Annual report of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program

              “ 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