin since 1998. In March 2006, the Tar- Pamlico River basin was added. Applicants seeking permits for construction related impacts to uplands may elect to undertake additional site nutrient reduction measures to meet nutrient reduction requirements, purchas nutrient red m practices or vegetated buffers that will reduce nitrogen and phosphorous loading into river basins and estuaries. Revenues collected are used to contract engineering, construction, land acquisition and secure long term protecti Based on a study commissioned by the General Assembly and conducted by RTI International, the legislature set the fees for the Nutrient Offset ILF Program effective September 1, 2007. The fees can be referenced at http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ fee. htm. COST OF MITIGATION DELIVERY Total project costs are the sum of costs associated with multiple project steps including land acquisition; project design; project construction; maintenance; monitoring for project success; and long- term stewardship of the perpetually protected prop erty. In ddition a small amount of program monies are associated with funding staff to oversee the contracting, awards, project delivery and administration. All design, construction and a 17 monitoring activities ( which make up the vast majority of program expenditures) are outsourced to private- sector companies. EEP employs two primary outsourcing metho for its project procurement: Full Delivery ( FD)- requests for proposals ( RFPs) are issued for specific types, amounts and locations of compensatory mitigation and one single contrac issued for the entire project from acquisition to monitoring. The types of firm participating in this process include private mitigation bankers and enginee firms with construction contracting capabilities. Design- Bid- Build ( DBB) - EEP acquires the project site through the S Property Office, contracts for design through a private environmental ds t is s ring tate consulting firm, bids out the construction to private contractors, and employs a od g verage per- unit costs of project implementation for the last fiscal year have been ts at an average of $ 41,817.60 per unit. The fee s mitigatio rule maki costs pres 82- 9829), fees were set by the N. C. G ver Basin and rus in the Tar- Paml costs con w nutrient r implement the least cost reduction projects, and that EEP transition to an actual cost ethod for assessing payment to participate in the program. A progress report on ed to the General Assembly in September of 2008 consulting firm for the monitoring. This is the standard contracting meth administered through the Department of Administration and the State Buildin Commission. EEP Project Costs for FY 2007- 08 A calculated by examining both FD and DBB contracts. In FY 2007- 08, EEP obtained: • 66,748 total stream mitigation units at an average of $ 274 per unit; • 4.65 total riparian wetland mitigation units at an average of $ 43,406 per unit; • 2.85 total non- riparian wetland mitigation units at an average of $ 40,718 per unit; and • 31.96 total buffer acre uni chedule over the past year was below actual costs for the wetland and stream n program ( 2981) and the nutrient offset program ( 2982- 9829). EEP, through ng, was able to increase fees for its ILF program to levels more in line with ented above. For the Nutrient Offset Program ( 29 eneral Assembly to be $ 28.35 per pound nitrogen for projects in the Neuse Ri $ 21.67 per pound nitrogen and $ 28.62 per tenth of pound for phospho ico River basin. These fees were set based on an analysis of buffer restoration ducted by RTI International. The General Assembly also required that all ne eductions take place in the same CU as the impact payment, that EEP m transitioning to actual cost was provid ( http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ FINAL_ ERC_ NO_ Progres_ Report_ 09- 12- 08. pdf). EEP continues to take measures to produce cost effective mitigation through such items actors on wetland and stream construction techniques. As nderstanding improves, it translates to increased competition within a larger bidding as training of construction contr u pool. 18 Cost Analysis of Private Mitigation Banks Reporting requirements of G. S. 143 214.13 require EEP to compare the cost of ix lanning, d ull Delivery Program stream and/ or wetland). Providers are required to submit both a technical roposal and a cost proposal for each prospective submittal. The technical proposal etails: 1) the experience, qualifications and financial stability of the firm submitting the e site that make it suitable for restoration; n, both . e ate, develop and implement a restoration plan, and monitor the project for five years to he restoration meets established success criteria. for 12,136 and 33.5 riparian wetland itigation units at a cost of $ 1,205,125.00. s, g. mitigation between the EEP projects and private mitigation banks. To obtain the data necessary to accomplish this task, a Web- based survey requesting restoration cost information was sent to the sponsor of each approved bank in North Carolina. Append C includes a listing of banks that were requested to respond, and a copy of the survey is included. There were no responses from private mitigation banks for FY 2007- 08. Contracts The science of natural- systems restoration has advanced considerably over the past decade. Because of this, and in addition to regulatory requirements, watershed p design and monitoring approaches continue to evolve. As such, EEP utilizes multiple contracting methods to address the myriad of tasks necessary to plan, implement an monitor natural systems restoration projects. F The FD Program procures compensatory mitigation by issuing RFPs through the 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., riparian buffer, p d proposal; 2) the geomorphologic features of th and 3) the conceptual plan for restoring the site to a more natural, stable conditio physically and biologically. The cost proposal provides a unit cost ( i. e., per buffer mitigation unit, stream mitigation unit or wetland mitigation unit) 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 on the project area to th st verify that t There are currently 21 firms that have FD contracts with EEP, indicating widespread participation by the environmental consulting/ mitigation banking community. In FY 2007- 08, EEP entered into seven new FD contracts ( with five different FD providers) 30,532 stream mitigation units at a cost of $ 7,1 m Design- Bid- Build Program EEP utilizes On- call Design and Consulting Services Authorizations to contract with private design and consulting firms for professional services for all stages of project development including: watershed planning, environmental resource investigation restoration site design and construction management, and post- construction monitorin The use of on- call consultants is authorized by the State Building Commission as described in the N. C. Administrative Code ( see 01 NCAC 30D). Since 2002, the State 19 Building Commission has approved four on- call authorizations to EEP as described following table: Table 1. NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program On- Call Authorizations in the Authorization Date Effective # of Firms Authorized Total Authorization 2002 Oncall 4/ 18/ 02 - 4/ 17/ 04 15 $ 10,500,000 2004 Oncall 4/ 1/ 04 - 3/ 31/ 06 22 $ 15,400,000 2005 Oncall 8/ 23/- 05 – 8/ 22/ 07 21 $ 14,700,000 2006 Oncall 12/ 12/ 06 – 12/ 11/ 08 31 $ 21,700,000 Design and Construction EEP also utilizes NCDENR and federal agencies to provide planning, design, - e l Contracted Services construction and monitoring services. This use of these agencies is authorized by NCDENR as described in the N. C. Administrative Code ( see N. C. General Statue 143 59). Total Contracted Services In FY 2007- 08, 61 new design and construction contracts were awarded. The total valu of new design and construction contracts was $ 9,301,008.06. Table 2. Tota Fiscal Year 2007- 08 Total Watershed and Project Planning Services ( 12) $ 404,537.25 Total Design Services ( 10) $ 1,984,386.00 Total Construction Services ( 15) $ 3,872,912.00 Total Maintenance and Repair Services ( 6) $ 459,725.60 Total Monitoring Services ( 18) $ 2,579,447.21 Total ( 61) $ 9,301,008.06 iscal Year 2007 ndors $ 41,685,254.38 for FY 2007- 08. Figure 8 ( top of the next ction, but f F - 08 Payments to Ve Payments to vendors totaled page) illustrates payments by contract type: Full Delivery, Design and Constru does not include any costs for property acquisition. Appendix E provides a listing o payments by contract type and vendor. 20 Figure 8: Fiscal Year 2007- 08 Design Bid Build - Contract Payments by Type Construction, 15% Design, 14% Full Delivery, 71% PROPERTY ACQUISITION: FY 2007- 08 associated with preservation and restoration projects, totaling more than 1,370 acres. Two of the acquisitions were outright purchases, three were construction easements, one was an allocation of a conservation easement from another state agency, one was an access easement, one was a modification of an existing conservation easement, and 72 were acquisitions of conservation easements. All properties that closed between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2008 are shown in Appendix E ( ii). Acreages are included for sites that have been surveyed to date. Landowners have formally agreed to give EEP the right to acquire an easement or property for all sites listed in Appendix E ( iii), Properties Optioned. operties acquired since the inception of the than 46,700 acres have been purchased or During this fiscal year, the State Property Office closed on 80 parcels Cumulative Properties is an inventory of all pr Wetlands Restoration Program in 1996. More donated. The full inventory of these acquisitions is presented in Appendix E ( i). 21 IV: Program Inventory Status his section provides detailed tables and charts regarding mitigation production. EEP acks and is accountable for mitigation production in 17 river basins, 54 CUs and for 15 itigation types. TREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION INVENTORY T tr m S t the end of FY 2007- 08, EEP had produced or inherited 1,666,838 linear feet of stream nd 21,116 acres of wetland mitigation, in addition to High Quality Preservation ( HQP) ssets. The table below is a summary of mitigation assets by river basin and type. The ata are also summarized by the primary mitigation program that funded the development f the assets ( MOU or MOA programs). Table 3: EEP Total Assets FY Aa a do 07 – 08 22 Note: EEP’s mitigation assets and requirements are accounted for on a CU basis, not by river basin. This table, along with Table 5, is intended as a summary. A complete listing of these tables by river basin and CU can be found in the EEP’s Fourth Quarterly Report to USACE, FY 2007- 2008, located on the EEP Web site at: http:// www. nceep. net/ news/ eeppublications. htm. Current Inventory of Asset Credits Table 5 on the following page lists net- asset credits by river basin for FY 2007- 08. These are the current inventory assets after application of credits to compensatory- mitigation requirements. Remaining asset credits are also summarized by credit amounts in the MOA and MOU programs. Assets in this table have been converted to restoration and restoration- equivalent credits. Restoration equivalent credits are credits that can only be used to offset mitigation requirements after the 1: 1 impact to restoration requirement has been met. HQP gross and net assets are summarized in the next section. At the end of FY 2007– 08, EEP had net inventory assets of both restoration and restoration equivalent of: • Stream: 671,001.03 credits; • Riparian: 2,850.65 credits; • Nonriparian: 6,697.47 credits; and • Coastal marsh: 130.08 credits. Total net inventory assets are the sum of Table 5 ( Net Inventory of Asset Credits) below. These inventory assets represent progress that EEP has achieved to produce mitigation in advance of permits. These mitigation assets are available to offset future permit requirements, especially for NCDOT. The advancement of mitigation ahead of permitted impacts is environmentally preferable and is an important tenet of the agreement among NCDOT, NCDENR and USACE, which has allowed NCDOT to move forward with about $ 4.8 billion in road- development projects without delays associated with compensatory mitigation since 2003. 23 Table 4: EEP Net Inventory of Asset Credits, FY 07- 08 River Basin Stream Restoration Stream Restoration Equivalent Riparian Restoration Riparian Restoration Equivalent Nonriparian Restoration Nonriparian Restoration Equivalent Coastal Marsh Restoration Coastal Marsh Restoration Equivalent Broad 68,858 1,330.80 11.40 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cape Fear 110,204 3,698 394.39 224.70 836.94 192.39 8.99 42.88 Catawba 30,836 39 7.24 2.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Chowan 12,249 1,217 94.73 3.00 4.99 2.00 0.00 0.00 French Broad 76,155 1,978 9.74 8.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hiwassee 6,865 1,700 3.53 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Little Tennessee 9,890 3,084 57.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lumber 8,163 350 51.98 18.19 567.97 60.28 0.00 0.00 Neuse 32,754 680 355.86 438.94 1,477.94 1,110.08 0.00 0.00 New 23,311 3,633 10.19 6.18 0.00 2.38 0.00 0.00 Pasquotank 15,578 0 393.04 21.25 1,124.70 30.76 1.51 35.91 Roanoke 43,836 2,551 143.67 105.92 115.46 685.00 0.00 0.00 Savannah 4,342 608 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 Tar- Pamlico 29,312 0 121.04 100.67 234.71 89.64 0.24 37.92 Watauga 2,706 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 White Oak 20,080 401.98 19.10 2.01 83.08 48.10 2.64 0.00 Yadkin 143,867 10,726.80 214.73 29.56 15.01 10.73 0.00 0.00 Grand Total 639,004 31,997.30 1,888.59 962.06 4,465.79 2,231.68 13.38 116.71 Grand Total MOU 29,988 1,023.80 154.20 42.41 47.90 52.49 3.27 0.24 Grand Total MOA 609,016 30,973.50 1,734.39 919.65 4,417.89 2,179.19 10.11 116.47 STATEWIDE STATUS OF MOU AND MOA STREAM AND WETLAND PROGRAMS The fo ing graph rovid tewid umma tus o e MO MO progra at the end FY 2 8. The aphs depict EEP current g sset mitigation requirem s, out ng m emen nd p d fu mitigation needs in its th EP exp to pr de over next years ease note that EEP tracks credits and credit r ireme by prog ( MOU or MOA), by im ion credits are a itigation t n CU o , and within program unless the r ry s ha a therwis e gra fle tate ict EP gram g dits) and en ce m ion r ements are typ betw one llow ms s p of ent cred e a sta 007- 0 standi at E e s gr itigation requir ects equ ry sta ovi nts f th ts, a the ram A and ross a rojecte two U s, ture . Pl pact type, and by wate ype, w rshed CU. All mitigat pplied within m ithi o f impact egulato ur agencie ’ ve pproved e. Thes phs re ct the s wide p e of E s pro matic ains ( cre requirem ts. Sin itigat equir ically een 24 to two times as larg tual tted i ts, th ual lo are a xima ne-h s th nitud equ Figure 9 displays the status of stream re ents ssets uced both M OA p s instituted 1,534,937.27 credits of stream m and acc itiga equ 108 s — epres o llion ad stream ed ad m n h n dev ed for future mitigatio s as per op ag nts O MO m program tan quir s equ ,919 ts ( low f f escriptio Fi Sta P Str Mitig ogr Credi e as ac permi mpac e act sses ppro tely o alf to two- third e mag e of r irements shown. quirem and a prod ( for the OU and M rograms). Currently EEP ha itigation epted m tion r irements of 485, credit this r ents ver one mi vanced n cr its. The e vanced re itigatio o as bee U elop need the rating eme f the M and A itigation s. Outs ding re ement al 25 credi see be or urther d n). gure 9: tus of EE eam ation Pr am in ts 1,534,937 485,108 25,919 908,924.00 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 Credits 1,200,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 Stream EEP Stream Assets EEP Mitigation Requirements EEP Outstanding Stream Requirements Future Requirements The generation of mitigation credits in advance of mitigation requirements is a foundin principle of the MOA program. The advanced mitigation currently available in the program is evidence that EEP is succeeding on this front. However, mitigation demand over the next five years is expected to be very high. As shown in the Figure 9, NCDOT and EEP are projecting mitigation needs of 908,924 stream credits over the next five years. The majority of this mitigation need is related to NCDOT’s programmed TIP projects and the mitigation- advancement schedule outlined in the Tri- Party MOA. g utstanding requirements represent mitigation needs that do not match ( type or CU cation) invento ding requirements which are detailed O lo ried assets. EEP has strategies in place to meet the outstan in EEP’s quarterly reports at www. nceep. net. Section V of this report contains additional compliance information. 25 Figure 10 displays the status of the wetland requirements and assets produced ( MOU and MOA programs). Currently EEP is managing instituted assets of 13,118.76 wetland credits with current requirements equaling 11,760.66 credits. The majority of credits originated from the NCDOT mitigation program that existed prior to EEP’s formation. These unused assets were transferred to EEP to be managed within the MOA program for NCDOT’s future mitigation needs. Currently, outstanding requirements equal 15.96 wetland credits. As shown in the graph, NCDOT and EEP are projecting additional mitigation needs of 2,791.28 credits over the next five years. On a statewide level, EEP has achieved success for advance mitigation. However, much of the current advance mitigation is focused in particular CUs, whereas the mitigation needs are spread more evenly across the state. Thus, while some CUs have already achieved advanced mitigation, others will require additional wetland- credit development over the coming years. Figure 10: Status of EEP Wetland Program in Credits 13,118.76 14,000.00 8,000.00 10,000.00 12,000.00 EEP Assets EEP Mitigation Requirements EEP Outstanding Wetland Requirements Future Requirements 2,000.00 4,000.00 6,000.00 2,791.28 1,170.66 15.96 0.00 Wetland Statewide Status of Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset ILF Programs The status of the Riparian Buffer ILF Program is illustrated in the table below. This program is 100% compliant and has provided all current buffer requirements . EEP has advanced riparian buffer credits of 34.59 in Cape Fear, 23.13 in Catawba, 106.73 in Neuse, and 44.57 in Tar- Pamlico. Of this, 27.61 acres of payments ( mostly in the Neus have already been received and will be due in the future. e) Table 5. Riparian Buffer ILF Program Status FY 2007- 08 26 The status of the Nutrient Offset ILF Program is shown in the table below. Nutrient reductions were completely met in the Tar- Pamlico basin for nitrogen and phosphorus, but not in the Neuse River basin. In 2006, a revised increased fee schedule was authorized via rulemaking by the Environmental Management Commission. The revised fee schedule was, however, reverted by the General Assembly while it completed a cost study. During this period of time, EEP suspended procurement of new nutrient- offset projects that exceeded the legislated rates. Table 6. Nutrient Offset ILF Program Status FY 2007- 08 ects during this time could have esulted in the complete depletion of the funds within this program without satisfying the equired reduction 2006- 07 as nearly 3 percent elow- cost fees. Currently, a revised fee has been passed by the legislature. These fees, hile lower than previously authorized by the EMC, are sufficient, and EEP has begun rocurement of projects with an expectation to meet requirements over the next two years. EEP believes that most BMP- type ( e. g. stormwater BMP’s, constructed wetlands, ts will not be fundable under the current fee schedule, w projects. Consequently, EEP expe f riparian- buffer projects with a few The suspension was necessary because collected fees during FY 2005- 06 through FY 2006- 07 were below the projected costs of implementing stormwater wetland and riparian buffer nutrient- offset projects. Implementing proj rr in nutrients. This problem was magnified during FY 4 of the program’s total historical requirements were paid during FY 2006- 07 at b wp etc.) nutrient- reduction projec particularly since past payments ere below cost of BMPs or riparian- buffer restoration cts that most new projects will be composed o select stormwater BMPs and constructed wetlands. 27 V: Stream and Wetland Compliance OA Stream t the close of FY 2007- 08, the MOA program had achieved tremendous success in stablishing advance mitigation as prescribed by the Tri- Party MOA. The amount of dvance mitigation established within the program is summarized in the table below. or the MOA program, stream compliance was 95.89 percent, riparian wetlands ompliance was 98.80 percent, nonriparian wetlands compliance was 98.88 percent and oastal marsh wetlands compliance was 100 percent. These figures represent increased M and Wetland Compliance Aea Fc c compliance in each of these mitigation categories from the previous year. Table 5 displays requirements in credits, credits applied, and resulting compliance. Outstanding requirements represent mitigation needs that do not match ( type or CU location) inventoried assets. The magnitude of outstanding stream mitigation was 9,478.6 credits. The magnitude of outstanding riparian- wetland mitigation was 1.57 credits. A complete listing of MOA permits and requirements not in full compliance and the corresponding EEP CU Action Strategies can be found in the EEP’s Fourth Quarterly Report, located on the EEP Web site. Table 7. MOA Program Compliance MOA Program Stream ( credits) Ripararian ( credits) Nonriparian ( credits) Coastal Marsh ( credits) Total Wetlands ( credits) Mitigation Due 230,471.20 131.37 418.24 1.76 551.37 Mitigation Met 220,992.60 129.79 417.73 1.76 549.29 Mitigation Not Met 9,478.6 1.574 0.506 0 2.08 Compliance 95.89% 98.80% 99.88% 100.00% 99.62% MOU Stream and Wetland Compliance The MOU program experienced a similar degree of success during FY 2007- 08. As of June 30, 2008, the MOU program had 988 total requirements. Of these, 956 are in full compliance, seven have partial compliance and 25 are in non- compliance. Therefore the EEP has 96.8 percent of all MOU requirements in compliance, 0.7 percent in partial compliance and 2.5 percent in non- compliance. Of these non- compliant requirements, 23 were related to wetlan requirements. As in the MOA program, ou eds that do not match ( type or CU location) inventoried asse . Table 6 on the next page summarizes the met, mitigation not met and compliance. d requirements, and two were related to stream tstanding requirements represent mitigation ne ts MOU program’s mitigation due, mitigation 28 Table 8. MOU Program Compliance MOU ( credits) ( credits) ( credits) Marsh ( credits) Wetlands ( credits) Stream Ripararian Nonriparian Coastal Total Mitigation Due 254,636.99 399.97 218.85 0.47 619.29 Mitigation Met 238,196.45 392.67 212.48 0.27 605.41 Mitigation Not Met 16,440.54 7.30 6.38 0.20 13.88 Compliance 93.54% 98.17% 97.09% 57.54% 97.76% A complete listing of the MOU permits and requirements not in full compliance and the ategies can be found in the EEP’s Fourth Quarterly eport, located on the EEP Web site. corresponding EEP CU Action Str R 29 VI: Monitoring and Research MONITORING The EEP Monitoring Section is focused on four primary areas: 1) oversight of annual onitoring for all restoration projects; 2) support to the Design/ Construction Section oncerning maintenance/ repair for all restoration projects; 3) data management and nalysis; and 4) project and program improvement. fiscal year 2007- 2008, EEP had 238 projects ( both DBB and FD) in some phase of onitoring, closeout, or long- term management. Most projects were in monitoring phases f year 1 through 5. These projects totaled 876,874 linear feet of stream, and 13,401 cres of wetland restoration, enhancement, and preservation. onitoring reports for all DBB projects are currently published on the EEP Web site at: ttp:// www. nceep. net/ business/ monitoring/ Monitoring_ report_ web/ Projects_ in_ Monitori mc a In moa Mhn g. htm. It is anticipated that monitoring reports for FD projects will be posted before the nd of calendar year 2008. onitoring Results and Trends hen reviewing stream- restoration projects, staff examines four types of geomorphic ata: channel dimension ( cross sections), profile ( thalweg surveys), substrate ( particle ze distributions), and engineered structure stability. The assessment of overall channel success” is based on the consideration of these four metrics. However, it is important to eep in mind that stream systems are dynamic, and are subject to perturbations of the ontributing watershed and extreme weather conditions. egetative success defined by the regulatory community requires standards of stem ounts from year 1 through year 5 of monitoring with a minimum of 260 stems per acre rviving at year 5. Hydrologic success criteria for wetlands is tied to a continuous ercent saturation or inundation period during the growing season compared to the ccess criteria and/ or compared to the reference wetland. onsidering all the projects in an active monitoring stage, they showed collectively a reater than 90% success for stream geomorphic criteria, vegetative success criteria, and etland hydrologic success. This is a slight improvement from last year’s statistics. Monitoring Related Acti Beyond standard production activities, progress and accomplishments during FY 2007- 08 hree main areas: 1) new or refined data tools or data management roducts; 2) guidance and policy documentation; and 3) training/ information of t or The or significant refinements of existing ocuments) related to major project deliverables, asset verification, digital submission e M Wd si “ kc Vc su p su Cg w vities revolved around t p dissemination. The first category included advancements in the standardization scoping and financial data related to monitoring activities, and the developmen refinement of geodatabases related to stream- assessment and stream- reference data. second involved the production of new documents ( d 30 formatting, decision frameworks for project selection, monitoring and remediation, quality control related to construction and data collection. The third included training for program providers and staff, which revolved around optimization of reach- treatm approaches, standardization of monitoring practices, Web po and ent sting of project documents, and practices that reflect consideration of project closeout ( validation) at each project phase. MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS Vegetation and Easement Maintenance ce new standard informal contract templates that can o ve ss. Preventative cost- saving easures, along with corrective actions, may include herbicide application, replanting, k EEP staff has collaborated to produ be applied to relatively small herbicide treatment and replanting contracts. Such contracts for vegetation- driven maintenance are becoming increasingly necessary due t easement encroachment, low stem- survival rates, and exotic- invasive plant infestations. Once finalized and implemented, the new contract templates and supporting documents will facilitate the management of contracts structured around preventative and correcti measures for projects exhibiting a lack of vegetation succe m installation of easement boundary markers, reseeding, pruning and minor stream ban repair. PROJECT AND PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT RESEARCH Vegetation Monitoring and Data Management ous ncoordinated vegetation monitoring methods to a refined data- management system that nd federal guidelines, the 2008 annual CVS- EEP ill not only improve the compatibility between prescribed species and site- specific nvironmental variables ( i. e., soil type, elevation, slope, aspect, and hydrology), the ficient and cost- effective than having designers ather potentially misleading reference data for every project. Once the reference data Fine tuning of the Carolina Vegetation Survey ( CVS)- EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation has continued and all new projects are required to utilize the new method as outlined in the EEP mitigation- plan template. To facilitate this transition from numer u complies with current scientific a Vegetation Workshop was conducted. During this two- day workshop, the majority of the on- call firms and full- delivery providers were given comprehensive training necessary for all aspects of applying the protocol, from mitigation- plan development to data delivery. Consequently, an increasing percentage of all the 2008 EEP projects will have vegetation monitoring data that is processed, summarized and delivered in an efficient automated manner. Vegetation Target Community Design Tools: Through the collaboration between EEP and the CVS, tools derived from high- quality natural community data are being developed with the potential to greatly improve species lists and various other types of information pertaining to the restoration- target communities that have traditionally been utilized by restoration designers. The resulting tools w e methods for data delivery will be more ef g 31 system is functional, some immediate reduction in design costs associated with reference ring e d a y report to the regulatory agencies for review. The summary report is a synthesis nd distillation of seven years worth of project data designed to provide an overall ere submitted and pproved for regulatory close- out during this fiscal year. The eight projects accounted ement and preservation, and 49 acres s ithin a watershed context; • increasing project success to reduce maintenance costs and the mitigation ratio; • reducing the cost of monitoring through use of functional methods and other lude: • Carolina Vegetation Survey ( UNC, R. Peet and NCSU, T. Wentworth); and nce standards for vegetation assessment ( ECU, R. Rheinhardt t). data collection can be expected, along with a much more substantial and gradual expense reduction associated with increased planting- plan success over subsequent monito years. Project Closeout Activity All projects conducted for the purpose of mitigation must be closed out once the monitoring period is over. The purpose of closeout is to have regulatory validation on th number and types of mitigation credits finally provided by the project. Once the require monitoring period is complete and the project is deemed successful, EEP staff submits summar a performance summary and rationale for closeout. Eight projects w a for 18,257 linear feet of stream restoration, enhanc of wetland restoration, enhancement and preservation. Research Program- Project Improvement During FY 2007- 08, EEP has continued the research program begun in FY 2006- 07, and continued or completed research begun in FY 2005- 06. The purpose of the research program is to provide project- level and programmatic review and evaluation as feedback to other EEP sections, and to help EEP fulfill MOA commitments. The goal is to improve EEP effectiveness by increasing project success and reducing costs. Our objectives are: • improving cost- effective selection among project alternatives and design option w programmatic improvements; and • helping to define a sound scientific basis for implementing new federal regulations for compensatory mitigation, especially ecological performance standards. EEP research works through partnerships with state, local and federal government agencies, universities, and non- governmental organizations. The program encompasses three broad focus areas: functional assessment, catchment studies and restoration methods. Projects in the functional assessment focus area will improve the assessment of stream and wetland condition at both project and watershed scales, and will be usable in assessing both the need for and success of restoration. Ongoing or new projects in this area inc • Ecological performa and M. Brinson and NCSU, T. Wentworth; new project under developmen 32 Projects completed during FY 2007- 08 include: • Stream geomorphology reference database ( NCSU, G. Jennings); and • Multivariate evaluation of vegetation success ( ECU, R. Rheinhardt; part of a cooperative agreement with EPA Region IV). Projects in the catchment focus area will demonstrate the effects that restoration projects have on water quality, habitat and hydrology at larger s cales and help select among roject alternatives to better meet programmatic watershed- improvement goals. Ongoing Project ocus area will serve to improve the success of rest t Ong n • R. Peet and NCSU, T. Wentworth); ns); • • stream restoration study, Mooresville, Iredell County ( NCSU, G. e Branch BMP study, Mooresville, Iredell County ( NCSU, B. Hunt, and DWQ ��� USACE and EPA); and t ( NC SAM; with DWQ and other Res rc include p projects in this area include: • Big Harris Creek, Cleveland County ( NCSU, G. Jennings and DWQ WAT); • Heath Dairy, Randolph County ( NCSU, G. Jennings, and DWQ WAT); and • Unnamed tributary to Crab Creek, Alleghany County ( DWQ WAT). Projects completed during FY 2007- 08 include: • Survey of macrobenthos in restored coastal plain streams ( NCSU, G. Jennings). s in the restoration- methods f ora ion projects, to limit the need for maintenance and to improve cost- effectiveness. oi g or new projects in this area include: Carolina Vegetation Survey ( UNC, • North River Farms Phase II monitoring, Carteret County ( NCSU, R. Eva Ripshin Creek, Ashe County ( NCSU, G. Jennings); and Dye Branch Jennings, and DWQ WAT). Projects completed during FY 07- 08 include: • Dy WAT). EEP is also collaborating with state and federal agencies to develop innovative approaches to mitigation and to develop and implement functional assessment methods. Projects include: • White Oak LWP ( with WPPI and ECU, M. Brinson); • Aquatic organism passage study ( with NTMSC and USFWS); Wetlands functional assessment implementation ( NC WAM; with DWQ, DCM, • stream functional assessment developmen NCDENR agencies, USACE and EPA). ea h program objectives for FY 2008- 09 : • Develop grant applications with researchers in academia and sister agencies to broaden project scope and reduce reliance on NCDOT funding; 33 • Develop new projects to help define a sound scientific basis for ecological performance standards ( to implement new federal regulations for compensatory • Continuing to develop and assess new approaches for non- traditional mitigation; will meet its commitment to implement Continuing on- going contracts to help meet previously defined objectives. regulations; in conjunction with USACE, EPA and DWQ); • Continuing to define ways in which EEP the N. C. Division of Marine Fisheries Coastal Habitat Protection Plan; and • 34 VII: Stewardship Photo courtesy Piedmont Land Conservancy To qualify as compensatory mitigation, preserved and restored sites must be protected from encroachment, conservation- easement violations and other forms of degradation in perpetuity ( Wilmington District Process for Preservation of Mitigation Property, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nov. 25, 2003; C de of Federal Regulations, Vol. 73, No. 70, Thursday, April 10, 2008, Rules and Regulations). To ensure long- term protection of the conservation areas of the state, a Stewardship Task Force was convened in 2004 to determine the most cost- effective and efficient method of assuring perpetual protection of state- held conservation property interests, including compensatory- mitigation properties. The tas force included members of the land- trust community, Wildlife Resources, CWMTF and NCDENR divisions of Parks and Recreation, Forest Resources and Coastal Management. The recommendation of the task force was to establish an interest- bearing endowment account to fund perpetual stewardship of easements held by the state on behalf of EEP and other NCDENR agencies. A stewardship fund, the N. C. Conservation Lands Stewardship Endowment Account, has been established to ensure that a non- reverting, interest- bearing account is in place to fund the perpetual protection of EEP conservation easement areas and other properties purchased by the progr itigation purposes. Transfers of High Quality Preservation Sites to NCDENR Stewardship Program Through a renewable three- year contractual MOA, the NCDENR Office of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation, formerly the Office of Conservation and Community Affairs, has assumed responsibility for stewardship of all HQP lands that have been acquired to date by EEP, and has agreed to accept responsibility for closed- out restoration sites that were acquired for use as compensatory mitigation by EEP. The contractual agreement is renewable, but if terminated specifies that all information, files o k am for compensatory m 35 and data will be returned to EEP or as otherwise directed by the NCDENR chief deputy secretary. The NCDENR Stewardship Program was created within the Office of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation to oversee the long- term monitoring of conservation lands. Transfers of endowment funds from EEP to the NCDENR Stewardship Program occur as needed, but no more frequently than quarterly. It is anticipated that the interest in the Stewardship Endowment Account will provide for long- term stewardship of these sites; however, the endowment amounts will be evaluated at least annually to determine whether the amount deposited per- site needs to be adjusted. The current long- term monitoring endowment funds inspection of sites and boundaries, the production of monitoring reports, and notification of the State Property Office and the funding agency if encroachment or management issues are identified during site visits. Remedial actions that can be resolved without legal assistance are considered minor conservation easement violations or encroachment infractions. The Stewardship Program expects to be able to resolve these minor violations. Enforcement of major legal violations will be carried out by the N. C. Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Office. he NCDENR Stewardship Program entered into a contractual agreement with the 2007. al anaged T Conservation Trust for North Carolina and 10 land trusts to monitor the HQP sites. The results of the analysis of the actual costs of monitoring during the pilot year of the stewardship agreement indicated that an adjustment in the endowment amount transferred for each additional site was needed. Based on results of actual annual monitoring costs, the endowment amount was adjusted upward to $ 20,000 per site for the last set of 14 high quality preservation sites transferred during at the end of 2007. The interest gained on the endowment account varies based on the financial climate, and the health of the fund will be monitored closely by NCDENR. The NCDENR Stewardship Program has accepted the responsibility for stewardship of 130 high quality preservation sites. The endowments for these sites were transferred in three sets. EEP transferred endowments for long- term monitoring of conservation easements for 86 high quality preservation sites to the NCDENR Stewardship Program in the first two sets. Funding for the third and final set was transferred in December Endowment funds of $ 14,000 per site were transferred for the first two sets. For the fin set of 14 conservation easements, $ 20,000 per site was transferred. This increase was based on the re- evaluation of the amount set aside in the endowments, actual cost of monitoring the first two sets of sites, and the lower- than- expected interest gained on the endowment fund. The endowment is housed an interest- bearing account that is m by the state as a non- reverting account. Interest from the endowment is to be used to fund the monitoring of these conservation easements or deed restrictions in perpetuity. All HQP sites that were acquired by EEP have now been transferred to long- term monitoring. HQP sites that were purchased by NCDOT right- of- way, such as Rhodes Pond, Harris Farm and Broad River Greenway, have not been transferred, as the Board of Transportation evaluates options for stewardship of these sites. 36 No endowment was transferred to the NCDENR Stewardship Program for 30 additional HQP sites, which are to be managed by other government agencies, including State Parks, WRC, and county park systems; however, NCDENR Stewardship has agreed to house monitoring reports for those sites on the Stewardship Data Management System. 37 Appendices 38 Project Name River Basin CU County LWP Name Description Philips Neuse 03020201 Wake Upper Swift Creek Wetland Back Creek Yadkin 03040105 Mecklenburg Upper Rocky River/ Coddle Creek Stream/ Wetland Bear Creek ( Phillips Tract) Cape Fear 03030003 Chatham Upper and Middle Rocky River Stream Burnt Mill Creek ( Kerr Avenue Wetland) Cape Fear 03030007 New Hanover New Hanover County BMP Cato Yadkin 03040105 Mecklenburg Upper Rocky River/ Clarke Creek Stream Charles Creek Pasquotank 03010205 Pasquotank Pasquotank Wetland Corbett Tract Cape Fear 03030007 New Hanover New Hanover County Wetland Elizabeth City State BMP Pasquotank 03010205 Pasquotank Pasquotank BMP Freedom Park Catawba 03050103 Mecklenburg Charlotte LWP Stream Irwin Creek Whitehurst Road Catawba 03050103 Mecklenburg Charlotte LWP Stream/ Wetland Jacksonville Country Club White Oak 03030001 Onslow White Oak Stream/ BMP Lake Wheeler Neuse 03020201 Wake Upper Swift Creek Wetland McIntyre Creek @ Hornets Nest Park Catawba 03050101 Mecklenburg Charlotte LWP Stream Mildred Woods Tar- Pamlico 03020103 Edgecombe Middle Tar Pamlico Wetland Mud Creek French Broad 06010105 Henderson Mud Creek Wetland Sparta Bog New 05050001 Alleghany Little River and Brush Creek Wetland UT to Rocky River ( Smith Tract) Cape Fear 03030003 Chatham Upper and Middle Rocky River Stream/ Buffer Zack's Fork Ck RFP* Catawba 03050101 Caldwell Lower Creek Stream/ Wetland/ Buffer/ BMP BMP ( Cary Barnes and Noble) Neuse 03020201 Wake Upper Swift Creek BMP Greenbrier Creek Cape Fear 03030003 Chatham Upper and Middle Rocky River Stream/ Wetland Wildcat Branch Cape Fear 03030004 Lee Cranes Creek Stream/ Wetland Plum Creek Lumber 03040207 Brunswick Lockwoods Folly Wetland Afton Run Yadkin 03040105 Cabarrus Upper Rocky River/ Coddle Creek Stream/ BMP Caldwell Station Catawba 03050101 Mecklenburg Charlotte LWP Stream/ Wetland Chapel Creek Cape Fear 03030002 Orange Morgan and Little Creeks Stream Clear Creek French Broad 06010105 Henderson Mud Creek Stream Coddle Creek Tributary ( Indian Run) Yadkin 03040105 Cabarrus Upper Rocky River/ Coddle Creek Stream Ellerbee Creek ( G) Neuse 03020201 Durham Ellerbe Creek Stream/ Buffer/ BMP Goose Creek ( G) Neuse 03020201 Durham Ellerbe Creek Stream Lower Creek Catawba 03050101 Caldwell Lower Creek Stream/ BMP Mineral Springs Branch ( Burnt Mill Creek) Cape Fear 03030007 New Hanover New Hanover County Stream/ BMP Morgan Creek Floodplain Cape Fear 03030002 Orange Morgan and Little Creeks Wetland Naked Creek Yadkin 03040101 Wilkes Upper Yadkin/ Kerr Scott Stream Northgate Park ( Ellerbe) ( G) Neuse 03020201 Durham Ellerbe Creek Stream/ BMP Purlear Creek Yadkin 03040101 Wilkes Upper Yadkin/ Kerr Scott Stream Purlear Creek II Yadkin 03040101 Wilkes Upper Yadkin/ Kerr Scott Stream UT to Hendricks ( G) Tar- Pamlico 03020103 Edgecombe Middle Tar Pamlico Stream/ Buffer Warrior Creek Yadkin 03040101 Wilkes Upper Yadkin/ Kerr Scott Stream Flintrock Farm Cape Fear 03030002 Rockingham Troublesome/ Little Troublesome Stream/ Wetland BMP ( Town of Cary) Neuse 03020201 Wake Upper Swift Creek BMP Lewis Creek French Broad 06010105 Henderson Mud Creek Stream A i. Projects Located in LWP Areas* 39 Project Name River Basin CU County LWP Name Description A i. Projects Located in LWP Areas* Muddy Creek( Randolph/ Duncan Properties) Catawba 03050101 McDowell Muddy Creek ( Non- EEP Plan) Stream UT to Haw River Cape Fear 03030002 Alamance Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Stream Little Troublesome Cape Fear 03030002 Rockingham Troublesome/ Little Troublesome Stream/ Wetland UT to Uwharrie Yadkin 03040103 Randolph Upper Uwharrie Stream/ Wetland Glade Creek New 05050001 Alleghany Little River and Brush Creek Stream/ Wetland Little Pine Creek II New 05050001 Alleghany Little River and Brush Creek Stream/ Wetland UT to Crab Creek New 05050001 Alleghany Little River and Brush Creek Stream/ Wetland UT to Zack's Fork Catawba 03050101 Caldwell Lower Creek Stream Morgan Creek ( Bolin Stewardship Tract) Cape Fear 03030002 Orange Morgan and Little Creeks Stream Sharpe Wetland Preservation Cape Fear 03030002 Rockingham Troublesome/ Little Troublesome Stream/ Wetland Swift Creek Watershed Wetlands Neuse 03020201 Wake Upper Swift Creek Wetland Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Catawba 03050101 McDowell Muddy Creek ( Non- EEP Plan) Stream/ Wetland Dye Branch II Stream Restoration Yadkin 03040105 Iredell Upper Rocky River/ Clarke Creek Stream Mooresville School Site - Rocky River Yadkin 03040105 Iredell Upper Rocky River/ Clarke Creek Stream/ Wetland Glade Creek II New 05050001 Alleghany Little River and Brush Creek Stream/ Wetland UT Bear Creek ( Weaver/ McLeod property) ( G) Cape Fear 03030003 Chatham Upper and Middle Rocky River Stream Little Alamance Creek ( Burlington Park) Cape Fear 03030002 Alamance Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Stream UT Rocky River - Harris Road Middle Yadkin 03040105 Cabarrus Upper Rocky River/ Clarke Creek Stream/ Wetland McKee Creek Yadkin 03040105 Cabarrus Upper Rocky River/ Coddle Creek Stream UT Ramah Creek Yadkin 03040105 Mecklenburg Upper Rocky River/ Clarke Creek Stream Brown Branch ( Willowbrook Park) Cape Fear 03030002 Alamance Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Stream/ BMP UT to Bald Creek French Broad 06010108 Yancey Bald Creek Stream Buffalo Creek Neuse 03020201 Durham Little River Corridor Open Space Plan ( NonStream Upper South Hominy Creek French Broad 06010105 Buncombe South Hominy Creek Stream Martins Creek II Hiwassee 06020002 Cherokee Peachtree- Martins Creek Stream/ Wetland Badin Inn Yadkin 03040104 Stanly Mountain/ Little Mountain Creeks Stream Ut to Haw ( Bechom) Cape Fear 03030002 Alamance Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Stream/ Wetland UT to Haw ( Gwynn) Cape Fear 03030002 Alamance Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Stream/ Wetland UT to Martins Creek ( Contreras) Hiwassee 06020002 Cherokee Peachtree- Martins Creek Stream/ Wetland * This list includes projects initiated by NCDOT that are located in LWP areas. 40 LWP Name River Basin 14- digit HU Initiation Date Comments Phase III Completion Date ( Contractor) Phase IV Status Sep- 05 ( Earth Tech) 3050105040040 Jul- 07 3050105040060 ( Earth Tech) 3050105040050 3030004020010 Sep- 04 3030004030010 ( Buck Engineering) 3030004040010 3030002060100 Dec- 04 3030002060070 ( Tetra Tech) 3030002060080 Dec- 02 ( KCI) 3030002010010 3030002010030 3030003070010 Jun- 05 3030003070020 ( Tetra Tech) 3030003070050 3030004070010 3030004070020 3050101170010 Identified many stormwater BMPs/ retrofits and ~ 50,000 ft of stream restoration Jul- 03 3050101170020 Four EEP projects are underway ( CH2M Hill) 3050103020020 3050103020030 3050103020040 3050103020050 3050103020070 3050101080010 Jul- 06 3050101080020 ( MacTec) Feb- 06 ( Equinox) 6010105030020 Jan- 03 6010105030030 ( TVA supported this planning effort) 6010105030040 Jan- 06 ( Buck Engineering) Cape Fear Assessment tasks completed May 2005 ( BLUE). Final stakeholder summary and preliminary plan completed by WECO in 2005. Several potential projects identified. May- 08 Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available for future mitigation needs. Cranes Creek Dec- 01 Appendix A ii. Local Watershed Plans Completed through Phase III as of July 1, 2008 EEP stream restoration project is underway. Henderson County Cooperative Extension Service received EPA grant to fund local Watershed Coordinator to implement plan. South Hominy Creek French Broad 6010105060020 Jul- 03 Plan identified sediment and nutrients as key stressors. EEP stream restoration project is underway. EEP is continuing to pursue identified projects. Mud Creek French Broad Sep- 00 Plan documented many non- point sources of impairment and degradation. Two EEP projects are underway and a 319 grant is funding agricultural BMPs. EEP staff participate on Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council. EEP is continuing landowner outreach and pursuing several stream restoration projects. Caldwell/ Burke Soil & Water Conservation District received EPA grant to fund local Watershed Coordinator to implement watershed improvement projects. Bald Creek French Broad 6010108080020 Jul- 03 Plan identified habitat degradation and straight piping issues. Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available for future mitigation needs. Lower Creek Catawba Jul- 03 EEP is working with post- plan stakeholder group ( Lower Creek Advisory Team) to implement plan recommendations. NCSU WECO has received funding from State 319 program to help restoration and preservation efforts in the LWP starting 2009. Charlotte Area LWP Catawba Feb- 02 EEP is contracting with Tetra Tech to conduct Phase IV. Phase IV is focusing on stormwater BMPs as an alternative mitigation strategy to restore lost hydrologic and water quality functions associated with wetland impacts in urban areas. Upper and Middle Rocky River Cape Fear Oct- 03 Good restoration opportunities and favorable stakeholders. Many projects and BMP opportunities identified. Several projects funded and/ or pursued for funding. Stream/ BMP project is currently in design. Viable projects available for future mitigation needs. NCSU WECO is Troublesome/ Little Troublesome Cape Fear Nov- 01 Many potential preservation, restoration and BMP sites identified. February 2004 ( Tetra Tech) Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available for future mitigation needs. New Hanover County Cape Fear 3030007140010 Sep- 00 Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available for future mitigation needs. EEP is pursuing several projects. Chapel Hill and Carrboro have received funding from State 319 program to help with BMP implementation, restoration, and preservation efforts in the LWP starting 2009. Several restoration projects and BMP sites identified Morgan Creek/ Little Creek Cape Fear Nov- 02 Many restoration projects and BMP sites identified. Atlas sites have been assessed. Kenneth and Parker Creeks/ Harris Lake Cape Fear Apr- 03 Feb- 03 Plan identified four priority subwatersheds for implementation and identified stream and wetland, buffer and BMP projects. EEP staff performing basic educational outreach. Viable projects available for future mitigation needs. Cove Creek Broad May- 06 Fast track LWP to identify and acquire cold/ cool stream mitigation needs. Plan identified fourteen stream restoration projects that met EEP minimum requirements EEP staff investigating a collaborative protection effort for Hickory Nut Mountain Catheys Creek Broad 3050105070020 41 LWP Name River Basin 14- digit HU Initiation Date Comments Phase III Completion Date ( Contractor) Phase IV Status Appendix A ii. Local Watershed Plans Completed through Phase III as of July 1, 2008 6020002090020 Nov- 07 6020002100040 ( Equinox) 6020002100050 6020002170010 3040203030010 Dec- 05 3040203050010 ( Earth Tech) 3040207020010 Jul- 07 3040207020020 ( Stantec) 3040207020030 3040207020040 3040207020050 Jan- 04 ( UNRBA data used for LWP) May- 04 ( ECU and NCSU supported planning effort) Dec- 03 ( Tetra Tech) Dec- 06 ( UNRBA) 3020202010010 Dec- 05 3020202010020 ( KCI) 3020202010021 3020201110010 Jun- 05 3020201110020 ( Amec/ Tetra Tech) 5050001030020 Jun- 07 5050001030030 ( WK Dickson) 3010205050010 Feb- 04 3010205050020 ( DS Pro) 3010205040010 Subwatersheds of: Jun- 05 3020103010020 ( BLUE Land and Water Infrastructure) 3020103060020 3020103050030 3020103080010 EEP is waiting on resolution of mitigation needs before pursuing projects. Middle Tar- Pamlico Tar- Pamlico Sep- 03 Planning area exhibits water quality and habitat degradation issues. Green Mill Run project has been discontinued; EEP is currently implementing Hendricks Creek project. Stream/ buffer project is currently in design. Viable projects available for future mitigation needs. Pasquotank River Pasquotank Dec- 01 Potential restoration, enhancement, preservation and BMP opportunities identified. In May 2008, EEP initiated contract with UNRBA and EcoScience to develop Site Atlas and conduct landowner outreach for five LWPs, including Upper Swift Creek, in Upper Neuse Basin. Little River and Brush Creek New Oct- 03 The final Watershed Management Plan focused on the Bledsoe Creek sub- watersheds in the vicinity of Sparta. The final EEP has initiated the design and construction of several stream and wetlands restoration projects within the LWP. Upper Swift Creek Neuse Jul- 03 Four EEP projects currently in progress. Staff is determining feasibility of plan identified projects to help meet current nutrient offset mitigation needs In May 2008, EEP initiated contract with UNRBA and EcoScience to develop Site Atlas and conduct landowner Stoney Creek Neuse Core Creek Phase – July 2003; Stoney Creek Following completion of Phase I on Core Creek, LWP effort moved to Stoney Creek in 2004. Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available for future mitigation needs. Little Lick Creek Neuse 3020201050020 Sep- 04 LWP effort funded through EPA Contentnea Grant. Plan identified several restoration projects and BMP sites. City of Wilson and WRP jointly implemented a plan-identified stormwater wetland project. Lake Rogers Neuse 3020201060010 Jan- 02 The original plan did not identify sites for restoration. The current planning process with EcoScience includes site identification in Lake Rogers and extends to the lower section In May 2008, EEP initiated contract with UNRBA and EcoScience to develop Site Atlas and conduct landowner outreach for five LWPs, including Lake Rogers, in Upper Hominy Swamp Creek Neuse 3020203020040 Sep- 99 EEP is currently pursuing plan- identified stream and riparian wetland projects. NC Coastal Federation received an EEG grant to implement BMPs identified in LWP. Several restoration projects completed. Additional site searches being conducted in Ellerbe Creek by EcoScience and the City of Durham. EEP is contracting with UNRBA and EcoScience to develop Site Atlas and conduct landowner outreach for five LWPs, including Ellerbe Creek, in Upper Neuse Basin. Ellerbe Creek Neuse 3020201050010 Jan- 02 Lockwood Folly River Lumber Jun- 05 Plan identified 9 watershed management recommendation, 10 stream projects, 8 riparian wetland, 4 non- riparian and 23 stormwater projects. Brunswick County is addressing management recommendations as well as seeking funding for BMP projects. Two restoration projects are underway. EEP is continuing landowner outreach and education Bear Swamp Lumber Oct- 03 The plan identified 28 projects. All stream projects were visited and reviewed with local stakeholders. The plan was also In 2007- 2008, EEP worked with the local municipalities, native American tribe and other stakeholders to reach out to Peachtree- Martins Creek Hiwassee Jul- 05 Plan identified stressors and management strategies, modeled impacts of various growth management measures, and identified 16 restoration sites and 7 preservation sites 42 LWP Name River Basin 14- digit HU Initiation Date Comments Phase III Completion Date ( Contractor) Phase IV Status Appendix A ii. Local Watershed Plans Completed through Phase III as of July 1, 2008 3040101010080 Jun- 04 3040101010090 ( Tetra Tech) 3040101010010 3040101010100 3040101010110 3040105010010 Feb- 04 3040105010020 ( CDM) 3040105010030 Apr- 05 3040105010040 ( Mactec) 3040105010050 3040105020010 WECO and EEP performed education and outreach activities for landowners and local government. Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available for future mitigation needs. Upper Rocky River and Coddle Creek Yadkin Dec- 02 LWP is located adjacent to Upper Rocky River and Clarke Creek LWP area. Together these two LWPs comprise the entire Upper Rocky River drainage system. Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available for future mitigation needs. CWMTF funding sought for Ag BMPs. Upper Rocky River and Clarke Creek Yadkin Dec- 01 Many potential projects identified including ~ 80,000 ft of stream restoration and BMP projects. Several projects are currently in acquisition. Kerr Scott Reservoir Yadkin Nov- 01 Approximately 60,000 ft of stream restoration identified. Wetland opportunities are negligible. 43 LWP Name River Basin 14- digit HU Initiation Date Status/ Comments Estimated Phase III Completion Date 3030002030010 3030002040110 Cape Fear 06 Cape Fear Final HU selection is taking place based on local resource professional input. This LWP will be primarily conducted “ in-house”. A contractor will be used only for GIS analysis and Site Atlas development. 3050102040040 3050102050010 3050102040030 601020240010 601020240020 601020240030 601020240040 601020260010 Subwatersheds of: 3020204030020 3020204030050 3020204040010 3020204050020 3020204050030 3020204050040 3020101020010 3020101030010 3020101030020 Subwatersheds of: 3030001020010 Subwatersheds of: 3020106030040 3040101100010 3040101100020 3040101110010 3040101110020 3040101110030 3040101110040 3040101110050 Subwatersheds of: 3040101110060 3040101110070 Jun- 08 Appendix A iii. LWP Initiatives in Progress/ On- Hold Ararat River and Upper Yadkin Yadkin Jun- 05 This LWP is an abridged ' fast track' effort, designed to produce a final Project Atlas within 12 months of start- up. Sub-watershed prioritization will be completed by October, and additional water quality and benthics monitoring work is slated to begin by October 2008. Quarterly stakeholder meetings began in July of 2008. Recently reported DOT TIP delay has reduced mitigation needs. EEP is contracting with East Carolina University and NC Environmental Defense Apr- 06 McAdams Company – EcoEngineering is providing technical support. Estimated completion date is July 2009. White Oak 06 White Oak Apr- 06 Technical Assessment first draft completed White Oak 01 White Oak Jan- 08 Technical Assessment first draft completed Fishing Creek Tar- Pamlico May- 05 Phase II technical assessment draft completed Cape Fear May- 06 Plan is in Phase I and the stakeholder process has commenced. Preliminary screening has identified numerous EEP is contracting with East Carolina University and NC Environmental Defense Planning effort has been placed on HOLD pending further mitigation needs. Phase I activities ended January 2006 ( EcoScience). Franklin to Fontana Little Tennessee Jun- 08 Phase I activities underway; new land use/ cover, riparian buffer datasets developed Travis, Tickle, Project is close to completion with the publishing of a Draft Phase III report and EEP is contracting with KCI to perform Technical Assessment. Estimated completion date is February 2009. December 2009. ENTRIX Inc., is contracted to support Phase II fieldwork and development of a project Atlas. November 2008. Piedmont Triad Council of Gov’t is providing technical and facilitation Lower Neuse Neuse Summer 2010. Equinox Environmental is providing technical support. Indian and Howards Creek Catawba 44 LWP Name River Basin 14- digit HU Initiation Date Status/ Comments Estimated Phase III Completion Date Appendix A iii. LWP Initiatives in Progress/ On- Hold 3040104010010 3040104010020 3040103050010 3040103050020 3040103050040 3040105030020 3040105040010 Apr- 05 Planning effort has been placed on HOLD pending further mitigation needs. Planning effort has been placed on HOLD pending further mitigation needs. Goose and Crooked Yadkin Jun- 08 Phase I efforts began with Watershed Technical Team Stakeholder ( WTT) kick- EEP is contracting with Centralina Council of Governments and Tetra Tech for Phase I Upper Uwharrie Yadkin Phase I completed August 2005 ( Buck Engineering). Mountain/ L ittle Yadkin Jul- 03 Phase I report completed in March 2004 ( HDR) 45 Local Government/ Municipality Project Name Alamance County/ Burlington Little Alamance Creek ( Burlington Park) Cabarrus County UT Rocky River- Harris Road Middle School City of Durham Third Fork Creek ( Forest Hills) City of Durham Northgate Park ( Ellerbe) City of Durham Sandy Creek City of Durham Ellerbe Creek ( Hillandale Golf Course) City of Durham & Durham Public Schools Goose Creek City of Greensboro Brown Bark Park City of Greensboro Benbow City of Greensboro Hillsdale City of Greensboro Gillespie City of Greensboro Price Park City of New Bern Simmons St. Stormwater Wetland Lenoir County/ Kinston Adkin Branch Mecklenburg County Freedom Park Mecklenburg County Sixmile Creek Wetland Mecklenburg County McIntyre Creek Mecklenburg County UT to Clarke Creek Mecklenburg County Irwin Creek Whitehurst Road Mooresville Graded School System Mooresville School Site- Rocky River Orange County Stillhouse Creek Orange County/ Town of Carrboro Bolin Creek ( Lake Hogan Farms) Town of Cary Town of Cary BMPs Town of Cornelius Caldwell Station Town of Davidson/ Mecklenburg County UT to West Branch of Rocky River Town of Fletcher UT to Cane Creek ( Fletcher- Meritor Site) Town of Mooresville Dye Branch Stream Restoration Project Town of Roseboro UT to Little Coharie Creek Wake County Lake Myra Headwater Buffer Wake County Middle Creek Buffer A iv. Collaborative Projects with Government Entities 46 Ararat River & Upper Yadkin Local Watershed Plan FACT SHEET Location River Basin: Cataloging Unit: 14- digit Hydrologic Units: Counties: Upper Yadkin 03040101 03040101 100010, 100020, 110010, 110020, 110030, 110040, 110050 + partial ( north of Yadkin River): 110060 and 110070 Surry Watershed Area ~ 235 square miles Planning Contact: Hal Bryson EEP Watershed Planner, Western Region ( 828) 450- 9408 hal. bryson@ ncmail. net Participants: Local Advisory Team ( LAT) – Committed stakeholders include: NC DWQ, Surry SWCD, Surry NRCS; Prospective stakeholders include: Surry Co. Planning, City of Mount Airy, Town of Pilot Mountain, Piedmont Land Conservancy, NC WRC, NC CWMTF, NC Div. of Parks, Pilot View RC& D, NW Piedmont COG, Trout Unlimited, Resource Institute, Inc. Contractor( s) / Consultant( s) John R. McAdams Company Jim Halley, Project Manager NC DWQ – Watershed Assessment Team ( WAT) Dave Wanucha, Project Manager Project Overview This Local Watershed Planning ( LWP) initiative consists of three major tasks: ( 1) a streamlined assessment of watershed conditions across the initial study area ( portions of nine 14- digit HUs, comprising 235 sq. miles in the Upper Yadkin River basin in Surry County) – see Figure on next page; ( 2) rapid field assessment of stream channel and riparian buffer conditions within priority sub- watersheds, comprising a Focus Area of approximately 100 square miles; and ( 3) development of a Watershed Assessment Report and Project Atlas. The Project Atlas is geared towards the identification of the most effective sites for stream restoration/ enhancement and preservation projects, as well as agricultural and urban Best Management Practices ( BMP) project sites. Final LWP documents will support EEP compensatory mitigation goals within the upper Yadkin Cataloging Unit, as well as the needs of local stakeholders seeking to implement non- mitigation projects ( e. g., storm water BMPs within urban sub- watersheds) via non- EEP funding. 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699- 27699- 1652 / 919- 715- 0476 / www. nceep. net 47 Staff from NC DWQ’s Watershed Assessment Team ( WAT) will lend vital support to this project by developing and implementing a water quality monitoring plan. This will include sampling for water quality parameters and benthic macro-invertebrates at selected sites within the priority sub- watersheds ( to be identified by fall of 2008). The nine local watersheds ( 14- digit HUs) comprising the initial study area for this LWP were selected on the basis of several factors, including: the presence of impaired, 303( d)- listed stream reaches; the opportunity to partner with key local stakeholders, including Surry NRCS and SWCD; the presence of good candidate sites for stream restoration in rural catchments; prior designation of three of the HUs as EEP Targeted Local Watersheds ( TLWs); and the presence of existing watershed projects funded through the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund ( CWMTF). Project Schedule This Local Watershed Planning ( LWP) initiative is based on a ‘ fast track’ watershed assessment that began in spring 2008. It will culminate in the summer of 2009 with development of a final Watershed Assessment Report and Project Atlas. A Local Advisory Team ( LAT) consisting of state and local resource professionals, including land trust and local government staff, will meet quarterly beginning in the summer of 2008 to assist in developing project ranking criteria and BMP recommendations. Project Documents Will be posted as downloadable files, as they become available. 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699- 27699- 1652 / 919- 715- 0476 / www. nceep. net Ararat River & Tributary Streams 48 COVE CREEK LOCAL WATERSHED PLAN FACT SHEET River Basin: Cataloging Unit: 14- digit Hydrologic Units: Counties: Broad 03050105 03050105040040, 03050105040050, 03050105040060 McDowell, Rutherford Watershed Area 80 square miles Planning Contact: Andrea Leslie - Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( 828) 337- 3455 or Andrea. Leslie@ ncmail. net Participants: Rutherford & McDowell Co. NRCS and SWCD Contractor Hired for Watershed Assessment Earth Tech, Inc. Contact: Ron Johnson at ( 919) 854- 6210 or Ron. Johnson@ earthtech. com Project Overview The Cove Creek watershed is located in a rural area of McDowell and Rutherford Counties. In 2006, Earth Tech was hired to develop a fast- track watershed characterization and restoration strategy for the Cove Creek watershed. This abbreviated planning effort involved GIS analysis of land use, buffer integrity, and recent aerial photographs; field efforts were limited to assessment of channel and in-stream habitat integrity at potential restoration sites. Stakeholder involvement involved several meetings with local Natural Resource Conservation Service and Soil and Water Conservation District technical staff. 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699- 27699- 1652 / 919- 715- 0476 / www. nceep. net The majority of the watershed is forested, and headwater streams are in relatively good condition. Most of the lower gradient bottomlands, through which Cove Creek and some of its tributaries run, are used for pasture, hay, and homes. Cove Creek itself does suffer from severe bank erosion; in many areas, its channel is incised and lacks a woody buffer. Primary stressors for the watershed are stream incision of Cove Creek, inadequate riparian buffers, sedimentation, stream bank erosion, livestock access, and possible nutrient enrichment. The greatest threat to stream integrity is development and 49 consequent increases in sedimentation, nutrients, and stormwater. This area is attractive to second home and retirement communities; land prices have skyrocketed, and some larger forested tracts have recently been sold. A plan was developed to identify stream restoration projects with willing landowners and to name strategies to improve ecological function in July 2007. Management strategies needed to restore and protect stream health include stream and wetland restoration, buffer planting, agriculture, forestry, and stormwater best management practices, and education. The plan identified 14 stream restoration projects that fit the minimum requirements of EEP. Project Documents for Download Cove Creek Watershed Management Plan ( 3.5 mb) Cove Creek Plan— Appendices A & B ( 4.6 mb) Cove Creek Plan— Appendices C, D, E & F ( 3.8 mb) Cove Creek Project Atlas ( 12 mb) 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699- 27699- 1652 / 919- 715- 0476 / www. nceep. net 50 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699- 27699- 1652 / 919- 715- 0476 / www. nceep. net FRANKLIN TO FONTANA LOCAL WATERSHED PLAN Fact Sheet Location: River Basin: Cataloging Unit: 14- digit Hydrologic Units: Counties: Near Franklin, NC Little Tennessee 06010202 0601020240010, 0601020240020, 0601020240030, 0601020240040, 0601020260010 Macon, Swain Watershed Area 154 square miles Planning Contact: Andrea Leslie - Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( 828) 337- 3455 or Andrea. Leslie@ ncmail. net Participants: Advisory Committee made up of Local Citizens, Little Tennessee Watershed Association, Land Trust for the Little Tennessee, Macon County, Natural Heritage Program, more….. Contractor Hired for Watershed Assessment: Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc. Contact: Andy Brown at ( 828) 253- 6856 or andy@ equinoxenvironmental. com Project Overview The Franklin to Fontana watershed is a 154 mi2 area near Franklin that encompasses the Little Tennessee River watershed between Lake Emory and Lake Fontana. This area is of great ecological and cultural significance, and it includes a 23- mile free- flowing stretch of the Little Tennessee River that hosts a highly diverse aquatic community, including a number of rare, threatened, and endangered fish and mussels. The area includes Cowee, Burningtown, Iotla, Watauga, Brush, and Tellico Creeks. This primarily rural watershed is a mix of pasture, forest, and residential land, but there is notable develo
Object Description
Description
Title | Annual report of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program |
Date | 2008 |
Description | 2007/2008 |
Digital Characteristics-A | 6 KB; 138 p. |
Digital Format | application/pdf |
Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_arEcosystemenhancementprogram20072008.pdf |
Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_borndigital\images_master\ |
Full Text | “ Celebrating Its 5th Anniversary” On July 22, 2008, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program celebrated its fifth anniversary. To-gether with our partners, we have planned, designed, built and grown more than 530 stream and wetland compensatory mitigation projects for business and residential private develop-ers, municipalities, schools and the North Carolina Department of Transportation. In the process we also built a nationally recognized, award- winning organization. This annual re-port is dedicated to our staff and partners, who have been instrumental in accomplishing goals and achieving success. Table of Contents I. EEP Programs p. 1 II. Watershed Planning and Project Implementation p. 3 a. Watershed Planning p. 4 b. Project Implementation p. 7 c. Synergies Between Watershed Planning and Project Implementation p. 8 d. Collaborative Partnerships p. 9 III. Financial Accounting, Cost Data and Property Acquisition p. 15 a. Revenue, Expenditures and Encumbrances p. 15 b. Cost of Mitigation Delivery p. 18 c. Property Acquisition p. 21 IV. Program Inventory Status p. 22 a. Stream and Wetland Mitigation Inventory p. 22 b. Statewide Status of MOU and MOA Programs p. 24 c. Statewide Status of Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Programs p. 26 V. Stream and Wetland Compliance p. 28 VI. Monitoring p. 30 a Monitoring p. 30 b. Maintenance Improvements p. 31 c. Project and Program Improvement Research p. 31 VII. Stewardship p. 35 Appendices A. Watershed Planning and Project Implementation p. 39 i. Projects Identified through the Local Watershed Planning Process p. 39 ii. Local Watershed Plans Completed through Phase III as of July 1, 2008 p. 41 iii. LWP Initiatives in Progress p. 44 iv. Collaborative Projects with Government Entities p. 46 v. Local Watershed Plan Fact Sheets p. 47 B. Stream and Wetland Receipts p. 60 i. Streams and Wetlands In- Lieu Fee Mitigation Program Receipts p. 60 ii. Buffer Receipts p. 72 iii. Nutrient Offset Receipts p. 76 C. Private Mitigation Banking Survey p. 90 i. Mitigation Banking Survey Recipient List p. 90 ii. Mitigation Banking Survey Questions p. 92 D. Contracts p. 93 i. Active Full- Delivery Contracts p. 93 ii. Design and Construction Contracts Awarded 2007- 08 p. 96 iii. FY 2007- 08 Vendor Payments by Contract Type p. 98 E. Properties p. 100 i. Cumulative Properties p. 100 ii. FY 2007- 08 Properties Closed p. 109 iii. FY 2007- 08 Properties Optioned p. 119 F. Monitoring p. 120 i. FY 2007- 08 Total Projects in Monitoring and Long Term Management p. 120 ii. FY 2007- 08 Projects Submitted for Close- out p. 127 List of Figures and Tables Figures Figure 1. Map of NC River Basins p. 2 Figure 2. Peachtree- Martins Creek Local Watershed Planning Area p. 6 Figure 3. Percentage of EEP Design Bid Build Projects Located in Planning Areas FY 2007- 08 p. 8 Figure 4. Design Bid Build Wetland Credits p. 9 Figure 5. Design Bid Build Stream Credits p. 9 Figure 6. MOA Fund 2984 Fiscal Year 2007- 2008 p. 15 Figure 7. Funds 2981, 2982, 2982- 9829; Fiscal Year 2007- 2008 p. 16 Figure 8. Fiscal Year 2007- 2008 Design Bid Build - Contract Payments by Type p. 21 Figure 9. Status of EEP Stream Mitigation Program in Credits p. 25 Figure 10. Status of EEP Wetland Program in Credits p. 26 Tables Table 1. Nutrient Offset Program Fee Rate p. 17 Table 2. NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program On- call Authorizations p. 20 Table 3. Total Contracted Services FY 2007- 08 p. 20 Table 4. EEP Total Assets FY 2007- 08 p. 22 Table 5. EEP Inventory of Asset Credits, FY 2007- 08 p. 24 Table 6. Riparian Buffer ILF Program Status FY 2007- 08 p. 26 Table 7. Nutrient Offset ILF Program Status FY 2007- 08 p. 27 Table 8. MOA Program Compliance p. 28 Table 9. MOU Program Compliance p. 29 Executive Summary During its fifth full year of operations in fiscal year 2007- 08, the N. C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( EEP) took on new challenges and continued to register fresh successes in meeting its goals of improving North Carolina’s environment while facilitating responsible economic growth for the state and its residents. EEP continued to collaborate with federal, state and local governments, contractors and willing landowners to provide goods and services, basing its work on a solid foundation of watershed plan-ning that goes beyond mere environmental permitting and compliance. The initiative also extended its record of carrying out its mission without a single transportation- project delay due to the lack of mitigation, helping to move forward more than $ 4.8 billion in transportation- infrastructure im-provements since becoming operational in 2003. Key developments in FY 2007- 08 included: • Responding to changes to federal rules guiding aquatic- resource mitigation. Under the leadership of the Governor’s office, N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources ( NCDENR) and EEP petitioned the U. S. Office of Management and Budget, the U. S. Environ-mental Protection Agency and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) in late 2007 to promote in-lieu fee programs such as EEP as a method to providing third- party mitigation for public- and pri-vate- sector development. The new rule, which became effective in June of 2008, gave recognition to EEP’s unique national status and maintained ILFs as a viable option. The rule will require EEP to make operational adjustments and the details of these changes are being evaluated. • Securing fee- schedule revisions for the non- NCDOT Stream and Wetland ILF Program. In July of 2008, a two year process to revise EEP’s fees for stream and wetland mitigation came to a conclusion. The increased fees were necessary to offset increased costs for land acquisition, design, construction, maintenance, stewardship and inflation. Information on these new fees can be found at http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ fee. htm. • Implementation of Session Law 2008- 152, an act to promote compensatory mitigation by private mitigation banks, passed by the General Assembly in July 2008. The law, which took effect on October 1, disallows the use of EEP’s ILF program when credits from a private mitigation bank are available for purchase. EEP supported the development of a document that describes how the Department will implement the law. EEP and DWQ will monitor the effects of the law as a part of its regular reporting requirements to USACE and the General Assembly. • Implementation of Session Law 2007- 438, an act to establish transitional nutrient offset payments and to direct the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to develop and implement a plan to transition the N. C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program nutrient offset program from a fee- based program to a program based on the actual costs of providing nu-trient credits. In September 2007, the General Assembly established a fee schedule for the Nu-trient Offset Program and required that EEP begin the process of converting from a fee schedule system to an actual cost system. The law required EEP to provide progress reports to the Environmental Review Commission in September 2008, March 2009, and implement the plan by September 2009. The September 2008 progress report was presented to the ERC on schedule, and i. EEP expects to meet the September 2009 deadline. • Working in partnership with NCDENR, NCDOT, USACE and other state and federal agencies to reduce surplus mitigation assets. As reported last year, an interagency task force came together in August 2007 to begin addressing the issue of surplus mitigation. Since that time the task force was able to agree on provisions to allow some latitude for the application of surplus mitigation on specific highway projects. This group has generated strategies that are expected to eventually reduce an initial surplus of $ 197 million to approximately $ 40 million. NCDOT, NCDENR and USACE are continuing work to develop and implement ways to fur-ther reduce the remaining surplus inventory. Also during FY 2007- 08, EEP has continued to increase the number of projects implemented based on watershed planning. This year, 85 percent of projects implemented by EEP using the Design- Bid- Build delivery process were located in watershed- planning areas ( for more infor-mation, see section II of this report). The program continues to achieve very high compliance rates. Compliance for the mitigation program serving NCDOT exclusively ( known as the Memorandum of Agreement ( MOA) pro-gram) is 95.89 percent for streams, 98.80 percent for riparian wetlands, 98.88 percent for non-riparian wetlands and 100 percent for coastal marsh. Within the mitigation program that serves the needs of other developers and the general public ( known as the Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) program), 96.7 percent of all requirements were fully met. A statewide status summary of both programs’ inventory shows that EEP has 1,534,937 feet of stream assets and 13,118.76 acres of wetlands. The majority of these assets have been prepared in advance of NCDOT permit needs and are ready for use as permits are issued. The remaining sections in this report describe the current program status. The report is in-tended to satisfy all reporting requirements as defined in G. S. 143- 214.13 and agreements with USACE and NCDOT. EEP anticipates continuing progress in the year ahead on providing a more holistic approach to mitigation, facilitating the delivery of 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. ____________________________ __________________ William D. Gilmore, PE, Director Date ii. I: EEP Programs The Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( EEP) is an initiative within the N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources ( NCDENR) that improves our environment while facilitating economic development. EEP restores streams and wetlands where the greatest need is by working with local and state partners, including willing landowners. The N. C. Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) and other developers voluntarily use EEP to move their projects forward in a timely and affordable manner. EEP provides mitigation services through four different in lieu fee ( ILF) programs: 1) The NCDOT Stream and Wetland ILF Program ( hereafter referred to in this document as the Memorandum of Agreement ( MOA) program); 2) The General Public Stream and Wetland ILF Program ( hereafter, the Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) program); 3) The General Public Riparian Buffer ILF Mitigation Program; and 4) The General Public Nutrient Offset ILF Program. Eligibility to participate in an EEP program is a joint decision made by the developer, EEP and the regulatory agencies. Each of the mitigation programs operate as an ILF program in which applicants make payments to EEP in lieu of providing mitigation themselves, or by other means. Upon payment, EEP assumes the full legal responsibility for planning, developing and implementing the required types and amounts of mitigation. After successful payment, applicants are no longer liable for the mitigation requirement. Additional details on these programs are included within this report. 1) MOA Program: A 2003 MOA among NCDENR, NCDOT and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers outlines procedures for how NCDOT utilizes EEP as an ILF program for NCDOT’s offsite stream and wetland mitigation needs, and specifies performance metrics for the delivery of that mitigation. In February of each year, NCDOT provides EEP with its mitigation request in the form of a forecast of future impacts to aquatic resources for the seven- year Transportation Improvement Program ( TIP) list. EEP secures the mitigation needed by NCDOT following protocols outlined in the Tri- Party MOA. EEP uses Fund 2984 to track payments and expenditures for this program. 2) MOU Program: The general public MOU Stream and Wetland Program provides applicants of Section 404 Permits, Section 401 Water Quality Certifications, and/ or Coastal Area Management Act permits the option to satisfy compensatory- mitigation requirements for wetland and stream impacts in all 17 North Carolina river basins through payment into EEP's ILF program. Protocols for mitigation delivery under this program are specified in an MOU between NCDENR and USACE. Payments made into the Stream and Wetland ILF Program are deposited into Fund 2981. 1 In FY 2007- 08, 189 customers made payments into the MOU Program. Stream and Wetland ILF payments totaled $ 11,020,380. Of this amount, a total of 159 customers had requirements from both USACE ( 404) and Division of Water Quality ( DWQ) ( 401), 24 customers had requirements from USACE only and eight customers had requirements from DWQ only. 3) Riparian Buffer ILF Mitigation Program: The Riparian Buffer ILF 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 watershed in the upper Cape Fear River basin. Payments are made to the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund ( Fund 2982) according to the regulatory schedule of fees for buffers. In Fiscal Year 2007- 08, EEP received payments for 1,184,056 square feet ( 27.18 acres) of buffer mitigation. At the close of the fiscal year, EEP had accepted responsibility for 506.06 acres of buffer- mitigation requirements cumulatively since the program’s inception in the Cape Fear, Catawba, Neuse and Tar- Pamlico River basins. 4) Nutrient Offset ILF Program: The Nutrient Offset Program is an option to meet compensatory mitigation requirements associated with nutrient- offset requirements in the Neuse and Tar- Pamlico River basins. Payments made into the Nutrient Offset ILF Program are deposited into Fund 2981- 9829. During FY 2007- 08, nutrient- offset payments were made by 338 customers located in the counties of Durham, Franklin, Johnston, Nash, Pitt, Wake and Wayne, and the municipalities of Cary, Durham, Garner, Goldsboro, Greenville, Havelock, Kinston, New Bern, Raleigh, Rocky Mount, Tarboro, Washington and Wilson. These payments were for 293,850.01 pounds of nitrogen reduction and 715.74 pounds of phosphorus reduction. Figure 1. Map of NC River Basins 2 II: Watershed Planning and Project Implementation EEP’s enabling legislation ( NC 143- 218.8), its Tri- Party MOA and the new federal compensatory- mitigation rules on compensating for losses of aquatic resources ( 33 CFR Parts 325 and 332, and 40 CFR Part 230) require EEP to implement watershed planning- based restoration and preservation projects. These requirements reflect the widely held position of water resource professionals that projects based on watershed planning will provide the best environmental return on investment. Therefore, an important focus of EEP continues to be the implementation of watershed restoration and preservation projects based on environmental needs identified through watershed planning. This is accomplished through high- level and detailed planning initiatives and the coordination of project implementation in accordance with planning outcomes. EEP conducts two main types of watershed planning: 1) River Basin Restoration Priority Planning ( high- level river basin/ eight- digit CU scale); and 2) Local Watershed Planning ( detailed level, small watershed scale). The products of EEP’s planning efforts are used to direct mitigation resources to areas of need. For reasons outlined in Section V of the 2006- 2007 annual report ( http:// www. nceep. net/ news/ annualreport/ 2007/ EEP_ Annual_ Report_ 2006_ 2007. pdf), not all EEP projects implemented in the first five years of the program have been watershed planning- based projects. However, EEP’s goal is to implement all program projects in targeted watersheds. This year EEP continued to make great strides toward this goal through its Design- Bid- Build ( DBB) project- delivery process. Projects generated through EEP’s Full Delivery ( FD) program have not shown the desired level of congruence with planning targets. Consequently, in order to promote improvement in this area, EEP recently changed its approach with regard to FD project development. Where possible, EEP is only accepting projects contained within watershed targets instead of providing incentives related to technical ratings for project proposals within watershed targets. EEP will assess the success of this approach and determine whether the stated goals are being reached and whether additional adjustments are necessary. This section describes the status of EEP watershed- planning methods and assesses how well the program’s project implementation corresponds with watershed priorities. It also summarizes a survey conducted of participants in EEP Local Watershed Planning initiatives. EEP strives to have local watershed plans and associated recommendations fully implemented. Toward that end, EEP continues to work with local stakeholders and funding programs to ensure that the plans not only generate projects to satisfy mitigation needs, but also serve as a resource for communities working to implement watershed improvements. This section highlights key partnerships with state and local entities which are vital to EEP’s watershed- planning focus for project implementation, which maximizes mitigation investments for the benefit of the state’s natural resources. 3 WATERSHED PLANNING The purpose of watershed planning is to determine the best locations for watershed-restoration projects based on analysis of watersheds’ needs for restoration and protection. Simply put, it is putting watershed restoration and preservation projects where they are most needed. This is done by conducting two types of planning – River Basin Restoration Priority ( RBRP) planning and Local Watershed planning. For more information about EEPs watershed planning, including watershed plan products searchable by county or river basin, go to: http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ lwplanning. htm. River Basin Restoration Priority Plans RBRP planning is conducted in each of the 17 river basins in North Carolina. The purpose of RBRP planning is to identify through data analysis and field verification those watersheds that exhibit a combination of local resources, problems and opportunities, and therefore serve as Targeted Local Watersheds ( TLWs) to focus project implementation by EEP and other entities. TLWs represent those watersheds where restoration or protection is most needed— for instance, watersheds that include streams with impaired water quality and degraded habitat are often targeted. More information on EEP’s RBRP planning process is available through EEP’s Policy, Process and Procedures Manual: http:// www. nceep. net/ abouteep/ PPPM2/ Policies% 20and% 20Procedures/ PLN. PRO. 02.01. 01. pdf EEP’s enabling statute requires that the RBRP planning takes place based on DWQ’s Basinwide Planning update schedule. DWQ has changed its model for updating basinwide watershed plans from once every five years to a continuous update of a Web data layer with a biannual written report. EEP is adjusting procedures to deliver river- basin planning products within the biannual timeframe. The RBRP plans incorporate water quality information from DWQ Basinwide Assessment Reports and Water Quality Plans, as well as input from local resource agency professionals and the location of existing or planned watershed projects. RBRP Planning updates also take advantage of newly acquired watershed datasets produced by the N. C. Center for Geographic Information and Analysis ( CGIA) that profile the assets, problems and baseline conditions of watersheds statewide. RBRP planning documents are posted on the EEP Web site, searchable by river basin or county: http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ lwplanning. htm. In FY 2007- 08, EEP completed the Little Tennessee RBRP planning and updated portions of the Catawba and Yadkin River Basin Restoration Priority Planning documents. The Chowan, Catawba and Yadkin basins were scheduled to be completed in December 2007, but have been postponed until December 2008 in order to incorporate the new CGIA datasets. The data will also be used to update RBRP planning documents in 2008- 2009, including the Broad, Cape Fear, Hiwassee, Lumber, New, Pasquotank, Roanoke, Savannah, Watauga and White Oak. 4 Local Watershed Plans Local Watershed planning merges TLWs identified in RBRP planning with anticipated mitigation needs to determine where future mitigation investments can provide the greatest benefit for the State of North Carolina. The development of a Local Watershed Plans ( LWP) is typically a four- phase process: Preliminary Watershed Characterization ( Phase I), Detailed Assessment ( Phase II), Development of a Watershed Management Plan including identification of potential project sites within a Project Atlas ( Phase III) and Implementation of the Plan ( Phase IV). However, rapid or abbreviated plans are also utilized when the mitigation- compliance timeline is compressed, the mitigation needs are insufficient to justify an extensive planning investment, or detailed analyses are not necessary to identify the most ecologically beneficial projects. EEP watershed planners are responsible for evaluating data and local resources to identify watersheds that demonstrate both the need for functional uplift and existing restoration opportunities to satisfy mitigation needs. Detailed watershed evaluations are conducted through the use of internal and external resources. External resources include private environmental planning and engineering firms, DWQ, CGIA and various not- for- profit organizations. Watershed planners coordinate with local resource professionals, state and federal agencies, private consulting firms and EEP project managers in the development and implementation of LWPs. EEP staff is continuing work on LWPs across the state. Nine plans are underway and in various stages of development and expected to be completed later in 2008 or 2009. Appendix A( iii) presents a summary of ongoing LWPs; these are efforts that haven’t yet resulted in a final Watershed Management Plan or Project Atlas ( listing of identified restoration opportunities), but will do so within the next six to 18 months. Fact sheets summarizing EEP’s Local Watershed planning efforts and links to associated reports are available on EEP’s Web site: http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ lwplanning. htm. Completed Local Watershed Plans LWPs are defined by EEP as complete at the end of Phase III with the production of a Watershed Management Plan and Project Atlas. To date, EEP has completed 27 watershed plans through Phase III. Phase IV focuses on outreach and implementation of projects derived from LWPs and is therefore an ongoing process. LWPs are designed such that they result in a suite of watershed- restoration recommendations, including but not limited to mitigation opportunities that can be implemented by a myriad of public and private entities over an extended period of time. Therefore, while EEP’s involvement in implementation ebbs and flows based upon mitigation needs, many other entities continue to pursue recommendations and projects that result from the Local Watershed planning process. EEP is actively pursuing projects identified in many plans, previous and current, in an effort to satisfy mitigation needs. To date EEP has implemented 51 projects worth more than $ 43 million in Local Watershed planning areas. ( See Appendix A for a list of those projects). EEP completed three Local Watershed planning efforts in FY 2007- 2008: Peachtree- Martins Creek LWP in the Hiwassee 02 CU, Cove Creek LWP in the Broad 05 CU and 5 Lockwoods Folly LWP in the Lumber 07 CU. Figure 2. Peachtree- Martins Creek Local Watershed Planning Area roject fact sheets summarizing efforts on each of these plans and links to the orresponding planning documents are included in Appendix A. A summary of all LWPs ix A. Pc completed to date and the status of Phase IV efforts is also included in Append Current information on EEP’s Local Watershed planning efforts is available on EEP’s Web site by river basin or county: http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ lwplanning. htm. New Local Watershed Planning Initiatives This year EEP began work on four new Local Watershed planning initiatives: Indian/ Howards Creek LWP ( Catawba 02 CU), Franklin to Fontana LWP ( Little ( Yadkin urveyed participants in its Local Watershed planning to gauge how tection needs of EEP and local r Tennessee 02 CU), Ararat River LWP ( Yadkin 01 CU) and Goose Creek LWP 05 CU). Fact sheets summarizing current planning activities for each of these plans are included in Appendix A and available on EEP’s Web site. EEP identified one new LWP initiative in Cape Fear 06 CU to begin in FY 2008- 09 based on forecasted NCDOT mitigation needs. Local Watershed Planning Survey Summary In July 2008, EEP s well the plans are meeting the restoration and pro communities. LWPs provide an important function within EEP by identifying potential stream- and wetland- mitigation projects, but their utility extends beyond this program to communities that adopt and implement the recommendations included within the plan. EEP surveyed stakeholders of completed and in- progress LWPs to determine the types of activities occurring in Local Watershed planning areas that support improvement and protection of watersheds. Survey participants included local government representatives, resource professionals, private consultants and regulatory agencies, among others. EEP also conducted follow- up phone interviews with stakeholders willing to provide furthe 6 input on their Local Watershed planning involvement. A summary of survey results is included in Appendix A. Using a Web survey tool, EEP sent a 14- question survey to 230 LWP stakeholders. EE received 42 completed sur P veys, an 18- percent response rate. Of those that responded, 89 ercent felt that the local watershed planning process was successful or somewhat t in plement lan recommendations. Stormwater management, land preservation, riparian- buffer er hin the planning process to increase the robability of implementing watershed- improvement recommendations. Participants also , survey p successful in identifying the needs of the watershed. Sixty- seven percent of stakeholders indicated that they have been able to use the products of the LWP, most notably the watershed- management plan, water- quality data and restoration targeting. Survey results and follow- up interviews indicate that stakeholders continue to benefi Local Watershed planning areas by successfully pursuing grant funding to im p reforestation, agricultural best management practices ( BMPs), and citizen outreach are highlighted activities implemented by survey respondents. Funding sources for these activities include 47 percent from the N. C. Clean Water Management Trust Fund ( CWMTF), local funding sources ( 30 percent), Agriculture Cost Share Program ( 27 percent) and Section 319 grants ( 25 percent). In addition, 20 percent of participants stated that they are implementing watershed- improvement ordinances such as buff requirements and stormwater runoff policies. Suggestions for improvement of the Local Watershed planning process included incorporating landowner involvement earlier wit p expressed concerns about the amount of time required to produce a plan. Overall participants responded favorably to the Local Watershed planning process, with 77 percent stating that they would partner again with EEP on a Local Watershed planning effort ( the remaining respondents were: " Yes, if things were changed" [ five respondents], “ No” [ one respondent], " N/ A" [ three respondents]), with two not responding. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION The primary purpose of EEP is to produce watershed restoration and preservation and other BMPs) that meet regulatory mitigation requirements with respect to type, quality and compliance schedule in the most cost-a. tinue to be, critical to EEP’s success in meeting mitigation needs throughout the state. For more details on the df projects ( stream, wetland, stormwater effective way, while maximizing environmental return for the State of North Carolin The maximization of environmental returns from implemented projects is achieved through the watershed- planning- based approach. EEP utilizes DBB and FD project- delivery methods to implement projects. Both of these project- delivery methods have been, and con different project delivery methods and the responsibilities of EEP staff for each, see Section V of the FY 2006- 07 Annual Report: http:// www. nceep. net/ news/ annualreport/ 2007/ EEP_ Annual_ Report_ 2006_ 2007. p 7 SYNERGIES BETWEEN WATERSHED PLANNING AND PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION The foundation of comprehensive watershed restoration and protection is wate planning. As EEP mature rshed s, more of the program’s restoration projects are correlated to watershed goals. While a large amount of the mitigation credits currently managed by m s EEP are reflective of watershed plans and targets, not all of the projects in the progra are synchronized in this manner due to a number of factors, including projects that were developed prior to the establishment of EEP, advanced mitigation timeline requirement and reductions in MOA program mitigation needs. For more detailed information regarding these factors see Section V of the FY 2006- 07 Annual Report: ( http:// www. nceep. net/ news/ annualreport/ 2007/ EEP_ Annual_ Report_ 2006_ 2007. pdf). For many of the reasons outlined in the FY 2006- 07 Annual Report, EEP to increase the percentage of projects implemented in watershed- planning areas utilizing has continued the DBB process. This year, 85 percent of projects implemented by EEP using the DBB delivery process were located in watershed- planning areas ( See Figure 3). Fourteen percent of the projects derived using the FD process were located in watershed- planning areas. Figure 3. Percentage of EEP Design Bid Build Projects Located in Planning Areas 0 20 40 60 80 100 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Project Percentage TLW TLW/ LWP 8 Figure 4. Design Bid Build Wetland Credits 54% 9% 37% TLW TLW/ LWP OTHER Figure 5. Design Bid Build Stream Credits 31% 34% 35% TLW TLW/ LWP OTHER EEP is committed to watershed- planning- based project delivery. However, as described above, there are circumstances when EEP does allow and will continue to allow ( for both DBB and FD) projects outside of the watershed- planning targets when the environmental justification for such projects is substantial and consistent with watershed- planning principles. Regardless, EEP in part measures performance through statistics that describe how closely project locations line up with planning targets. The following figures illustrate the synergies that have been achieved in the DBB program for wetland and stream projects. Projects delivered through the FD program have not been as consistent with watershed- planning targets as would be desired ( 31 percent of wetlands credits and 26 percent of stream credits generated through FD procurement are contained within TLWs). EEP is committed to improving the congruence of FD projects and watershed- planning targets. In the last few years, EEP has increased the number of points given to a project that is in a watershed planning area during the technical review of Requests for Proposals ( RFPs). EEP has found that this incentive- based approach has not eet processes with the goal of maximizing watershed- planning- based yielded the desired results. Therefore, in the most recent round of RFPs, EEP employed a new strategy in some areas that required that FD projects be located in TLWs in order to be considered for contracting. EEP will analyze the results of the new approach and m with FD providers to discuss those results. EEP continues to pursue the improvement of both procurement outcomes. COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS EEP relies heavily on collaborative partnerships w to fulfill its mission of producing high- quality, cost- e based on watershed planning. Local governments watershed- planning and implementation process w knowledge, landowner contacts, donation of easem n- EEP funded watershed- restoration projects. State agenc technical and local knowledge, landowner contact and preservation partnerships and contracting capa of those collaborative partnerships. ith local, state and federal entities ffective restoration and preservation often provide invaluable input in the ith respect to technical and local ents and implementation of no y partnerships provide resources, s, shared data, watershed restoration bilities. This section highlights a few 9 Local Governments/ Municipalities as s watershed- management challenges in eir area and provide EEP with the tools needed to implement cost- effective projects ore than 30 projects with 17 overnments, including the City of Durham, Mecklenburg County, the Town of f TF EEP staff collaborate with local governments on a daily basis. This communication h resulted in valuable partnerships that benefit both EEP and local stakeholders with respect to technical capabilities, shared data, policy and technical guidance, and project implementation. Often, the most degraded watersheds exist in urbanized or developing areas where land costs are high and project design and/ or construction is complicated. Collaborative efforts allow local partners to addres th where they are most needed. EEP has partnered on m g Mooresville, the City of Kinston and others ( see Appendix A). These partnerships have resulted in the restoration and protection of more than 18 miles of stream and 50 acres o wetlands worth over $ 32 million. In addition, watershed- planning efforts have provided local governments with the ability to leverage grant monies from Section 319, CWM and other funding sources in pursuit of the implementation of stormwater BMPs, land protection and watershed- coordinator positions. State and Federal Partnerships/ Collaboration Clean Water Management Trust Fund As recommend in the 2007 Dye Management Report ( http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ DYE_ 2007_ EEP_ CWMTF_ Study_ Final_ Report. pdf) prepared for the North Carolina legislature, EEP and CWMTF are continuing to inc coordination on enhancement and restoration efforts. In CWMTF’s 2008 grant application cycle, EEP staff assisted CWMTF field representatives with field reviews of proposed restoration projects. EEP staff also performed a review of all 2008 applicatio to determine if projects occurred in watershed- planning areas, and if so, wrote letters of support for those projects. In addition to the above efforts, EEP and CWMTF are partnering within three wa located in different regions of the state: Big Harris Creek ( Broad basin), Upper Rocky River ( Yadkin basin), and Upper Neuse ( Neuse basin). EEP/ CWMTF project teams will work together to develop recommendations on strategies that address aquatic- resource issues through innovative project partnerships, educational outreach, and community support of watershed issues. These recommendations will be presented to EEP and CWMTF program executives. The goal is to augm rease ns tersheds ent each program’s resources, both me and financial, to achieve targeted watershed benefits. ivision of Soil and Water Conservation h the Division of Soil and Water Conservation to work with local Soil and Water tion ti D In August 2007, EEP signed a contract wit ( DSWC). By partnering with the DSWC, EEP is able Conservation Districts ( SWCDs) throughout the state on stream- and wetland- restora projects. Local SWCDs provide an important resource through their knowledge of farm management strategies and agricultural BMPs as well as their relationships with landowners within the watershed. In FY 2007- 08, EEP funded more than $ 100,000 of 10 agricultural BMPs, including cattle- exclusion fencing, wells and watering troughs in association with stream- restoration projects, and has scoped an additional $ 300,000 on additional projects. By partnering with SWCDs, EEP is able to restore degraded systems, macroinvertebrate community data, fish community data, ambient water quality data, a her imagery and species information, NHP identified lso s pare abitat quality in all of the state’s river basins. recognizes at WRC is uniquely qualified to provide these services because of its responsibilities e directly address sources of pollution and help ensure long- term project success while furthering the water- quality improvement goals of both EEP and DSWC. United States Geological Survey EEP continued its cooperative support for U. S. Geological Survey ( USGS) gauging station data collection in two of its LWP areas-- Fishing Creek in the upper Tar- Pamlico River basin and White Oak in the White Oak River basin. The data from these stations are used for integrated interpretation of instream conditions in conjunction with benthic chemical water quality data, toxicity bioassay data, and in some cases for water quality and quantity model calibration. These data are collected as a part of the USGS's national network of gauging and water- quality monitoring stations. Specific data from the Fishing Creek and White Oak gauging stations were analyzed and presented at the 2007 N. C. Water Quality Forum held in Charlotte, as part of other ongoing research projects. Natural Heritage Program With funding provided by EEP, the N. C. Natural Heritage Program ( NHP) completed statewide analysis to identify areas of high- quality habitat important to species sensitive to landscape integrity. These high- quality habitats, or core areas, are primarily identified based on functional considerations – response of species to habitat fragmentation – rat than on rarity or, in the case of natural communities, exceptional quality. Using data that included GIS, aerial core areas that indicate where target species groups, or guilds, reside. The analysis a identifies inter- core area connectors that serve as links between core areas and are likely to support dispersal by guild members. Overall, NHP mapped 267 core areas, covering 15,483 square miles of priority habitat and a total of 83 inter- core connectors. With the completion of the assessment, EEP gains an important tool to enhance both it LWPs and RBRP planning. For LWPs, the assessment provides a means of ranking conservation priorities for project implementation. For RBRPs, the assessment informs planners of the abundance of quality and high- functioning forest and wetland habitat within a river basin. This information is critical to gauging the assets that are present within a river basin and, because the data is to be complete statewide, is ideal to com h North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission In January 2006, the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission ( WRC) and EEP entered into an MOA to establish a working relationship between the agencies. The WRC agreed to complete stream- and wetland- associated restoration work, maintenance, monitoring and research activities at specific, unique mitigation sites managed by EEP. EEP th and experience managing North Carolina’s fish and wildlife resources. To formalize th 11 agreement, WRC entered into a formal contract with EEP that covers the period from Jan 9, 2006 to Jan. 8, 2009. . h out orth Carolina Division of Water Quality Section 319 Grant Program ers the Section 319 Grant Program, e g 0- foot stream restoration project. The Dye Branch Project, cated in Iredell County, was identified as part of the Upper Rocky River/ Clarke Creek r dditional Watershed Management Partnerships g with EEP er tracts in the Wilson Creek watershed ( upper Catawba basin) by the Foothills Conservancy [ consistent with goals of the ver and Kerr Scott Reservoir LWPs]; To date, EEP has tasked WRC with a variety of projects, including restoration and maintenance activities. In FY 2007- 08, WRC had 11 active assignments, two of whic were new authorizations, and WRC completed work on one request. EEP has placed a major emphasis on closing out projects constructed under WRC’s previous agreement with NCDOT and now assumed by EEP. These projects are all scheduled to be closed by the end of 2009. N The Nonpoint Source Program of DWQ administ which funds local jurisdictions and nonprofit organizations ( such as universities and environmental education partnerships) to restore impaired waters and improv management of problems such as stormwater runoff. EEP participated in the review of applications to the Section 319 Grant Program by scoring proposals and attendin interviews with applicants in person. In addition, EEP received Section 319 funding to implement a stormwater BMP project in association with a 3,00 lo LWP and is located in an urban watershed that receives large amounts of stormwate runoff. EEP completed the BMP installation in 2006 and is working with NCSU and DWQ to collect water- quality data to evaluate the effectiveness of nutrient removal. Construction of the stream- restoration project was completed in July 2008. A Several stakeholder groups that have worked or are currently workin LWP initiatives in Western North Carolina have utilized LWP products to support their CWMTF applications for various non- mitigation watershed projects. CWMTF grant awards approved in the summer of 2008 include the following [ note: name of associated LWP effort in brackets]: Acquisition of riparian- buff Lake Rhodhiss regional watershed planning effort, of which the Lower Creek LWP is a part]; Stormwater master planning and BMPs for the Town of Sparta in Alleghany County ( New River basin), as identified in the Bledsoe Creek Watershed Management Plan [ Little River and Brush Creek LWP]; Funding of agricultural BMPs for water quality improvement in the upper Yadkin River basin, to be implemented by the DSWC [ Ararat Ri 12 Planning monies for development of the Ararat River Corridor Conservation & Greenway Plan ( Surry County), to be administered through the Northwest Piedmont Council of Governments [ Ararat River LWP]; Restoration planning for the Town Creek watershed, in Clay County, to be implemented by the Hiwassee River Watershed Coalition [ Peachtree- Martins Creek LWP]; and dec 8. in per Ten dmore area. A preliminary list of likely impassable be f alre s. EEP watershed restoration strategies for the Lower Creek watershed. The Caldwell Low EP continues to pursue non- traditional wetland mitigation credit in the Catawba ch, enefits to a natural wetland in a watershed where traditional wetland- restoration EEP participated in a multi- party MOU to support the Chatham Conservation am County. Little Tennessee stream- and riparian- restoration program, to be implemented by the Macon County Soil and Water Conservation District [ Franklin to Fontana LWP]. These CWMTF grant awards total more than $ 6 million. Additional funding isions for EEP- supported watershed grants will be made in November 200 EEP partnered with U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, WRC, NCDOT, and others forming a collaborative study of fish passages in streams that drain to the Little nessee River near the Nee road and driveway stream crossings was developed. Problematic crossings will urther evaluated and prioritized for replacement. Project partners have ady received funds to replace one to two priority crossing has continued to work with the Lower Creek Advisory Team to implement and Burke County SWCDs applied for and received a Section 319 grant to fund a er Creek Watershed Coordinator for the next three years. E 03050103 CU. The purpose of the effort is to seek a flexible mitigation approa allowing EEP to receive credit for implementing BMPs that provide similar b opportunities are severely limited. NCSUs Watershed Education for Communities and Officials received $ 199,000 in EPA Section 319 grant funds to pursue conservation and restoration in Rocky River, an EEP LWP area where the plan was completed in 2005. Partnership ( CCP). EEP entered into this partnership to work creatively with other CCP participants to meet Chatham County’s conservation needs. CCP began in 2007 as a proactive approach to better plan for growth in the county. EEP’s Cape Fear Rocky River LWP is located in western Chath Chapel Hill and Carrboro partnered to receive $ 370,000 in Section 319 grant funds to support restoration and BMP implementation in Bolin Creek, a subwatershed within the Morgan and Little Creek LWP area. 13 Environmental Education and Outreach EEP a outreac NCDEN nel hosted the ast and crew of Aquakids, an award- winning TV show for young teens broadcast into 100 - quality North C s in central accessi sode scheduled to air in late 2008 and may lead to further collaborations in the future. EEP co EEP restorat r Teachers), an ternational program that distributes classroom- ready teaching aids to K- 12 instructors. he materials promote responsible stewardship through an interdisciplinary water science itigation sites serve as excellent o re bout EEP projects. st ff participated in a variety of opportunities for environmental education and h during the past fiscal year, and participated with ongoing efforts of the R Education and Outreach Working Group. In June, EEP person c million households nationwide. The Baltimore- based show concentrates on water issues for its programming, and approached EEP about filming a segment in arolina. For the episode, EEP staff took the Aquakids contingent to three site North Carolina to demonstrate the impacts to water quality from livestock ng rural streams, and EEP’s restoration efforts in such circumstances. The epi is ntinued to build upon efforts to engage and educate schools located near ion projects. EEP promoted Project WET ( Water Education fo in T and education program on water resources. EEP m outdoor classrooms for multiple teaching components. EEP also continued to improve its Web site, launching a series of updates and reconfigurations in December in response to user input to an on- line survey. EEP is als making progress toward the implementation of a GIS- based web portal in the coming months. The improvements are designed to satisfy the desire of the regulatory community for simple access to EEP restoration and monitoring plans and eventually will be available to the general public. EEP staff is developing voice- thread Web sites ( collaborative, multi- media slide shows that invite public input) for mitigation projects, promoting online interaction between EEP and individuals interested in learning mo a Finally, as a part of the program’s daily work processes, EEP continued to educate landowners and municipal, county and state personnel about the program. Education efforts also included presentations and exhibits for legislative committees, civic clubs, the N. C. State Fair and public- and private- sector conferences throughout the year. 14 III: Financial Accounting, Cost Data and Property Acquisition REVENUE, EXPENDITURES, AND ENCUMBRANCES The figures and tables below depict expenditures and end- of- year balances for the MOA Program ( NCDOT stream and wetland progr ), the Wetlands Restoration Program Trust Fund, the MOU Program ( general public stream and wetland mitigation program), and the buffer and nutrient offset programs. An accounting of beginning balances, revenues, expenditures, cash balances, encum rances and unencumbered balances is provided. Revenues collected by EEP through its four mitigation programs are used to implement restoration projects where they will provide maximum environmental benefits to the state’s natural resources. A small part of EEP’s revenues is used to administer the program. EEP receives no state appropriations ( some historic appropriations remain in the Wetlands Restoration Program Trust Fund but will soon be exhausted). Fund Figure 6 provides an accounting of the MOA fund and applies to the mitigation f the NCDOT, mitigation roduction and payments are programmed on a cash- flow basis. As a result, EEP invoices am b 2984: MOA Program program supplied to the Department of Transportation. At the request o p NCDOT for the actual cost for the work being processed to include administration, payments made to engineers, contractors, and full delivery providers. Figure 6: MOA Program Fund 2984 Fiscal Year 2007- 08 Fund 2984 Actual Amounts Beginning balance $ 16,099,120.68 Revenues $ 28,602,257.54 Expenditures $ 42,072,862.06 Ending Balance $ 2,628,516.16 Encumbrances $ 79,529,964.90 Future Yr. Obligations $ 76,901,448.74 $ 90,000,000.00 $ 40,000,000.00 $ 50,000,000.00 $ 60,000,000.00 $ 70,000,000.00 $ 80,000,000.00 Beg. Balance Revenues Expenditures Ending Balance $ 30,000,000.00 $ 0.00 $ 10,000,000.00 $ 20,000,000.00 Encumbrances Future Year Obligations 15 EEP invoices NCDOT on a quarterly basis and secures only those funds required to pay anticipated operating costs for the upcoming quarter. Future year obligations are guaranteed to be paid in accordance with an MOA between NCDOT and NCDENR. This information is reported quarterly during routine invoicing processes. Also, EEP is audited quarterly by the NCDOT Inspector General’s office and has been audited by the Federal Highways Administration. Fund 2980, Wetlands Restoration Program Trust Fund, is the repository for appropriated dollars and was established by the General Assembly. In 1997, the General Assembly provided a one- time initial appropriation of seed dollars for the former Wetlands Restoration Program. Th ance for this fund is $ 14,683.61. aining encumbra is ye ill be closed out sometime the next fiscal yea unds 2981, 2982, 2982- 9829: The MOU, Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset rogram Funds igure 7 below provi n LF general public wetland nd stream restoration program storation ILF Program 982) and the Nutrient Offset Reduction ILF Program ( 2982- 9829). Fund 2981, MOU ILF Program, is a voluntary, statewide receipt- based ILF program. Land- disturbing activities that require Section 404 or Section 401 permits often require e unencumbered bal Rem nces will be paid th ar and this fund w in r. FPF des an accounting of fu ( 2981), the Ri ds for the MOU I a parian Buffer Re ( 2 Figure 7: Funds 2981, 2982, 2982- 9829; Fiscal Year 2007- 08 $ 30,000,000.00 $ 35,000,000.00 $ 25,000,000.00 Beg. Balance $ 5,000,000.00 $ 10,000,000.00 $ 15,000,000.00 $ 20,000,000.00 Revenues Expenditures Ending Balance Encumbrances Unencumbered Balance $ 0.00 Beg. Balance $ 31,421,790.14 $ 2,617,656.97 $ 5,385,257.95 Revenues $ 12,999,693.73 $ 1,318,121.64 $ 5,622,143.37 Expenditures $ 15,960,457.66 $ 827,401.67 $ 245,172.14 Ending Balance $ 28,461,026.21 $ 3,108,376.94 $ 10,762,229.18 Encumbrances $ 19,265,042.20 $ 1,314,576.34 $ 1,473,270.57 Unencumbered Balance $ 9,195,984.01 $ 1,793,800.60 $ 9,288,958.61 2981 2982 2982- 9829 16 compensatory mitigation as specified by USACE or DWQ. The general public, commercial and residential developers, as well as non- NCDOT governmental agencies including municipalities and military installations, may produce the mitigation themselves, purchase credits from a private mitigation bank, or request mitigation from EEP. Upon acceptance and payment, EEP provides the off- site compensatory mitigation to satisfy regulatory requirements. The work may consist of reestablishment of wetlands and reconstruction or enhancement to degraded streams. This fund helps the general public by providing a service that is cost- effective and simplifies the permitting processes. EEP sought fee revisions for this fund as costs were not in line with the current fee schedule. New fees have been established recently and the updated fees can be referenced at the EEP Web site: http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ fee. htm. Fund 2982, Riparian Buffer Fund, is the repository for monies related to the state’s Riparian Buffer ILF Program 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 redits from a private mitigation banks or pay EEP to produce the mitigation and satisfy on-e uctions from a private mitigation bank or pay a fee to EEP to produce the itigation. The types of projects produced by EEP may consist of best management the on of mitigation sites. c permit needs. Revenues collected are used to contract engineering, construction, land acquisition and long term protection of mitigation sites. The types of projects produced consist of reestablishment and protection of buffers ( primarily involving planting vegetation) along degraded streams and river banks in the protected basin. Fund 2982- 9829, Nutrient Offset Fund, is the repository for funds of the Nutrient Offset ILF Program. This program has been in place for the Neuse River basin since 1998. In March 2006, the Tar- Pamlico River basin was added. Applicants seeking permits for construction related impacts to uplands may elect to undertake additional site nutrient reduction measures to meet nutrient reduction requirements, purchas nutrient red m practices or vegetated buffers that will reduce nitrogen and phosphorous loading into river basins and estuaries. Revenues collected are used to contract engineering, construction, land acquisition and secure long term protecti Based on a study commissioned by the General Assembly and conducted by RTI International, the legislature set the fees for the Nutrient Offset ILF Program effective September 1, 2007. The fees can be referenced at http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ fee. htm. COST OF MITIGATION DELIVERY Total project costs are the sum of costs associated with multiple project steps including land acquisition; project design; project construction; maintenance; monitoring for project success; and long- term stewardship of the perpetually protected prop erty. In ddition a small amount of program monies are associated with funding staff to oversee the contracting, awards, project delivery and administration. All design, construction and a 17 monitoring activities ( which make up the vast majority of program expenditures) are outsourced to private- sector companies. EEP employs two primary outsourcing metho for its project procurement: Full Delivery ( FD)- requests for proposals ( RFPs) are issued for specific types, amounts and locations of compensatory mitigation and one single contrac issued for the entire project from acquisition to monitoring. The types of firm participating in this process include private mitigation bankers and enginee firms with construction contracting capabilities. Design- Bid- Build ( DBB) - EEP acquires the project site through the S Property Office, contracts for design through a private environmental ds t is s ring tate consulting firm, bids out the construction to private contractors, and employs a od g verage per- unit costs of project implementation for the last fiscal year have been ts at an average of $ 41,817.60 per unit. The fee s mitigatio rule maki costs pres 82- 9829), fees were set by the N. C. G ver Basin and rus in the Tar- Paml costs con w nutrient r implement the least cost reduction projects, and that EEP transition to an actual cost ethod for assessing payment to participate in the program. A progress report on ed to the General Assembly in September of 2008 consulting firm for the monitoring. This is the standard contracting meth administered through the Department of Administration and the State Buildin Commission. EEP Project Costs for FY 2007- 08 A calculated by examining both FD and DBB contracts. In FY 2007- 08, EEP obtained: • 66,748 total stream mitigation units at an average of $ 274 per unit; • 4.65 total riparian wetland mitigation units at an average of $ 43,406 per unit; • 2.85 total non- riparian wetland mitigation units at an average of $ 40,718 per unit; and • 31.96 total buffer acre uni chedule over the past year was below actual costs for the wetland and stream n program ( 2981) and the nutrient offset program ( 2982- 9829). EEP, through ng, was able to increase fees for its ILF program to levels more in line with ented above. For the Nutrient Offset Program ( 29 eneral Assembly to be $ 28.35 per pound nitrogen for projects in the Neuse Ri $ 21.67 per pound nitrogen and $ 28.62 per tenth of pound for phospho ico River basin. These fees were set based on an analysis of buffer restoration ducted by RTI International. The General Assembly also required that all ne eductions take place in the same CU as the impact payment, that EEP m transitioning to actual cost was provid ( http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ FINAL_ ERC_ NO_ Progres_ Report_ 09- 12- 08. pdf). EEP continues to take measures to produce cost effective mitigation through such items actors on wetland and stream construction techniques. As nderstanding improves, it translates to increased competition within a larger bidding as training of construction contr u pool. 18 Cost Analysis of Private Mitigation Banks Reporting requirements of G. S. 143 214.13 require EEP to compare the cost of ix lanning, d ull Delivery Program stream and/ or wetland). Providers are required to submit both a technical roposal and a cost proposal for each prospective submittal. The technical proposal etails: 1) the experience, qualifications and financial stability of the firm submitting the e site that make it suitable for restoration; n, both . e ate, develop and implement a restoration plan, and monitor the project for five years to he restoration meets established success criteria. for 12,136 and 33.5 riparian wetland itigation units at a cost of $ 1,205,125.00. s, g. mitigation between the EEP projects and private mitigation banks. To obtain the data necessary to accomplish this task, a Web- based survey requesting restoration cost information was sent to the sponsor of each approved bank in North Carolina. Append C includes a listing of banks that were requested to respond, and a copy of the survey is included. There were no responses from private mitigation banks for FY 2007- 08. Contracts The science of natural- systems restoration has advanced considerably over the past decade. Because of this, and in addition to regulatory requirements, watershed p design and monitoring approaches continue to evolve. As such, EEP utilizes multiple contracting methods to address the myriad of tasks necessary to plan, implement an monitor natural systems restoration projects. F The FD Program procures compensatory mitigation by issuing RFPs through the 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., riparian buffer, p d proposal; 2) the geomorphologic features of th and 3) the conceptual plan for restoring the site to a more natural, stable conditio physically and biologically. The cost proposal provides a unit cost ( i. e., per buffer mitigation unit, stream mitigation unit or wetland mitigation unit) 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 on the project area to th st verify that t There are currently 21 firms that have FD contracts with EEP, indicating widespread participation by the environmental consulting/ mitigation banking community. In FY 2007- 08, EEP entered into seven new FD contracts ( with five different FD providers) 30,532 stream mitigation units at a cost of $ 7,1 m Design- Bid- Build Program EEP utilizes On- call Design and Consulting Services Authorizations to contract with private design and consulting firms for professional services for all stages of project development including: watershed planning, environmental resource investigation restoration site design and construction management, and post- construction monitorin The use of on- call consultants is authorized by the State Building Commission as described in the N. C. Administrative Code ( see 01 NCAC 30D). Since 2002, the State 19 Building Commission has approved four on- call authorizations to EEP as described following table: Table 1. NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program On- Call Authorizations in the Authorization Date Effective # of Firms Authorized Total Authorization 2002 Oncall 4/ 18/ 02 - 4/ 17/ 04 15 $ 10,500,000 2004 Oncall 4/ 1/ 04 - 3/ 31/ 06 22 $ 15,400,000 2005 Oncall 8/ 23/- 05 – 8/ 22/ 07 21 $ 14,700,000 2006 Oncall 12/ 12/ 06 – 12/ 11/ 08 31 $ 21,700,000 Design and Construction EEP also utilizes NCDENR and federal agencies to provide planning, design, - e l Contracted Services construction and monitoring services. This use of these agencies is authorized by NCDENR as described in the N. C. Administrative Code ( see N. C. General Statue 143 59). Total Contracted Services In FY 2007- 08, 61 new design and construction contracts were awarded. The total valu of new design and construction contracts was $ 9,301,008.06. Table 2. Tota Fiscal Year 2007- 08 Total Watershed and Project Planning Services ( 12) $ 404,537.25 Total Design Services ( 10) $ 1,984,386.00 Total Construction Services ( 15) $ 3,872,912.00 Total Maintenance and Repair Services ( 6) $ 459,725.60 Total Monitoring Services ( 18) $ 2,579,447.21 Total ( 61) $ 9,301,008.06 iscal Year 2007 ndors $ 41,685,254.38 for FY 2007- 08. Figure 8 ( top of the next ction, but f F - 08 Payments to Ve Payments to vendors totaled page) illustrates payments by contract type: Full Delivery, Design and Constru does not include any costs for property acquisition. Appendix E provides a listing o payments by contract type and vendor. 20 Figure 8: Fiscal Year 2007- 08 Design Bid Build - Contract Payments by Type Construction, 15% Design, 14% Full Delivery, 71% PROPERTY ACQUISITION: FY 2007- 08 associated with preservation and restoration projects, totaling more than 1,370 acres. Two of the acquisitions were outright purchases, three were construction easements, one was an allocation of a conservation easement from another state agency, one was an access easement, one was a modification of an existing conservation easement, and 72 were acquisitions of conservation easements. All properties that closed between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2008 are shown in Appendix E ( ii). Acreages are included for sites that have been surveyed to date. Landowners have formally agreed to give EEP the right to acquire an easement or property for all sites listed in Appendix E ( iii), Properties Optioned. operties acquired since the inception of the than 46,700 acres have been purchased or During this fiscal year, the State Property Office closed on 80 parcels Cumulative Properties is an inventory of all pr Wetlands Restoration Program in 1996. More donated. The full inventory of these acquisitions is presented in Appendix E ( i). 21 IV: Program Inventory Status his section provides detailed tables and charts regarding mitigation production. EEP acks and is accountable for mitigation production in 17 river basins, 54 CUs and for 15 itigation types. TREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION INVENTORY T tr m S t the end of FY 2007- 08, EEP had produced or inherited 1,666,838 linear feet of stream nd 21,116 acres of wetland mitigation, in addition to High Quality Preservation ( HQP) ssets. The table below is a summary of mitigation assets by river basin and type. The ata are also summarized by the primary mitigation program that funded the development f the assets ( MOU or MOA programs). Table 3: EEP Total Assets FY Aa a do 07 – 08 22 Note: EEP’s mitigation assets and requirements are accounted for on a CU basis, not by river basin. This table, along with Table 5, is intended as a summary. A complete listing of these tables by river basin and CU can be found in the EEP’s Fourth Quarterly Report to USACE, FY 2007- 2008, located on the EEP Web site at: http:// www. nceep. net/ news/ eeppublications. htm. Current Inventory of Asset Credits Table 5 on the following page lists net- asset credits by river basin for FY 2007- 08. These are the current inventory assets after application of credits to compensatory- mitigation requirements. Remaining asset credits are also summarized by credit amounts in the MOA and MOU programs. Assets in this table have been converted to restoration and restoration- equivalent credits. Restoration equivalent credits are credits that can only be used to offset mitigation requirements after the 1: 1 impact to restoration requirement has been met. HQP gross and net assets are summarized in the next section. At the end of FY 2007– 08, EEP had net inventory assets of both restoration and restoration equivalent of: • Stream: 671,001.03 credits; • Riparian: 2,850.65 credits; • Nonriparian: 6,697.47 credits; and • Coastal marsh: 130.08 credits. Total net inventory assets are the sum of Table 5 ( Net Inventory of Asset Credits) below. These inventory assets represent progress that EEP has achieved to produce mitigation in advance of permits. These mitigation assets are available to offset future permit requirements, especially for NCDOT. The advancement of mitigation ahead of permitted impacts is environmentally preferable and is an important tenet of the agreement among NCDOT, NCDENR and USACE, which has allowed NCDOT to move forward with about $ 4.8 billion in road- development projects without delays associated with compensatory mitigation since 2003. 23 Table 4: EEP Net Inventory of Asset Credits, FY 07- 08 River Basin Stream Restoration Stream Restoration Equivalent Riparian Restoration Riparian Restoration Equivalent Nonriparian Restoration Nonriparian Restoration Equivalent Coastal Marsh Restoration Coastal Marsh Restoration Equivalent Broad 68,858 1,330.80 11.40 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cape Fear 110,204 3,698 394.39 224.70 836.94 192.39 8.99 42.88 Catawba 30,836 39 7.24 2.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Chowan 12,249 1,217 94.73 3.00 4.99 2.00 0.00 0.00 French Broad 76,155 1,978 9.74 8.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hiwassee 6,865 1,700 3.53 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Little Tennessee 9,890 3,084 57.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lumber 8,163 350 51.98 18.19 567.97 60.28 0.00 0.00 Neuse 32,754 680 355.86 438.94 1,477.94 1,110.08 0.00 0.00 New 23,311 3,633 10.19 6.18 0.00 2.38 0.00 0.00 Pasquotank 15,578 0 393.04 21.25 1,124.70 30.76 1.51 35.91 Roanoke 43,836 2,551 143.67 105.92 115.46 685.00 0.00 0.00 Savannah 4,342 608 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 Tar- Pamlico 29,312 0 121.04 100.67 234.71 89.64 0.24 37.92 Watauga 2,706 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 White Oak 20,080 401.98 19.10 2.01 83.08 48.10 2.64 0.00 Yadkin 143,867 10,726.80 214.73 29.56 15.01 10.73 0.00 0.00 Grand Total 639,004 31,997.30 1,888.59 962.06 4,465.79 2,231.68 13.38 116.71 Grand Total MOU 29,988 1,023.80 154.20 42.41 47.90 52.49 3.27 0.24 Grand Total MOA 609,016 30,973.50 1,734.39 919.65 4,417.89 2,179.19 10.11 116.47 STATEWIDE STATUS OF MOU AND MOA STREAM AND WETLAND PROGRAMS The fo ing graph rovid tewid umma tus o e MO MO progra at the end FY 2 8. The aphs depict EEP current g sset mitigation requirem s, out ng m emen nd p d fu mitigation needs in its th EP exp to pr de over next years ease note that EEP tracks credits and credit r ireme by prog ( MOU or MOA), by im ion credits are a itigation t n CU o , and within program unless the r ry s ha a therwis e gra fle tate ict EP gram g dits) and en ce m ion r ements are typ betw one llow ms s p of ent cred e a sta 007- 0 standi at E e s gr itigation requir ects equ ry sta ovi nts f th ts, a the ram A and ross a rojecte two U s, ture . Pl pact type, and by wate ype, w rshed CU. All mitigat pplied within m ithi o f impact egulato ur agencie ’ ve pproved e. Thes phs re ct the s wide p e of E s pro matic ains ( cre requirem ts. Sin itigat equir ically een 24 to two times as larg tual tted i ts, th ual lo are a xima ne-h s th nitud equ Figure 9 displays the status of stream re ents ssets uced both M OA p s instituted 1,534,937.27 credits of stream m and acc itiga equ 108 s — epres o llion ad stream ed ad m n h n dev ed for future mitigatio s as per op ag nts O MO m program tan quir s equ ,919 ts ( low f f escriptio Fi Sta P Str Mitig ogr Credi e as ac permi mpac e act sses ppro tely o alf to two- third e mag e of r irements shown. quirem and a prod ( for the OU and M rograms). Currently EEP ha itigation epted m tion r irements of 485, credit this r ents ver one mi vanced n cr its. The e vanced re itigatio o as bee U elop need the rating eme f the M and A itigation s. Outs ding re ement al 25 credi see be or urther d n). gure 9: tus of EE eam ation Pr am in ts 1,534,937 485,108 25,919 908,924.00 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 Credits 1,200,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 Stream EEP Stream Assets EEP Mitigation Requirements EEP Outstanding Stream Requirements Future Requirements The generation of mitigation credits in advance of mitigation requirements is a foundin principle of the MOA program. The advanced mitigation currently available in the program is evidence that EEP is succeeding on this front. However, mitigation demand over the next five years is expected to be very high. As shown in the Figure 9, NCDOT and EEP are projecting mitigation needs of 908,924 stream credits over the next five years. The majority of this mitigation need is related to NCDOT’s programmed TIP projects and the mitigation- advancement schedule outlined in the Tri- Party MOA. g utstanding requirements represent mitigation needs that do not match ( type or CU cation) invento ding requirements which are detailed O lo ried assets. EEP has strategies in place to meet the outstan in EEP’s quarterly reports at www. nceep. net. Section V of this report contains additional compliance information. 25 Figure 10 displays the status of the wetland requirements and assets produced ( MOU and MOA programs). Currently EEP is managing instituted assets of 13,118.76 wetland credits with current requirements equaling 11,760.66 credits. The majority of credits originated from the NCDOT mitigation program that existed prior to EEP’s formation. These unused assets were transferred to EEP to be managed within the MOA program for NCDOT’s future mitigation needs. Currently, outstanding requirements equal 15.96 wetland credits. As shown in the graph, NCDOT and EEP are projecting additional mitigation needs of 2,791.28 credits over the next five years. On a statewide level, EEP has achieved success for advance mitigation. However, much of the current advance mitigation is focused in particular CUs, whereas the mitigation needs are spread more evenly across the state. Thus, while some CUs have already achieved advanced mitigation, others will require additional wetland- credit development over the coming years. Figure 10: Status of EEP Wetland Program in Credits 13,118.76 14,000.00 8,000.00 10,000.00 12,000.00 EEP Assets EEP Mitigation Requirements EEP Outstanding Wetland Requirements Future Requirements 2,000.00 4,000.00 6,000.00 2,791.28 1,170.66 15.96 0.00 Wetland Statewide Status of Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset ILF Programs The status of the Riparian Buffer ILF Program is illustrated in the table below. This program is 100% compliant and has provided all current buffer requirements . EEP has advanced riparian buffer credits of 34.59 in Cape Fear, 23.13 in Catawba, 106.73 in Neuse, and 44.57 in Tar- Pamlico. Of this, 27.61 acres of payments ( mostly in the Neus have already been received and will be due in the future. e) Table 5. Riparian Buffer ILF Program Status FY 2007- 08 26 The status of the Nutrient Offset ILF Program is shown in the table below. Nutrient reductions were completely met in the Tar- Pamlico basin for nitrogen and phosphorus, but not in the Neuse River basin. In 2006, a revised increased fee schedule was authorized via rulemaking by the Environmental Management Commission. The revised fee schedule was, however, reverted by the General Assembly while it completed a cost study. During this period of time, EEP suspended procurement of new nutrient- offset projects that exceeded the legislated rates. Table 6. Nutrient Offset ILF Program Status FY 2007- 08 ects during this time could have esulted in the complete depletion of the funds within this program without satisfying the equired reduction 2006- 07 as nearly 3 percent elow- cost fees. Currently, a revised fee has been passed by the legislature. These fees, hile lower than previously authorized by the EMC, are sufficient, and EEP has begun rocurement of projects with an expectation to meet requirements over the next two years. EEP believes that most BMP- type ( e. g. stormwater BMP’s, constructed wetlands, ts will not be fundable under the current fee schedule, w projects. Consequently, EEP expe f riparian- buffer projects with a few The suspension was necessary because collected fees during FY 2005- 06 through FY 2006- 07 were below the projected costs of implementing stormwater wetland and riparian buffer nutrient- offset projects. Implementing proj rr in nutrients. This problem was magnified during FY 4 of the program’s total historical requirements were paid during FY 2006- 07 at b wp etc.) nutrient- reduction projec particularly since past payments ere below cost of BMPs or riparian- buffer restoration cts that most new projects will be composed o select stormwater BMPs and constructed wetlands. 27 V: Stream and Wetland Compliance OA Stream t the close of FY 2007- 08, the MOA program had achieved tremendous success in stablishing advance mitigation as prescribed by the Tri- Party MOA. The amount of dvance mitigation established within the program is summarized in the table below. or the MOA program, stream compliance was 95.89 percent, riparian wetlands ompliance was 98.80 percent, nonriparian wetlands compliance was 98.88 percent and oastal marsh wetlands compliance was 100 percent. These figures represent increased M and Wetland Compliance Aea Fc c compliance in each of these mitigation categories from the previous year. Table 5 displays requirements in credits, credits applied, and resulting compliance. Outstanding requirements represent mitigation needs that do not match ( type or CU location) inventoried assets. The magnitude of outstanding stream mitigation was 9,478.6 credits. The magnitude of outstanding riparian- wetland mitigation was 1.57 credits. A complete listing of MOA permits and requirements not in full compliance and the corresponding EEP CU Action Strategies can be found in the EEP’s Fourth Quarterly Report, located on the EEP Web site. Table 7. MOA Program Compliance MOA Program Stream ( credits) Ripararian ( credits) Nonriparian ( credits) Coastal Marsh ( credits) Total Wetlands ( credits) Mitigation Due 230,471.20 131.37 418.24 1.76 551.37 Mitigation Met 220,992.60 129.79 417.73 1.76 549.29 Mitigation Not Met 9,478.6 1.574 0.506 0 2.08 Compliance 95.89% 98.80% 99.88% 100.00% 99.62% MOU Stream and Wetland Compliance The MOU program experienced a similar degree of success during FY 2007- 08. As of June 30, 2008, the MOU program had 988 total requirements. Of these, 956 are in full compliance, seven have partial compliance and 25 are in non- compliance. Therefore the EEP has 96.8 percent of all MOU requirements in compliance, 0.7 percent in partial compliance and 2.5 percent in non- compliance. Of these non- compliant requirements, 23 were related to wetlan requirements. As in the MOA program, ou eds that do not match ( type or CU location) inventoried asse . Table 6 on the next page summarizes the met, mitigation not met and compliance. d requirements, and two were related to stream tstanding requirements represent mitigation ne ts MOU program’s mitigation due, mitigation 28 Table 8. MOU Program Compliance MOU ( credits) ( credits) ( credits) Marsh ( credits) Wetlands ( credits) Stream Ripararian Nonriparian Coastal Total Mitigation Due 254,636.99 399.97 218.85 0.47 619.29 Mitigation Met 238,196.45 392.67 212.48 0.27 605.41 Mitigation Not Met 16,440.54 7.30 6.38 0.20 13.88 Compliance 93.54% 98.17% 97.09% 57.54% 97.76% A complete listing of the MOU permits and requirements not in full compliance and the ategies can be found in the EEP’s Fourth Quarterly eport, located on the EEP Web site. corresponding EEP CU Action Str R 29 VI: Monitoring and Research MONITORING The EEP Monitoring Section is focused on four primary areas: 1) oversight of annual onitoring for all restoration projects; 2) support to the Design/ Construction Section oncerning maintenance/ repair for all restoration projects; 3) data management and nalysis; and 4) project and program improvement. fiscal year 2007- 2008, EEP had 238 projects ( both DBB and FD) in some phase of onitoring, closeout, or long- term management. Most projects were in monitoring phases f year 1 through 5. These projects totaled 876,874 linear feet of stream, and 13,401 cres of wetland restoration, enhancement, and preservation. onitoring reports for all DBB projects are currently published on the EEP Web site at: ttp:// www. nceep. net/ business/ monitoring/ Monitoring_ report_ web/ Projects_ in_ Monitori mc a In moa Mhn g. htm. It is anticipated that monitoring reports for FD projects will be posted before the nd of calendar year 2008. onitoring Results and Trends hen reviewing stream- restoration projects, staff examines four types of geomorphic ata: channel dimension ( cross sections), profile ( thalweg surveys), substrate ( particle ze distributions), and engineered structure stability. The assessment of overall channel success” is based on the consideration of these four metrics. However, it is important to eep in mind that stream systems are dynamic, and are subject to perturbations of the ontributing watershed and extreme weather conditions. egetative success defined by the regulatory community requires standards of stem ounts from year 1 through year 5 of monitoring with a minimum of 260 stems per acre rviving at year 5. Hydrologic success criteria for wetlands is tied to a continuous ercent saturation or inundation period during the growing season compared to the ccess criteria and/ or compared to the reference wetland. onsidering all the projects in an active monitoring stage, they showed collectively a reater than 90% success for stream geomorphic criteria, vegetative success criteria, and etland hydrologic success. This is a slight improvement from last year’s statistics. Monitoring Related Acti Beyond standard production activities, progress and accomplishments during FY 2007- 08 hree main areas: 1) new or refined data tools or data management roducts; 2) guidance and policy documentation; and 3) training/ information of t or The or significant refinements of existing ocuments) related to major project deliverables, asset verification, digital submission e M Wd si “ kc Vc su p su Cg w vities revolved around t p dissemination. The first category included advancements in the standardization scoping and financial data related to monitoring activities, and the developmen refinement of geodatabases related to stream- assessment and stream- reference data. second involved the production of new documents ( d 30 formatting, decision frameworks for project selection, monitoring and remediation, quality control related to construction and data collection. The third included training for program providers and staff, which revolved around optimization of reach- treatm approaches, standardization of monitoring practices, Web po and ent sting of project documents, and practices that reflect consideration of project closeout ( validation) at each project phase. MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS Vegetation and Easement Maintenance ce new standard informal contract templates that can o ve ss. Preventative cost- saving easures, along with corrective actions, may include herbicide application, replanting, k EEP staff has collaborated to produ be applied to relatively small herbicide treatment and replanting contracts. Such contracts for vegetation- driven maintenance are becoming increasingly necessary due t easement encroachment, low stem- survival rates, and exotic- invasive plant infestations. Once finalized and implemented, the new contract templates and supporting documents will facilitate the management of contracts structured around preventative and correcti measures for projects exhibiting a lack of vegetation succe m installation of easement boundary markers, reseeding, pruning and minor stream ban repair. PROJECT AND PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT RESEARCH Vegetation Monitoring and Data Management ous ncoordinated vegetation monitoring methods to a refined data- management system that nd federal guidelines, the 2008 annual CVS- EEP ill not only improve the compatibility between prescribed species and site- specific nvironmental variables ( i. e., soil type, elevation, slope, aspect, and hydrology), the ficient and cost- effective than having designers ather potentially misleading reference data for every project. Once the reference data Fine tuning of the Carolina Vegetation Survey ( CVS)- EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation has continued and all new projects are required to utilize the new method as outlined in the EEP mitigation- plan template. To facilitate this transition from numer u complies with current scientific a Vegetation Workshop was conducted. During this two- day workshop, the majority of the on- call firms and full- delivery providers were given comprehensive training necessary for all aspects of applying the protocol, from mitigation- plan development to data delivery. Consequently, an increasing percentage of all the 2008 EEP projects will have vegetation monitoring data that is processed, summarized and delivered in an efficient automated manner. Vegetation Target Community Design Tools: Through the collaboration between EEP and the CVS, tools derived from high- quality natural community data are being developed with the potential to greatly improve species lists and various other types of information pertaining to the restoration- target communities that have traditionally been utilized by restoration designers. The resulting tools w e methods for data delivery will be more ef g 31 system is functional, some immediate reduction in design costs associated with reference ring e d a y report to the regulatory agencies for review. The summary report is a synthesis nd distillation of seven years worth of project data designed to provide an overall ere submitted and pproved for regulatory close- out during this fiscal year. The eight projects accounted ement and preservation, and 49 acres s ithin a watershed context; • increasing project success to reduce maintenance costs and the mitigation ratio; • reducing the cost of monitoring through use of functional methods and other lude: • Carolina Vegetation Survey ( UNC, R. Peet and NCSU, T. Wentworth); and nce standards for vegetation assessment ( ECU, R. Rheinhardt t). data collection can be expected, along with a much more substantial and gradual expense reduction associated with increased planting- plan success over subsequent monito years. Project Closeout Activity All projects conducted for the purpose of mitigation must be closed out once the monitoring period is over. The purpose of closeout is to have regulatory validation on th number and types of mitigation credits finally provided by the project. Once the require monitoring period is complete and the project is deemed successful, EEP staff submits summar a performance summary and rationale for closeout. Eight projects w a for 18,257 linear feet of stream restoration, enhanc of wetland restoration, enhancement and preservation. Research Program- Project Improvement During FY 2007- 08, EEP has continued the research program begun in FY 2006- 07, and continued or completed research begun in FY 2005- 06. The purpose of the research program is to provide project- level and programmatic review and evaluation as feedback to other EEP sections, and to help EEP fulfill MOA commitments. The goal is to improve EEP effectiveness by increasing project success and reducing costs. Our objectives are: • improving cost- effective selection among project alternatives and design option w programmatic improvements; and • helping to define a sound scientific basis for implementing new federal regulations for compensatory mitigation, especially ecological performance standards. EEP research works through partnerships with state, local and federal government agencies, universities, and non- governmental organizations. The program encompasses three broad focus areas: functional assessment, catchment studies and restoration methods. Projects in the functional assessment focus area will improve the assessment of stream and wetland condition at both project and watershed scales, and will be usable in assessing both the need for and success of restoration. Ongoing or new projects in this area inc • Ecological performa and M. Brinson and NCSU, T. Wentworth; new project under developmen 32 Projects completed during FY 2007- 08 include: • Stream geomorphology reference database ( NCSU, G. Jennings); and • Multivariate evaluation of vegetation success ( ECU, R. Rheinhardt; part of a cooperative agreement with EPA Region IV). Projects in the catchment focus area will demonstrate the effects that restoration projects have on water quality, habitat and hydrology at larger s cales and help select among roject alternatives to better meet programmatic watershed- improvement goals. Ongoing Project ocus area will serve to improve the success of rest t Ong n • R. Peet and NCSU, T. Wentworth); ns); • • stream restoration study, Mooresville, Iredell County ( NCSU, G. e Branch BMP study, Mooresville, Iredell County ( NCSU, B. Hunt, and DWQ ��� USACE and EPA); and t ( NC SAM; with DWQ and other Res rc include p projects in this area include: • Big Harris Creek, Cleveland County ( NCSU, G. Jennings and DWQ WAT); • Heath Dairy, Randolph County ( NCSU, G. Jennings, and DWQ WAT); and • Unnamed tributary to Crab Creek, Alleghany County ( DWQ WAT). Projects completed during FY 2007- 08 include: • Survey of macrobenthos in restored coastal plain streams ( NCSU, G. Jennings). s in the restoration- methods f ora ion projects, to limit the need for maintenance and to improve cost- effectiveness. oi g or new projects in this area include: Carolina Vegetation Survey ( UNC, • North River Farms Phase II monitoring, Carteret County ( NCSU, R. Eva Ripshin Creek, Ashe County ( NCSU, G. Jennings); and Dye Branch Jennings, and DWQ WAT). Projects completed during FY 07- 08 include: • Dy WAT). EEP is also collaborating with state and federal agencies to develop innovative approaches to mitigation and to develop and implement functional assessment methods. Projects include: • White Oak LWP ( with WPPI and ECU, M. Brinson); • Aquatic organism passage study ( with NTMSC and USFWS); Wetlands functional assessment implementation ( NC WAM; with DWQ, DCM, • stream functional assessment developmen NCDENR agencies, USACE and EPA). ea h program objectives for FY 2008- 09 : • Develop grant applications with researchers in academia and sister agencies to broaden project scope and reduce reliance on NCDOT funding; 33 • Develop new projects to help define a sound scientific basis for ecological performance standards ( to implement new federal regulations for compensatory • Continuing to develop and assess new approaches for non- traditional mitigation; will meet its commitment to implement Continuing on- going contracts to help meet previously defined objectives. regulations; in conjunction with USACE, EPA and DWQ); • Continuing to define ways in which EEP the N. C. Division of Marine Fisheries Coastal Habitat Protection Plan; and • 34 VII: Stewardship Photo courtesy Piedmont Land Conservancy To qualify as compensatory mitigation, preserved and restored sites must be protected from encroachment, conservation- easement violations and other forms of degradation in perpetuity ( Wilmington District Process for Preservation of Mitigation Property, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nov. 25, 2003; C de of Federal Regulations, Vol. 73, No. 70, Thursday, April 10, 2008, Rules and Regulations). To ensure long- term protection of the conservation areas of the state, a Stewardship Task Force was convened in 2004 to determine the most cost- effective and efficient method of assuring perpetual protection of state- held conservation property interests, including compensatory- mitigation properties. The tas force included members of the land- trust community, Wildlife Resources, CWMTF and NCDENR divisions of Parks and Recreation, Forest Resources and Coastal Management. The recommendation of the task force was to establish an interest- bearing endowment account to fund perpetual stewardship of easements held by the state on behalf of EEP and other NCDENR agencies. A stewardship fund, the N. C. Conservation Lands Stewardship Endowment Account, has been established to ensure that a non- reverting, interest- bearing account is in place to fund the perpetual protection of EEP conservation easement areas and other properties purchased by the progr itigation purposes. Transfers of High Quality Preservation Sites to NCDENR Stewardship Program Through a renewable three- year contractual MOA, the NCDENR Office of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation, formerly the Office of Conservation and Community Affairs, has assumed responsibility for stewardship of all HQP lands that have been acquired to date by EEP, and has agreed to accept responsibility for closed- out restoration sites that were acquired for use as compensatory mitigation by EEP. The contractual agreement is renewable, but if terminated specifies that all information, files o k am for compensatory m 35 and data will be returned to EEP or as otherwise directed by the NCDENR chief deputy secretary. The NCDENR Stewardship Program was created within the Office of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation to oversee the long- term monitoring of conservation lands. Transfers of endowment funds from EEP to the NCDENR Stewardship Program occur as needed, but no more frequently than quarterly. It is anticipated that the interest in the Stewardship Endowment Account will provide for long- term stewardship of these sites; however, the endowment amounts will be evaluated at least annually to determine whether the amount deposited per- site needs to be adjusted. The current long- term monitoring endowment funds inspection of sites and boundaries, the production of monitoring reports, and notification of the State Property Office and the funding agency if encroachment or management issues are identified during site visits. Remedial actions that can be resolved without legal assistance are considered minor conservation easement violations or encroachment infractions. The Stewardship Program expects to be able to resolve these minor violations. Enforcement of major legal violations will be carried out by the N. C. Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Office. he NCDENR Stewardship Program entered into a contractual agreement with the 2007. al anaged T Conservation Trust for North Carolina and 10 land trusts to monitor the HQP sites. The results of the analysis of the actual costs of monitoring during the pilot year of the stewardship agreement indicated that an adjustment in the endowment amount transferred for each additional site was needed. Based on results of actual annual monitoring costs, the endowment amount was adjusted upward to $ 20,000 per site for the last set of 14 high quality preservation sites transferred during at the end of 2007. The interest gained on the endowment account varies based on the financial climate, and the health of the fund will be monitored closely by NCDENR. The NCDENR Stewardship Program has accepted the responsibility for stewardship of 130 high quality preservation sites. The endowments for these sites were transferred in three sets. EEP transferred endowments for long- term monitoring of conservation easements for 86 high quality preservation sites to the NCDENR Stewardship Program in the first two sets. Funding for the third and final set was transferred in December Endowment funds of $ 14,000 per site were transferred for the first two sets. For the fin set of 14 conservation easements, $ 20,000 per site was transferred. This increase was based on the re- evaluation of the amount set aside in the endowments, actual cost of monitoring the first two sets of sites, and the lower- than- expected interest gained on the endowment fund. The endowment is housed an interest- bearing account that is m by the state as a non- reverting account. Interest from the endowment is to be used to fund the monitoring of these conservation easements or deed restrictions in perpetuity. All HQP sites that were acquired by EEP have now been transferred to long- term monitoring. HQP sites that were purchased by NCDOT right- of- way, such as Rhodes Pond, Harris Farm and Broad River Greenway, have not been transferred, as the Board of Transportation evaluates options for stewardship of these sites. 36 No endowment was transferred to the NCDENR Stewardship Program for 30 additional HQP sites, which are to be managed by other government agencies, including State Parks, WRC, and county park systems; however, NCDENR Stewardship has agreed to house monitoring reports for those sites on the Stewardship Data Management System. 37 Appendices 38 Project Name River Basin CU County LWP Name Description Philips Neuse 03020201 Wake Upper Swift Creek Wetland Back Creek Yadkin 03040105 Mecklenburg Upper Rocky River/ Coddle Creek Stream/ Wetland Bear Creek ( Phillips Tract) Cape Fear 03030003 Chatham Upper and Middle Rocky River Stream Burnt Mill Creek ( Kerr Avenue Wetland) Cape Fear 03030007 New Hanover New Hanover County BMP Cato Yadkin 03040105 Mecklenburg Upper Rocky River/ Clarke Creek Stream Charles Creek Pasquotank 03010205 Pasquotank Pasquotank Wetland Corbett Tract Cape Fear 03030007 New Hanover New Hanover County Wetland Elizabeth City State BMP Pasquotank 03010205 Pasquotank Pasquotank BMP Freedom Park Catawba 03050103 Mecklenburg Charlotte LWP Stream Irwin Creek Whitehurst Road Catawba 03050103 Mecklenburg Charlotte LWP Stream/ Wetland Jacksonville Country Club White Oak 03030001 Onslow White Oak Stream/ BMP Lake Wheeler Neuse 03020201 Wake Upper Swift Creek Wetland McIntyre Creek @ Hornets Nest Park Catawba 03050101 Mecklenburg Charlotte LWP Stream Mildred Woods Tar- Pamlico 03020103 Edgecombe Middle Tar Pamlico Wetland Mud Creek French Broad 06010105 Henderson Mud Creek Wetland Sparta Bog New 05050001 Alleghany Little River and Brush Creek Wetland UT to Rocky River ( Smith Tract) Cape Fear 03030003 Chatham Upper and Middle Rocky River Stream/ Buffer Zack's Fork Ck RFP* Catawba 03050101 Caldwell Lower Creek Stream/ Wetland/ Buffer/ BMP BMP ( Cary Barnes and Noble) Neuse 03020201 Wake Upper Swift Creek BMP Greenbrier Creek Cape Fear 03030003 Chatham Upper and Middle Rocky River Stream/ Wetland Wildcat Branch Cape Fear 03030004 Lee Cranes Creek Stream/ Wetland Plum Creek Lumber 03040207 Brunswick Lockwoods Folly Wetland Afton Run Yadkin 03040105 Cabarrus Upper Rocky River/ Coddle Creek Stream/ BMP Caldwell Station Catawba 03050101 Mecklenburg Charlotte LWP Stream/ Wetland Chapel Creek Cape Fear 03030002 Orange Morgan and Little Creeks Stream Clear Creek French Broad 06010105 Henderson Mud Creek Stream Coddle Creek Tributary ( Indian Run) Yadkin 03040105 Cabarrus Upper Rocky River/ Coddle Creek Stream Ellerbee Creek ( G) Neuse 03020201 Durham Ellerbe Creek Stream/ Buffer/ BMP Goose Creek ( G) Neuse 03020201 Durham Ellerbe Creek Stream Lower Creek Catawba 03050101 Caldwell Lower Creek Stream/ BMP Mineral Springs Branch ( Burnt Mill Creek) Cape Fear 03030007 New Hanover New Hanover County Stream/ BMP Morgan Creek Floodplain Cape Fear 03030002 Orange Morgan and Little Creeks Wetland Naked Creek Yadkin 03040101 Wilkes Upper Yadkin/ Kerr Scott Stream Northgate Park ( Ellerbe) ( G) Neuse 03020201 Durham Ellerbe Creek Stream/ BMP Purlear Creek Yadkin 03040101 Wilkes Upper Yadkin/ Kerr Scott Stream Purlear Creek II Yadkin 03040101 Wilkes Upper Yadkin/ Kerr Scott Stream UT to Hendricks ( G) Tar- Pamlico 03020103 Edgecombe Middle Tar Pamlico Stream/ Buffer Warrior Creek Yadkin 03040101 Wilkes Upper Yadkin/ Kerr Scott Stream Flintrock Farm Cape Fear 03030002 Rockingham Troublesome/ Little Troublesome Stream/ Wetland BMP ( Town of Cary) Neuse 03020201 Wake Upper Swift Creek BMP Lewis Creek French Broad 06010105 Henderson Mud Creek Stream A i. Projects Located in LWP Areas* 39 Project Name River Basin CU County LWP Name Description A i. Projects Located in LWP Areas* Muddy Creek( Randolph/ Duncan Properties) Catawba 03050101 McDowell Muddy Creek ( Non- EEP Plan) Stream UT to Haw River Cape Fear 03030002 Alamance Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Stream Little Troublesome Cape Fear 03030002 Rockingham Troublesome/ Little Troublesome Stream/ Wetland UT to Uwharrie Yadkin 03040103 Randolph Upper Uwharrie Stream/ Wetland Glade Creek New 05050001 Alleghany Little River and Brush Creek Stream/ Wetland Little Pine Creek II New 05050001 Alleghany Little River and Brush Creek Stream/ Wetland UT to Crab Creek New 05050001 Alleghany Little River and Brush Creek Stream/ Wetland UT to Zack's Fork Catawba 03050101 Caldwell Lower Creek Stream Morgan Creek ( Bolin Stewardship Tract) Cape Fear 03030002 Orange Morgan and Little Creeks Stream Sharpe Wetland Preservation Cape Fear 03030002 Rockingham Troublesome/ Little Troublesome Stream/ Wetland Swift Creek Watershed Wetlands Neuse 03020201 Wake Upper Swift Creek Wetland Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Catawba 03050101 McDowell Muddy Creek ( Non- EEP Plan) Stream/ Wetland Dye Branch II Stream Restoration Yadkin 03040105 Iredell Upper Rocky River/ Clarke Creek Stream Mooresville School Site - Rocky River Yadkin 03040105 Iredell Upper Rocky River/ Clarke Creek Stream/ Wetland Glade Creek II New 05050001 Alleghany Little River and Brush Creek Stream/ Wetland UT Bear Creek ( Weaver/ McLeod property) ( G) Cape Fear 03030003 Chatham Upper and Middle Rocky River Stream Little Alamance Creek ( Burlington Park) Cape Fear 03030002 Alamance Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Stream UT Rocky River - Harris Road Middle Yadkin 03040105 Cabarrus Upper Rocky River/ Clarke Creek Stream/ Wetland McKee Creek Yadkin 03040105 Cabarrus Upper Rocky River/ Coddle Creek Stream UT Ramah Creek Yadkin 03040105 Mecklenburg Upper Rocky River/ Clarke Creek Stream Brown Branch ( Willowbrook Park) Cape Fear 03030002 Alamance Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Stream/ BMP UT to Bald Creek French Broad 06010108 Yancey Bald Creek Stream Buffalo Creek Neuse 03020201 Durham Little River Corridor Open Space Plan ( NonStream Upper South Hominy Creek French Broad 06010105 Buncombe South Hominy Creek Stream Martins Creek II Hiwassee 06020002 Cherokee Peachtree- Martins Creek Stream/ Wetland Badin Inn Yadkin 03040104 Stanly Mountain/ Little Mountain Creeks Stream Ut to Haw ( Bechom) Cape Fear 03030002 Alamance Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Stream/ Wetland UT to Haw ( Gwynn) Cape Fear 03030002 Alamance Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Stream/ Wetland UT to Martins Creek ( Contreras) Hiwassee 06020002 Cherokee Peachtree- Martins Creek Stream/ Wetland * This list includes projects initiated by NCDOT that are located in LWP areas. 40 LWP Name River Basin 14- digit HU Initiation Date Comments Phase III Completion Date ( Contractor) Phase IV Status Sep- 05 ( Earth Tech) 3050105040040 Jul- 07 3050105040060 ( Earth Tech) 3050105040050 3030004020010 Sep- 04 3030004030010 ( Buck Engineering) 3030004040010 3030002060100 Dec- 04 3030002060070 ( Tetra Tech) 3030002060080 Dec- 02 ( KCI) 3030002010010 3030002010030 3030003070010 Jun- 05 3030003070020 ( Tetra Tech) 3030003070050 3030004070010 3030004070020 3050101170010 Identified many stormwater BMPs/ retrofits and ~ 50,000 ft of stream restoration Jul- 03 3050101170020 Four EEP projects are underway ( CH2M Hill) 3050103020020 3050103020030 3050103020040 3050103020050 3050103020070 3050101080010 Jul- 06 3050101080020 ( MacTec) Feb- 06 ( Equinox) 6010105030020 Jan- 03 6010105030030 ( TVA supported this planning effort) 6010105030040 Jan- 06 ( Buck Engineering) Cape Fear Assessment tasks completed May 2005 ( BLUE). Final stakeholder summary and preliminary plan completed by WECO in 2005. Several potential projects identified. May- 08 Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available for future mitigation needs. Cranes Creek Dec- 01 Appendix A ii. Local Watershed Plans Completed through Phase III as of July 1, 2008 EEP stream restoration project is underway. Henderson County Cooperative Extension Service received EPA grant to fund local Watershed Coordinator to implement plan. South Hominy Creek French Broad 6010105060020 Jul- 03 Plan identified sediment and nutrients as key stressors. EEP stream restoration project is underway. EEP is continuing to pursue identified projects. Mud Creek French Broad Sep- 00 Plan documented many non- point sources of impairment and degradation. Two EEP projects are underway and a 319 grant is funding agricultural BMPs. EEP staff participate on Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council. EEP is continuing landowner outreach and pursuing several stream restoration projects. Caldwell/ Burke Soil & Water Conservation District received EPA grant to fund local Watershed Coordinator to implement watershed improvement projects. Bald Creek French Broad 6010108080020 Jul- 03 Plan identified habitat degradation and straight piping issues. Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available for future mitigation needs. Lower Creek Catawba Jul- 03 EEP is working with post- plan stakeholder group ( Lower Creek Advisory Team) to implement plan recommendations. NCSU WECO has received funding from State 319 program to help restoration and preservation efforts in the LWP starting 2009. Charlotte Area LWP Catawba Feb- 02 EEP is contracting with Tetra Tech to conduct Phase IV. Phase IV is focusing on stormwater BMPs as an alternative mitigation strategy to restore lost hydrologic and water quality functions associated with wetland impacts in urban areas. Upper and Middle Rocky River Cape Fear Oct- 03 Good restoration opportunities and favorable stakeholders. Many projects and BMP opportunities identified. Several projects funded and/ or pursued for funding. Stream/ BMP project is currently in design. Viable projects available for future mitigation needs. NCSU WECO is Troublesome/ Little Troublesome Cape Fear Nov- 01 Many potential preservation, restoration and BMP sites identified. February 2004 ( Tetra Tech) Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available for future mitigation needs. New Hanover County Cape Fear 3030007140010 Sep- 00 Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available for future mitigation needs. EEP is pursuing several projects. Chapel Hill and Carrboro have received funding from State 319 program to help with BMP implementation, restoration, and preservation efforts in the LWP starting 2009. Several restoration projects and BMP sites identified Morgan Creek/ Little Creek Cape Fear Nov- 02 Many restoration projects and BMP sites identified. Atlas sites have been assessed. Kenneth and Parker Creeks/ Harris Lake Cape Fear Apr- 03 Feb- 03 Plan identified four priority subwatersheds for implementation and identified stream and wetland, buffer and BMP projects. EEP staff performing basic educational outreach. Viable projects available for future mitigation needs. Cove Creek Broad May- 06 Fast track LWP to identify and acquire cold/ cool stream mitigation needs. Plan identified fourteen stream restoration projects that met EEP minimum requirements EEP staff investigating a collaborative protection effort for Hickory Nut Mountain Catheys Creek Broad 3050105070020 41 LWP Name River Basin 14- digit HU Initiation Date Comments Phase III Completion Date ( Contractor) Phase IV Status Appendix A ii. Local Watershed Plans Completed through Phase III as of July 1, 2008 6020002090020 Nov- 07 6020002100040 ( Equinox) 6020002100050 6020002170010 3040203030010 Dec- 05 3040203050010 ( Earth Tech) 3040207020010 Jul- 07 3040207020020 ( Stantec) 3040207020030 3040207020040 3040207020050 Jan- 04 ( UNRBA data used for LWP) May- 04 ( ECU and NCSU supported planning effort) Dec- 03 ( Tetra Tech) Dec- 06 ( UNRBA) 3020202010010 Dec- 05 3020202010020 ( KCI) 3020202010021 3020201110010 Jun- 05 3020201110020 ( Amec/ Tetra Tech) 5050001030020 Jun- 07 5050001030030 ( WK Dickson) 3010205050010 Feb- 04 3010205050020 ( DS Pro) 3010205040010 Subwatersheds of: Jun- 05 3020103010020 ( BLUE Land and Water Infrastructure) 3020103060020 3020103050030 3020103080010 EEP is waiting on resolution of mitigation needs before pursuing projects. Middle Tar- Pamlico Tar- Pamlico Sep- 03 Planning area exhibits water quality and habitat degradation issues. Green Mill Run project has been discontinued; EEP is currently implementing Hendricks Creek project. Stream/ buffer project is currently in design. Viable projects available for future mitigation needs. Pasquotank River Pasquotank Dec- 01 Potential restoration, enhancement, preservation and BMP opportunities identified. In May 2008, EEP initiated contract with UNRBA and EcoScience to develop Site Atlas and conduct landowner outreach for five LWPs, including Upper Swift Creek, in Upper Neuse Basin. Little River and Brush Creek New Oct- 03 The final Watershed Management Plan focused on the Bledsoe Creek sub- watersheds in the vicinity of Sparta. The final EEP has initiated the design and construction of several stream and wetlands restoration projects within the LWP. Upper Swift Creek Neuse Jul- 03 Four EEP projects currently in progress. Staff is determining feasibility of plan identified projects to help meet current nutrient offset mitigation needs In May 2008, EEP initiated contract with UNRBA and EcoScience to develop Site Atlas and conduct landowner Stoney Creek Neuse Core Creek Phase – July 2003; Stoney Creek Following completion of Phase I on Core Creek, LWP effort moved to Stoney Creek in 2004. Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available for future mitigation needs. Little Lick Creek Neuse 3020201050020 Sep- 04 LWP effort funded through EPA Contentnea Grant. Plan identified several restoration projects and BMP sites. City of Wilson and WRP jointly implemented a plan-identified stormwater wetland project. Lake Rogers Neuse 3020201060010 Jan- 02 The original plan did not identify sites for restoration. The current planning process with EcoScience includes site identification in Lake Rogers and extends to the lower section In May 2008, EEP initiated contract with UNRBA and EcoScience to develop Site Atlas and conduct landowner outreach for five LWPs, including Lake Rogers, in Upper Hominy Swamp Creek Neuse 3020203020040 Sep- 99 EEP is currently pursuing plan- identified stream and riparian wetland projects. NC Coastal Federation received an EEG grant to implement BMPs identified in LWP. Several restoration projects completed. Additional site searches being conducted in Ellerbe Creek by EcoScience and the City of Durham. EEP is contracting with UNRBA and EcoScience to develop Site Atlas and conduct landowner outreach for five LWPs, including Ellerbe Creek, in Upper Neuse Basin. Ellerbe Creek Neuse 3020201050010 Jan- 02 Lockwood Folly River Lumber Jun- 05 Plan identified 9 watershed management recommendation, 10 stream projects, 8 riparian wetland, 4 non- riparian and 23 stormwater projects. Brunswick County is addressing management recommendations as well as seeking funding for BMP projects. Two restoration projects are underway. EEP is continuing landowner outreach and education Bear Swamp Lumber Oct- 03 The plan identified 28 projects. All stream projects were visited and reviewed with local stakeholders. The plan was also In 2007- 2008, EEP worked with the local municipalities, native American tribe and other stakeholders to reach out to Peachtree- Martins Creek Hiwassee Jul- 05 Plan identified stressors and management strategies, modeled impacts of various growth management measures, and identified 16 restoration sites and 7 preservation sites 42 LWP Name River Basin 14- digit HU Initiation Date Comments Phase III Completion Date ( Contractor) Phase IV Status Appendix A ii. Local Watershed Plans Completed through Phase III as of July 1, 2008 3040101010080 Jun- 04 3040101010090 ( Tetra Tech) 3040101010010 3040101010100 3040101010110 3040105010010 Feb- 04 3040105010020 ( CDM) 3040105010030 Apr- 05 3040105010040 ( Mactec) 3040105010050 3040105020010 WECO and EEP performed education and outreach activities for landowners and local government. Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available for future mitigation needs. Upper Rocky River and Coddle Creek Yadkin Dec- 02 LWP is located adjacent to Upper Rocky River and Clarke Creek LWP area. Together these two LWPs comprise the entire Upper Rocky River drainage system. Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available for future mitigation needs. CWMTF funding sought for Ag BMPs. Upper Rocky River and Clarke Creek Yadkin Dec- 01 Many potential projects identified including ~ 80,000 ft of stream restoration and BMP projects. Several projects are currently in acquisition. Kerr Scott Reservoir Yadkin Nov- 01 Approximately 60,000 ft of stream restoration identified. Wetland opportunities are negligible. 43 LWP Name River Basin 14- digit HU Initiation Date Status/ Comments Estimated Phase III Completion Date 3030002030010 3030002040110 Cape Fear 06 Cape Fear Final HU selection is taking place based on local resource professional input. This LWP will be primarily conducted “ in-house”. A contractor will be used only for GIS analysis and Site Atlas development. 3050102040040 3050102050010 3050102040030 601020240010 601020240020 601020240030 601020240040 601020260010 Subwatersheds of: 3020204030020 3020204030050 3020204040010 3020204050020 3020204050030 3020204050040 3020101020010 3020101030010 3020101030020 Subwatersheds of: 3030001020010 Subwatersheds of: 3020106030040 3040101100010 3040101100020 3040101110010 3040101110020 3040101110030 3040101110040 3040101110050 Subwatersheds of: 3040101110060 3040101110070 Jun- 08 Appendix A iii. LWP Initiatives in Progress/ On- Hold Ararat River and Upper Yadkin Yadkin Jun- 05 This LWP is an abridged ' fast track' effort, designed to produce a final Project Atlas within 12 months of start- up. Sub-watershed prioritization will be completed by October, and additional water quality and benthics monitoring work is slated to begin by October 2008. Quarterly stakeholder meetings began in July of 2008. Recently reported DOT TIP delay has reduced mitigation needs. EEP is contracting with East Carolina University and NC Environmental Defense Apr- 06 McAdams Company – EcoEngineering is providing technical support. Estimated completion date is July 2009. White Oak 06 White Oak Apr- 06 Technical Assessment first draft completed White Oak 01 White Oak Jan- 08 Technical Assessment first draft completed Fishing Creek Tar- Pamlico May- 05 Phase II technical assessment draft completed Cape Fear May- 06 Plan is in Phase I and the stakeholder process has commenced. Preliminary screening has identified numerous EEP is contracting with East Carolina University and NC Environmental Defense Planning effort has been placed on HOLD pending further mitigation needs. Phase I activities ended January 2006 ( EcoScience). Franklin to Fontana Little Tennessee Jun- 08 Phase I activities underway; new land use/ cover, riparian buffer datasets developed Travis, Tickle, Project is close to completion with the publishing of a Draft Phase III report and EEP is contracting with KCI to perform Technical Assessment. Estimated completion date is February 2009. December 2009. ENTRIX Inc., is contracted to support Phase II fieldwork and development of a project Atlas. November 2008. Piedmont Triad Council of Gov’t is providing technical and facilitation Lower Neuse Neuse Summer 2010. Equinox Environmental is providing technical support. Indian and Howards Creek Catawba 44 LWP Name River Basin 14- digit HU Initiation Date Status/ Comments Estimated Phase III Completion Date Appendix A iii. LWP Initiatives in Progress/ On- Hold 3040104010010 3040104010020 3040103050010 3040103050020 3040103050040 3040105030020 3040105040010 Apr- 05 Planning effort has been placed on HOLD pending further mitigation needs. Planning effort has been placed on HOLD pending further mitigation needs. Goose and Crooked Yadkin Jun- 08 Phase I efforts began with Watershed Technical Team Stakeholder ( WTT) kick- EEP is contracting with Centralina Council of Governments and Tetra Tech for Phase I Upper Uwharrie Yadkin Phase I completed August 2005 ( Buck Engineering). Mountain/ L ittle Yadkin Jul- 03 Phase I report completed in March 2004 ( HDR) 45 Local Government/ Municipality Project Name Alamance County/ Burlington Little Alamance Creek ( Burlington Park) Cabarrus County UT Rocky River- Harris Road Middle School City of Durham Third Fork Creek ( Forest Hills) City of Durham Northgate Park ( Ellerbe) City of Durham Sandy Creek City of Durham Ellerbe Creek ( Hillandale Golf Course) City of Durham & Durham Public Schools Goose Creek City of Greensboro Brown Bark Park City of Greensboro Benbow City of Greensboro Hillsdale City of Greensboro Gillespie City of Greensboro Price Park City of New Bern Simmons St. Stormwater Wetland Lenoir County/ Kinston Adkin Branch Mecklenburg County Freedom Park Mecklenburg County Sixmile Creek Wetland Mecklenburg County McIntyre Creek Mecklenburg County UT to Clarke Creek Mecklenburg County Irwin Creek Whitehurst Road Mooresville Graded School System Mooresville School Site- Rocky River Orange County Stillhouse Creek Orange County/ Town of Carrboro Bolin Creek ( Lake Hogan Farms) Town of Cary Town of Cary BMPs Town of Cornelius Caldwell Station Town of Davidson/ Mecklenburg County UT to West Branch of Rocky River Town of Fletcher UT to Cane Creek ( Fletcher- Meritor Site) Town of Mooresville Dye Branch Stream Restoration Project Town of Roseboro UT to Little Coharie Creek Wake County Lake Myra Headwater Buffer Wake County Middle Creek Buffer A iv. Collaborative Projects with Government Entities 46 Ararat River & Upper Yadkin Local Watershed Plan FACT SHEET Location River Basin: Cataloging Unit: 14- digit Hydrologic Units: Counties: Upper Yadkin 03040101 03040101 100010, 100020, 110010, 110020, 110030, 110040, 110050 + partial ( north of Yadkin River): 110060 and 110070 Surry Watershed Area ~ 235 square miles Planning Contact: Hal Bryson EEP Watershed Planner, Western Region ( 828) 450- 9408 hal. bryson@ ncmail. net Participants: Local Advisory Team ( LAT) – Committed stakeholders include: NC DWQ, Surry SWCD, Surry NRCS; Prospective stakeholders include: Surry Co. Planning, City of Mount Airy, Town of Pilot Mountain, Piedmont Land Conservancy, NC WRC, NC CWMTF, NC Div. of Parks, Pilot View RC& D, NW Piedmont COG, Trout Unlimited, Resource Institute, Inc. Contractor( s) / Consultant( s) John R. McAdams Company Jim Halley, Project Manager NC DWQ – Watershed Assessment Team ( WAT) Dave Wanucha, Project Manager Project Overview This Local Watershed Planning ( LWP) initiative consists of three major tasks: ( 1) a streamlined assessment of watershed conditions across the initial study area ( portions of nine 14- digit HUs, comprising 235 sq. miles in the Upper Yadkin River basin in Surry County) – see Figure on next page; ( 2) rapid field assessment of stream channel and riparian buffer conditions within priority sub- watersheds, comprising a Focus Area of approximately 100 square miles; and ( 3) development of a Watershed Assessment Report and Project Atlas. The Project Atlas is geared towards the identification of the most effective sites for stream restoration/ enhancement and preservation projects, as well as agricultural and urban Best Management Practices ( BMP) project sites. Final LWP documents will support EEP compensatory mitigation goals within the upper Yadkin Cataloging Unit, as well as the needs of local stakeholders seeking to implement non- mitigation projects ( e. g., storm water BMPs within urban sub- watersheds) via non- EEP funding. 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699- 27699- 1652 / 919- 715- 0476 / www. nceep. net 47 Staff from NC DWQ’s Watershed Assessment Team ( WAT) will lend vital support to this project by developing and implementing a water quality monitoring plan. This will include sampling for water quality parameters and benthic macro-invertebrates at selected sites within the priority sub- watersheds ( to be identified by fall of 2008). The nine local watersheds ( 14- digit HUs) comprising the initial study area for this LWP were selected on the basis of several factors, including: the presence of impaired, 303( d)- listed stream reaches; the opportunity to partner with key local stakeholders, including Surry NRCS and SWCD; the presence of good candidate sites for stream restoration in rural catchments; prior designation of three of the HUs as EEP Targeted Local Watersheds ( TLWs); and the presence of existing watershed projects funded through the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund ( CWMTF). Project Schedule This Local Watershed Planning ( LWP) initiative is based on a ‘ fast track’ watershed assessment that began in spring 2008. It will culminate in the summer of 2009 with development of a final Watershed Assessment Report and Project Atlas. A Local Advisory Team ( LAT) consisting of state and local resource professionals, including land trust and local government staff, will meet quarterly beginning in the summer of 2008 to assist in developing project ranking criteria and BMP recommendations. Project Documents Will be posted as downloadable files, as they become available. 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699- 27699- 1652 / 919- 715- 0476 / www. nceep. net Ararat River & Tributary Streams 48 COVE CREEK LOCAL WATERSHED PLAN FACT SHEET River Basin: Cataloging Unit: 14- digit Hydrologic Units: Counties: Broad 03050105 03050105040040, 03050105040050, 03050105040060 McDowell, Rutherford Watershed Area 80 square miles Planning Contact: Andrea Leslie - Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( 828) 337- 3455 or Andrea. Leslie@ ncmail. net Participants: Rutherford & McDowell Co. NRCS and SWCD Contractor Hired for Watershed Assessment Earth Tech, Inc. Contact: Ron Johnson at ( 919) 854- 6210 or Ron. Johnson@ earthtech. com Project Overview The Cove Creek watershed is located in a rural area of McDowell and Rutherford Counties. In 2006, Earth Tech was hired to develop a fast- track watershed characterization and restoration strategy for the Cove Creek watershed. This abbreviated planning effort involved GIS analysis of land use, buffer integrity, and recent aerial photographs; field efforts were limited to assessment of channel and in-stream habitat integrity at potential restoration sites. Stakeholder involvement involved several meetings with local Natural Resource Conservation Service and Soil and Water Conservation District technical staff. 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699- 27699- 1652 / 919- 715- 0476 / www. nceep. net The majority of the watershed is forested, and headwater streams are in relatively good condition. Most of the lower gradient bottomlands, through which Cove Creek and some of its tributaries run, are used for pasture, hay, and homes. Cove Creek itself does suffer from severe bank erosion; in many areas, its channel is incised and lacks a woody buffer. Primary stressors for the watershed are stream incision of Cove Creek, inadequate riparian buffers, sedimentation, stream bank erosion, livestock access, and possible nutrient enrichment. The greatest threat to stream integrity is development and 49 consequent increases in sedimentation, nutrients, and stormwater. This area is attractive to second home and retirement communities; land prices have skyrocketed, and some larger forested tracts have recently been sold. A plan was developed to identify stream restoration projects with willing landowners and to name strategies to improve ecological function in July 2007. Management strategies needed to restore and protect stream health include stream and wetland restoration, buffer planting, agriculture, forestry, and stormwater best management practices, and education. The plan identified 14 stream restoration projects that fit the minimum requirements of EEP. Project Documents for Download Cove Creek Watershed Management Plan ( 3.5 mb) Cove Creek Plan— Appendices A & B ( 4.6 mb) Cove Creek Plan— Appendices C, D, E & F ( 3.8 mb) Cove Creek Project Atlas ( 12 mb) 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699- 27699- 1652 / 919- 715- 0476 / www. nceep. net 50 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699- 27699- 1652 / 919- 715- 0476 / www. nceep. net FRANKLIN TO FONTANA LOCAL WATERSHED PLAN Fact Sheet Location: River Basin: Cataloging Unit: 14- digit Hydrologic Units: Counties: Near Franklin, NC Little Tennessee 06010202 0601020240010, 0601020240020, 0601020240030, 0601020240040, 0601020260010 Macon, Swain Watershed Area 154 square miles Planning Contact: Andrea Leslie - Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( 828) 337- 3455 or Andrea. Leslie@ ncmail. net Participants: Advisory Committee made up of Local Citizens, Little Tennessee Watershed Association, Land Trust for the Little Tennessee, Macon County, Natural Heritage Program, more….. Contractor Hired for Watershed Assessment: Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc. Contact: Andy Brown at ( 828) 253- 6856 or andy@ equinoxenvironmental. com Project Overview The Franklin to Fontana watershed is a 154 mi2 area near Franklin that encompasses the Little Tennessee River watershed between Lake Emory and Lake Fontana. This area is of great ecological and cultural significance, and it includes a 23- mile free- flowing stretch of the Little Tennessee River that hosts a highly diverse aquatic community, including a number of rare, threatened, and endangered fish and mussels. The area includes Cowee, Burningtown, Iotla, Watauga, Brush, and Tellico Creeks. This primarily rural watershed is a mix of pasture, forest, and residential land, but there is notable develo |
OCLC number | 190844819 |