Restoring… Enhancing… Protecting Our State

State of North Carolina

Michael F. Easley, Governor

A Partnership of:

North Carolina

Department of Transportation

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Wilmington District

North Carolina Department of

Environment and Natural Resources

2006— 2007

Annual Report

ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT

PROGRAM

The mission of

the Ecosystem

Enhancement

Program ( EEP)

is to restore,

enhance,

preserve and

protect the

functions

associated with

wetlands,

streams and

riparian

areas, including

but not limited

to those

necessary for

the restoration,

maintenance

and protection

of water quality

and riparian

habitats

throughout

North Carolina.

MISSION

Executive Summary

I. EEP Programs p. 1

II. Financial Accounting, Cost Data and Property Acquisition p. 3

Revenue, Expenditures, and Encumbrances p. 3

Cost Data p. 7

Property Acquisition p. 10

III. Program Inventory and Status p. 11

Restoration and Preservation Inventory p. 11

Statewide Status of MOU and MOA Programs p. 15

Statewide Status of Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Programs p. 17

IV. Stream and Wetland Compliance p. 18

V. Watershed Planning and Project Implementation p. 21

Watershed Planning p. 21

Project Implementation p. 25

Synergies Between Watershed Planning and Project Implementation p. 26

VI. Monitoring and Research p. 33

Monitoring p. 33

Project and Program Improvement Research p. 36

VII. High Quality Preservation Partnerships p. 39

Appendices

A: Stream and Wetland Payments

A1: MOU Payments

A2: Buffer Payments

A3: Nutrient Offset Payments

B: Private Mitigation Banking Survey

C: Contracts

C1: Active Full Delivery Contracts

C2: Design and Construction Contracts Awarded FY 2006- 07

D: FY 2006- 07 Payments to Vendors by Contract Type

E: FY 2006- 07 Properties Closed

F: FY 2006- 07 Properties Optioned

G: Cumulative Properties

H: Local Watershed Plans Ongoing

I: Local Watershed Plans Completed

G: FY 2006- 07 Projects in Monitoring

H: FY 2006- 07 Projects Submitted for Close- out

Table of Contents

In its fourth year of operation, the N. C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( EEP) registered fresh suc-cesses

in meeting its goals of producing compensatory mitigation in advance of permitted impacts, and

continues to provide high- quality restoration and enhancement projects that will improve our state’s

natural resources for future generations. However the program is facing important challenges that re-quire

appropriate action to support continued service to the state.

The first significant challenge is related to the fees assessed by EEP for the voluntary service of pro-viding

compensatory mitigation for the regulated community. EEP has proposed revisions to existing

fees for wetland and stream mitigation so that revenues more accurately reflect the costs incurred by

the program in delivering restoration projects to meet mitigation commitments. EEP’s average per unit

costs for restoration projects in this past fiscal year were: $ 293 per linear foot for streams; $ 38,629 per

acre for riparian wetlands and $ 17,437 for non- riparian wetlands. Current fees are less than the aver-age

expenditures and are $ 245 per linear foot for streams, $ 29,351 per acre for riparian wetlands; and

$ 14, 676 per acre for non- riparian wetlands. Many factors have contributed to increased restoration

costs including ( but not limited to) increasing land values, escalating construction costs, and an in-crease

in the cost of professional and contracting services.

EEP formally proposed revisions to existing fees through the rule- making process beginning in mid-

2006. Revisions have been adopted by the Environmental Management Commission and approved by

the Rules Review Commission. However, the Rules Review Commission was in receipt of a sufficient

number of letters requesting legislative review of the rules so that any effective date for the revisions

will be delayed until after the legislature acts during the 2008 session. This represents a significant

delay to the anticipated effective date of Nov. 1, 2007. In order to preserve the program’s fiscal stabil-ity,

EEP is carefully considering each mitigation request submitted and will not accept mitigation re-quirements

that cannot be met within existing fees. Program staff look forward to working with mem-bers

of the General Assembly and other stakeholders to secure a revised fee that will allow continued

service to EEP’s customers, including private developers, school districts, municipalities and military

bases.

The second challenge relates to proposed federal rules for compensatory mitigation, which could

change the operation of all in- lieu fee programs nationwide. In support of the EEP, the Governor’s

office provided a coordinated state response to argue that innovative and successful in- lieu fee pro-grams

such as EEP should remain as a viable tool to meet requirements of the Clean Water Act. EEP

and DENR have had continuing dialogue with the EPA, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE), and

the U. S. Office of Management and Budget concerning the proposed changes. The rules are expected

to be promulgated sometime before the spring of 2008.

A third challenge that will be addressed over time involves joint NCDENR, NCDOT and USACE pro-gram

adjustments to address surplus mitigation assets. Directed into action by the NCDENR and

NCDOT secretaries and the commander of USACE, Wilmington District, this initiative will seek in-creased

flexibility by USACE, NCDENR and NCDOT to utilize surplus assets more effectively. Ac-tions

to date have reduced immediate mitigation costs of at least $ 6 million in a single watershed. We

believe that other opportunities will surface in the near future and EEP will adjust procurement strate-gies

accordingly.

Executive Summary

i

Reflecting on the 2006- 07 fiscal year, the Environmental Review Commission and the Joint Legislative Trans-portation

Oversight Committee directed a joint study on merging the Clean Water Management Trust Fund with

EEP. The study, undertaken by Dye Management Group, was structured to find synergies between the pro-grams,

consider overlapping missions and opportunities for non- traditional mitigation alternatives.

While the report did not recommend the merger, citing the regulatory nature of EEP’s mission and the positive

and flexible nature of CWMTF grants, some of the key findings included:

• Confirmation that the EEP model has been successful toward solving NCDOT permit delays and has

saved at least $ 6.5 million in costs to NCDOT.

• Recognition that EEP is a national model for mitigation, while acknowledging that proposed federal

mitigation banking rules are a threat to in- lieu fee programs and confirming that EEP is supported in

general by the regulatory community.

• A need to formalize EEP’s watershed planning process with the CWMTF grant process to facilitate

tactical plans to concentrate effectiveness of both programs. This formalization process has begun and

will evolve over the remainder of this fiscal year.

• Suggestions on how to address surplus mitigation assets. Many of these suggestions are being incorpo-rated

in a Joint Task Force with NCDOT and USACE.

Also this past year, EEP increased implementation of projects based on local watershed planning. Between

January and September 2007, 76.5 percent of EEP- initiated design- bid- build projects were located in Targeted

Local Watershed with 64 percent of these projects coming out of Local Watershed Plans ( see Section V of this

report). In addition, the program saw an increase in the number of full- delivery projects located in Targeted Lo-cal

Watersheds.

A statewide summary of both MOA and MOU mitigation inventory shows that EEP has 1,555,769 linear feet of

stream assets, and 13,233.53 acres of wetland assets. Existing mitigation credits have been established in ad-vance

of anticipated permit requirements for NCDOT and mitigation is ready for application to those permit re-quirements

as transportation projects move through the permitting process.

EEP continued to carry out its mission without a single transportation- project delay from the lack of mitigation

since the initiative became operational in 2003. Further, EEP’s mitigation efforts have helped to move forward

more than $ 3.7 billion in road building in North Carolina, with an investment of less than five percent of the

construction cost of those projects.

Ecosystem performance, sustainability and needs continue to evolve through a better understanding of emerging

science. EEP remains adaptive and successful in assisting NCDOT and the general public in meeting the re-quirements

of the state and the Clean Water Act. The remaining sections in this report describe the current pro-gram

status. This report is intended to satisfy all reporting requirements as defined in G. S. 143- 214.13 and agree-ments

with the USACE and NCDOT.

_______________________

William D. Gilmore, PE, Director Nov. 16, 2007

Additional information on items mentioned above can be found on our website:

Proposed fee revisions: www. nceep. net/ pages/ Announcement_ of_ RePub% 20v2_ 3_ 15_ 07. pdf

Surplus Assets: www. nceep. net/ pages/ BOT_ Sept52007_ Excessive_ Surplus_ Mitigation_ v4. ppt

Dye Management Report: www. nceep. net/ pages/ DYE_ 2007_ EEP_ CWMTF_ Study_ Final_ Report. pdf

ii

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

EEP manages four mitigation programs:

1) MOA Stream and Wetland Program for NCDOT

2) MOU Stream and Wetland Program

3) Riparian Buffer Program

4) Nutrient Offset Program

Eligibility to participate in an EEP program is a joint decision made by the EEP and the regulatory

agencies. Each of these programs operate as an In- Lieu Fee ( 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 mitiga-tion

associated with their payment.

MOA Program:

The 2003 Memorandum of Agreement ( MOA) among the NCDENR, NCDOT, and the USACE out-lines

the procedures for the NCDOT to utilize the EEP as ILF program for NCDOT’s offsite stream

and wetland mitigation needs and specifies performance metrics for EEP. In February of each year,

NCDOT provides EEP with its mitigation request in the form of impact projections for the seven-year

Transportation Improvement Program ( TIP) list. EEP secures this mitigation following proto-cols

outlined in the Tri- Party MOA. EEP uses Fund 2984 to track payments and expenditures of this

program.

MOU Program:

The 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. Payments made into the Stream and Wetland ILF

Program are deposited into Fund 2981.

In FY 2006- 07, 192 customers made payments into the MOU Program. Stream and Wetland ILF

payments totaled $ 13,023,860.01. Of this total150 customers had requirements from both USACE

( 404) and DWQ ( 401), 35 customers had requirements from USACE only, and eight customers had

requirements from DWQ only.

Buffer Program:

The Riparian Buffer 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 Randle-man

Reservoir watershed in the Upper Cape Fear River basin. Payments are made to the Riparian

Buffer Restoration Fund ( Fund 2982) according to the regulatory schedules for buffers.

In Fiscal Year 2006- 07, the EEP received payments for 759,622 square feet or 17.0 acres of buffer

mitigation. At the close of the fiscal year, EEP had accepted responsibility for 477.22 buffer acre

requirements cumulatively since the program’s inception in the Cape Fear, Catawba, Neuse and Tar-

Pamlico River basins.

I: EEP Programs

1

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

Nutrient Offset Program:

The Nutrient Offset Program is an option to meet compensatory mitigation requirements associ-ated

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- 9819.

During FY 2006- 07, Nutrient Offset payments were made by 340 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. EEP also received one payment originating from the

DWQ. During FY 2006- 07, EEP received payment for 294,849 pounds of nitrogen nutrient re-duction

and 903 pounds of phosphorus nutrient reduction.

Appendices A1, A2, and A3 lists the individual payments and requirements, payment date, pay-ment

amount, USACE identification and DWQ Permit numbers associated with the MOU ILF

Stream and Wetland Program, the Riparian Buffer Program, and the Nutrient Offset Program.

2

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

REVENUE, EXPENDITURES, AND ENCUMBRANCES

The figures and tables below depict expenditures and end- of- year balances for the MOA and MOU

Stream and Wetland mitigation programs, with an accounting of beginning balances, revenues, expendi-tures,

cash balances, encumbrances and unencumbered balances.

Fund 2984: MOA Program

Figure 1 provides an accounting of the NCDOT MOA Stream and Wetland mitigation program fund.

Mitigation production and payments are programmed on a cash- flow basis and reflect the amount paid

into the account, the amount encumbered and future year obligations.

The cash- flow accounting method is in place at the request of NCDOT and is consistent with NCDOT’s

method of managing Transportation Improvement Program project costs. EEP invoices NCDOT on a

quarterly basis and secures only those funds required to pay operating costs for the upcoming quarter.

Future year obligations are guaranteed to be paid in accordance with a Memorandum of Agreement be-tween

NCDOT and NCDENR. This information is reported quarterly during routine invoicing proc-esses.

Also, EEP has been audited quarterly with no findings, by the NCDOT External Auditing

Branch, and we are anticipating that the Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA) will produce a re-port

soon from an audit conducted in the summer of 2007.

II: Financial Accounting, Cost Data, Contracts and Property Acquisition

Figure 1: MOA Fund 2984 Fiscal Year 2006- 2007

FUND 2984

Beg. Balance $ 6,311,712.40

Revenue $ 69,089,935.38

Expenditures $ 59,302,527.10

Cash Balance $ 16,099,120.68

Encumbrance $ 102,277,111.71

Future Yr. Obligations $ 86,177,991.03

$ 0.00

$ 20,000,000.00

$ 40,000,000.00

$ 60,000,000.00

$ 80,000,000.00

$ 100,000,000.00

$ 120,000,000.00

Beg. Balance

Revenue

Expenditures

Cash Balance

Encumbrance

Future Yr. Obligations

3

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

MOU In- Lieu- Fee ( ILF) Program, Wetlands Trust Fund, Buffer and Nutrient Offset Program

Funds

Figure 2 below provides an accounting of funds for the MOU ILF ( 2981), the Wetlands Trust Fund

( 2980), the Buffer Program ( 2982) and the Nutrient Offset Program ( 2982- 9829).

Fund 2981, MOU ILF Program, is a voluntary, statewide receipt- based ILF program. Land disturb-ing

activities that require Section 404 or Section 401 permits often require compensatory mitigation as

specified by the USACE or the N. C. Division of Water Quality ( DWQ). The general public, commer-cial

and residential developers, as well as non- NCDOT governmental agencies including municipali-ties

and military installations, may request mitigation from EEP. Upon acceptance and payment, EEP

provides the off- site compensatory mitigation to satisfy regulatory requirements. This fund helps the

general public by providing a service that often saves money and streamlines development and permit-ting

processes.

During the last five years, requests to use this service program have increased substantially. EEP’s av-erage

cost in FY 2006- 07 was $ 293 per linear foot for stream mitigation, $ 38,629 per acre of for ripar-ian

wetlands and $ 17,437 for non- riparian wetland. Current fees are below average at $ 245 per linear

foot for stream, $ 29,351 per acre for riparian wetland and $ 14,676 per acre for non- riparian wetland.

Many factors have contributed to increased project costs, including price of land, particularly in urban

areas; complexity of site production resulting from better science or new regulatory requirements; ac-celerated

demand resulting in increased cost of supply, and an increase in the cost of professional and

contracting services.

$ 0.00

$ 5,000,000.00

$ 10,000,000.00

$ 15,000,000.00

$ 20,000,000.00

$ 25,000,000.00

$ 30,000,000.00

$ 35,000,000.00

2981 2980 2982 2982- 9829

Beg. Balance

Revenue

Expenditures

Cash Balance

Encumbrance

Unencum. Balance

2981 2980 2982 2982- 9829

Beg. Balance $ 18,753,441.36 $ 1,697,493.04 $ 13,309,732.40 $ 5,305,207.39

Revenue $ 27,997,777.03 $ 25,976.84 $ 3,502,804.09 $ 3,594,538.74

Expenditures $ 15,329,428.25 $ 1,538,378.31 $ 14,194,879.52 $ 3,514,488.18

Cash Balance $ 31,421,790.14 $ 185,091.57 $ 2,617,656.97 $ 5,385,257.95

Encumbrance $ 19,893,433.28 $ 184,433.00 $ 1,591,439.88 $ 1,245,882.46

Unencumbered Balance $ 11,528,356.86 $ 658.57 $ 1,026,217.09 $ 4,139,375.49

Figure 2: Funds 2981, 2980, 2982, 2982- 9829 Fiscal Year 2006— 2007

4

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

Last year, EEP reported that the program was seeking a fee– schedule revision to reflect results of a

study undertaken by UNC- Wilmington and Clemson University and other program data. The findings

of that study confirmed that costs of projects had increased over and above the existing fee schedule.

For that reason, EEP initiated an adjustment through the rule- making process. A short synopsis of ac-tivities

follows:

�� May 2006, EEP begins fee increase petition through the rule- making process.

• December 2006, fee schedule revision published in the North Carolina Register under a tier-based

system on county boundaries.

• January 2007, public hearings held New Bern, Raleigh, and Morganton.

• March 2007, two new alternatives published based on comments received during the hear-ing

process.

• September 2007, EMC adopts a two- tier fee defined by hydrologic units.

• October 2007, Rules Review Commission approves rule, but received sufficient public com-ments

to trigger a legislative review.

The proposed two- tier fee schedule is shown in the map and chart below.

EEP has taken measures to control costs, particularly in regard to the contracting industry. Some suc-cesses

have been achieved through training sessions for contractors and engineers, with an objective to

educate and introduce potential new contractors to wetland and stream construction techniques. This

action has increased the contractor pool and may provide increased competition. EEP has worked with

the regulatory agencies, with some success, to find new methods of providing mitigation that meet

regulatory requirement at reduced costs, and has implemented some projects with significant cost sav-ings.

In addition, engineering services are secured under professional services contracts and construc-tion

is awarded based on competitive bidding through the Department of Administration. However,

these initiatives and procedures have not been significant enough to alter the need for a fee revision.

EEP acknowledges support from the EMC hearing officers who worked diligently to assist EEP in se-curing

appropriate fees. New fees were anticipated to be in place by November 2007; however, public

comments were of a sufficient volume to trigger a decision and possible final determination in the 2008

legislative session. Therefore, EEP will need to be more selective in the acceptance of mitigation re-quests,

in order to continue to be fiscally responsible.

Proposed

High Cost

Areas

Proposed

Low Cost

Areas

Stream $ 323 $ 244

Riparian Wetland $ 59,600 $ 33,696

Non- riparian

Wetland

$ 43,000 $ 22,113

Cataloging Unit

River Basin Boundary

Proposed Higher Fee Area

Proposed Lower Fee Area

Proposed Fee Areas Proposed Fees

5

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

Fund 2980, Wetlands Restoration Program ( WRP) Trust Fund, was established by the General As-sembly

in 1997 as an initial trust fund for the former Wetlands Restoration Program ( WRP) to provide

funds for watershed planning and long- term maintenance and management of WRP projects. Remain-ing

encumbrances for this fund will be paid this year and this fund will be closed out sometime in the

next fiscal year.

Fund 2982, Buffer Fund, is the repository for monies related to the state’s buffer- mitigation program

that applies to the Neuse, Tar- Pamlico, and parts of the Catawba and Cape Fear River basins.

Fund 2982- 9829, Nutrient Offset, is the repository for funds of the Nutrient Offset Program. This

program has been in place for the Neuse River basin since 1998. In March 2006, the Tar- Pamlico

River Basin was added. House Bill 859, ratified Aug. 1, 2007 and effective Sept. 1, 2007 now requires

nutrient- reduction projects to be in the same eight- digit Cataloging Unit ( CU), as designated by the

U. S. Geological Survey, in which the associated nutrient runoff takes place.

House Bill 859 established the following revised fee schedule for nutrient- offset payments to EEP:

The per- pound rate in the table above is multiplied by the total number of pounds of offset required for

the total area of the development for a 30- year period. In the Tar- Pamlico basin, if a development pro-ject

has both nitrogen and phosphorus reduction requirements, the offset- requirement and payment-amount

calculations are performed for both nutrients, and only the higher amount is required to be paid.

River Basin Nitrogen Phosphorus

Neuse $ 28.35 / lb n/ a

Tar- Pamlico $ 21.67 / lb $ 28.62 / 0.1 lb

6

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

COST DATA

EEP Project Costs for FY 06- 07

EEP produces mitigation sites through two contracting methods: Design- Bid- Build ( DBB) and Full

Delivery ( FD). Average per- unit costs of project implementation are calculated by examining both

types of contracts.

In FY 2005 – 06 the EEP obtained:

• 106,845 total stream mitigation units at an average of $ 293 per unit

• 100.22 total riparian wetlands mitigation units at an average of $ 38,629 per unit

• 72.1 total non- riparian wetlands mitigation units at an average of $ 17,437* per unit

• 32.44 total buffer mitigation units at an average of $ 42,000 per unit

(*$ 17,437 is not reflective of estimated costs for non- riparian wetlands. Additional program data shows that anticipated

costs for this mitigation type could be as high as $ 75,882 per unit.)

Cost Analysis of Private Mitigation Banks

Reporting requirements of G. S. 143 require EEP to compare the cost of wetlands restoration on a per

acre basis between the state’s Wetlands Restoration Program and private mitigation banks.

To obtain the data necessary to accomplish this task, an electronic Web- based survey requesting resto-ration

cost information was sent to the sponsor of each approved bank in North Carolina. Appendix B

includes a listing of banks who were requested to respond, and a copy of the survey is included.

There were no responses from private mitigation banks for FY 2006- 07.

Stream Projects Cost Study

EEP initiated a contract with UNC- Wilmington to conduct a stream project cost- analysis study that in-corporates

both biophysical and economic variables. The final study, due in December 2007, will pro-vide

a methodology to compare project costs with the fee schedule. This tool will be used to develop

regional project cost estimates and aid in calculating yearly budgets. The study will also look at how

variables, such as length, width, location and construction technique, affect total project cost. Early

study results were presented at the N. C. Stream Restoration Institute Stream Conference in October

2006.

The study was based on analysis of 26 rural stream projects and 19 urban stream projects that had con-struction

completed by January 2005. The average cost per foot for these projects was $ 255, ($ 316 per

foot for urban projects and $ 226 per foot for rural projects). The model encompassing biophysical and

economic variables will be used to determine costs in both rural and highly- urbanizing areas.

CONTRACTS

Full Delivery Program

The FD Program procures compensatory mitigation by issuing requests for proposals ( RFPs) through

the state Department of Administration. Each RFP specifies the river basin and cataloging unit within

which mitigation is being sought, and the amount and type of mitigation needed ( i. e., buffer, stream

and/ or wetland). Offerors are required to submit both a technical proposal and a cost proposal for each

prospective submittal. The technical proposal details: 1) the experience, qualifications and financial

stability of the firm submitting the proposal; 2) the geomorphologic features of the site that make it

suitable for restoration; and 3) the conceptual plan for restoring the site to a more natural, stable 7

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

condition, both physically and biologically. The cost proposal provides a buffer, stream, and/ or wet-land

unit cost 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 the state, develop

and implement a restoration plan, and monitor the project for five years to verify that the restoration

meets established success criteria.

There are currently 21 firms under FDP contracts with EEP, indicating widespread participation by the

environmental consulting/ mitigation community. In FY 2006- 2007, EEP entered into seven new FDP

contracts ( with five different full delivery providers) for 33,993 Stream Mitigation Units and 18.3 Ri-parian

Wetland Mitigation Units, at a cost of $ 10,356,915.00. Appendix C1 lists all active FDP con-tracts.

Design- Bid- Build Program

The DBB Program operates by contracting with private design and consulting firms for professional

services for all stages of project development including: watershed planning, environmental resource

investigations, restoration site design and construction management, and post- construction monitoring.

EEP contracts with professional consulting and engineering services through State Building Commis-sion

designer and consultant selection policy as described in the NC Administrative Code ( see 01

NCAC 30D). Upon completion of design projects are advertised for competitive construction bids and

construction contracts are awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.

This Fiscal Year the State Building Commission granted EEP a two- year authorization to contract with

31 On- call Design and Consulting firms. Since 2002, the State Building Commission has granted four

on- call authorizations to EEP as described in the table below:

Design and Construction

From July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007, 44 new design and construction contracts were

awarded. The total value of new design and construction contracts was $ 12,752,311. Appen-dix

C2 lists design and construction contracts awarded in FY 2006– 07.

Maintenance and Repair

NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program On- call Authorizations

Date effective # of Firms Authorized Total Authorization

4/ 18/ 02 - 4/ 17/ 04 15 $ 10,500,000

4/ 1/ 04 - 3/ 31/ 06 22 $ 15,400,000

8/ 23/- 05 – 8/ 22/ 07 21 $ 14,700,000

12/ 12/ 06 – 12/ 11/ 08 31 $ 21,700,000

Design and Construction

Fiscal Year July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007

Total Design Services ( 26) $ 5,499,796.00

Total Construction Services ( 18) $ 7,252,515.26

Total ( 44) $ 12,752,311.26

8

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

The science of natural- systems restora-tion

has advanced considerably over the

past decade. Design firms have evolved

design philosophies and approaches in

response to changes in industry and

EEP’s philosophy, as well as observa-tion

and measurement of post-construction

design performance. At

times, it is necessary to maintain or re-pair

portions of projects that have been

damaged or failed as a result of drought,

tropical storms and other causes. Main-tenance

and repair design and construc-tion

contracts are implemented using the

same contracting methods as described

previously.

In FY 2006- 07, one new maintenance

design contract was awarded. The total

value of maintenance design contracts

awarded was $ 9,530.

In FY 2006- 07, three maintenance con-struction

contracts were awarded. The

total value of maintenance construction

contracts awarded was $ 417,333.14.

Fiscal Year 2006- 07 Payments to Vendors

Payments to vendors totaled $ 47,048,275.10 for FY 2006- 07 . Figure 3 illustrates payments by

contract type: Full Delivery, Design and Construction, but does not include any costs for property

acquisition. Appendix D provides a listing of payments by contract type and vendor.

9

Maintenance and Repair

Fiscal Year July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007

Total Maintenance Design

Services ( 1) $ 9,530.00

Total Maintenance Construction

Awards ( 3) $ 417,333.14

Total ( 4) $ 426,863.14

Project Name Design Firm

Contract

Amount

Sandy Creek

Repair Ward Consulting $ 9,530.00

Total

Maintenance

Design Services $ 9,530.00

Project Name

Construction

Firm

Contract

Amount

Stone Mountain

Repair Shamrock $ 179,468.00

Brush/ Little Pine

Repair NCWRC $ 109,451.64

County Line

Creek

Land

Mechanic $ 128,413.50

Total

Maintenance

Construction

Awards $ 417,333.14

FY 06- 07 Contract Payments by Type

Construction,

5,577,051.66 12%

Design

8,167,336.81 18%

Full Delivery

33,303,886.63

70%

Figure 3

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006�� 2007

10

PROPERTY ACQUISITION

In FY 2006- 07, the State Property Office closed on 114 parcels associated with preservation and resto-ration

projects, totaling more than 3,300 acres. Four of the acquisitions were outright purchases and

108 were acquisitions of conservation easements. Two of the acquisitions were construction easements.

Restoration and preservation properties that closed between July 1, 2005 and July 22, 2006 are shown

in Appendix E: Properties Closed. 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 F: Properties Optioned.

A cumulative inventory of all properties acquired since the inception of the Wetlands Restoration Pro-gram

are presented in Appendix G: Cumulative Properties. More than 45,300 acres have been pur-chased

or donated.

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

III: Program Inventory and Status

Note: EEP’s mitigation assets and requirements are accounted for on a cataloging- unit ( CU) basis,

not by river basin. This table, along with Table 2, is intended as a summary. A complete listing of

these tables by river basin CU can be found in the EEP’s Fourth Quarterly Report, located on the EEP

Web site at: http:// www. nceep. net/ news/ eeppublications. htm.

This section provides detailed tables and charts regarding production. EEP tracks and is account-able

for mitigation production in 17 river basins, 54 CUs, and for 15 mitigation types.

RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION INVENTORY

At the end of FY 2006- 07, EEP had produced or inherited 1,539,391 linear feet of stream and

21,608 acres of wetland mitigation, in addition to HQP assets. The table below is a summary of

mitigation production assets by river basin and type.

Table 1: EEP Total Assets FY 06 – 07

River Basin

Stream

Restoration

Stream

Enhancement I

Stream

Enhancement II

Stream

Preservation

Riparian

Restoration

Riparian

Creation

Riparian

Enhancement

Riparian

Preservation

Nonriparian

Restoration

Nonriparian

Creation

Nonriparian

Enhancement

Nonriparian

Preservation

Coastal Marsh

Restoration

Coastal Marsh

Creation

Coastal Marsh

Enhancement

Coastal Marsh

Preservation

Stream Buffer

Broad 54,258 6,410 10,076 9,279 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0

Cape Fear 325,736 24,169 29,650 40,678 768.93 16.20 153.09 1,028.31 865.85 0.00 227.14 496.74 9.02 0.00 85.76 0.00 98.6

Catawba 147,290 11,726 13,951 4,286 44.79 32.82 19.51 4.66 2.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 88.0

Chowan 11,128 1,700 0 6,086 97.30 0.00 0.00 15.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0

French Broad 76,698 24,295 3,575 10,340 16.68 0.00 17.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0

Hiwassee 3,900 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0

Little Tenn. 10,132 1,082 1,490 0 53.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0

Lumber 25,352 0 0 1,750 30.00 0.25 30.44 35.80 777.38 0.00 0.00 301.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0

Neuse 122,202 12,008 6,334 9,793 467.92 7.00 283.63 1,516.94 1,560.30 10.80 1,984.20 655.15 5.64 0.00 0.18 4.94 217.4

New 15,252 2,551 14,750 16,510 10.00 6.29 8.98 22.29 1.00 0.00 0.00 13.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0

Pasquotank 15,400 2,500 0 0 396.80 0.00 21.40 68.65 1,149.13 0.00 6.00 139.32 0.00 30.60 0.00 180.94 0.0

Roanoke 46,845 1,232 8,499 14,263 154.00 0.00 0.00 576.43 248.00 0.00 0.00 3,431.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0

Savannah 3,310 1,600 0 3,115 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0

Tar- Pamlico 34,753 14,233 5,983 0 276.14 63.91 35.10 442.80 343.90 2.00 2.95 541.22 3.30 0.00 0.00 19.00 104.7

Watauga 2,800 1,000 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0

White Oak 26,922 400 400 1,280 52.00 0.00 1.80 2.00 368.50 0.00 0.00 274.10 6.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0

Yadkin 206,648 13,546 33,414 46,811 187.10 159.20 43.97 94.10 18.87 0.00 21.09 8.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.1

Grand Total 1,128,626 118,452 128,122 164,191 2,566.90 285.67 615.52 3,806.98 5,345.33 12.80 2,241.38 5,872.87 24.44 30.60 85.94 204.88 514.9

Total MOU 371,367 37,200 52,465 38,967 273.67 1.50 174.82 377.98 347.73 0.00 96.46 209.99 6.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 230.0

Total MOA 757,260 81,252 75,657 125,224 2,293.23 284.17 440.70 3,429.00 4,997.60 12.80 2,144.92 5,662.88 18.14 30.60 85.94 204.88 284.9

11

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

Current Inventory of Asset Credits

Table 2 lists net- asset credits by river basin for FY 2006- 07. 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 con-verted

to restoration and restoration- equivalent credits. HQP gross and net assets are summarized in

the next section.

At the end of FY 2006– 07, EEP had inventory assets of both restoration and restoration equivalent

of:

• Stream: 938,419 credits

• Riparian: 4,595 credits

• Nonriparian: 7,185 credits

• Coastal marsh: 115 credits

Inventory assets are the sum of Table 2: Inventory of Asset Credits below and Table 4: HQP

Net Asset Summary.

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. Figures 4 and 5

( on pages 15 and 16 ) show the existing net assets, outstanding requirements, and projected future

mitigation needs.

Table 2: EEP Inventory of Asset Credits, FY 06- 07

River Basin

Stream

Restora-tion

Stream Res-toration

Equivalent

Riparian

Restoration

Riparian

Restoration

Equivalent

Nonriparian

Restoration

Nonriparian

Restoration

Equivalent

Coastal

Marsh

Restora-tion

Coastal

Marsh Res-toration

Equivalent

Broad 60,490 1,712.80 11.40 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cape Fear 184,182 2,836 638.01 223.16 837.38 194.93 9.02 42.88

Catawba 42,131 0 15.12 3.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Chowan 12,249 1,217 96.76 3.00 4.99 2.00 0.00 0.00

French Broad 82,098 2,048 11.63 8.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hiwassee 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Little Tennessee 10,801 0 53.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Lumber 15,980 350 19.98 18.19 689.05 60.28 0.00 0.00

Neuse 39,544 0 411.38 410.69 1,527.07 1,118.52 5.64 1.08

New 20,857 3,097 10.21 8.95 1.00 2.73 0.00 0.00

Pasquotank 15,578 0 394.18 21.72 1,134.60 30.76 9.80 35.79

Roanoke 43,873 2,614 144.04 106.09 124.46 675.80 0.00 0.00

Savannah 4,377 623 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00

Tar- Pamlico 43,446 0 283.40 105.09 297.69 107.15 3.24 3.80

Watauga 3,280 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

White Oak 20,138 256.00 35.47 1.30 72.40 30.42 4.02 0.00

Yadkin 143,593 7,010.20 213.42 33.15 14.51 10.73 0.00 0.00

Total MOU 48,077 647.00 97.11 55.77 47.75 53.25 3.84 0.00

Total MOA 694,540 21,117.20 2,241.72 888.06 4,660.40 2,180.39 27.88 83.55

Grand Total 742,617 21,764.20 2,338.83 943.82 4,708.15 2,233.64 31.72 83.55

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

High Quality Preservation ( HQP) Assets

At the end of FY 2006- 07, EEP had acquired more than 250 miles of HQP stream assets and 8,694

acres of wetlands. HQP assets were secured in order to fulfill requirements under the Tri- Party MOA

transition strategy. A complete breakdown of the total HQP acquired and remaining HQP assets as of

the end of FY 2006- 07 are listed in the tables on the next page. Through the partnership with local

land trusts, 113 high quality preservation parcels have been permanently protected by outright pur-chase

or by purchase of conservation easements since the inception of EEP. Approximately $ 47 mil-lion

worth of property was protected through this partnership. Other state agencies will manage 18 of

the parcels. In addition, state agencies cooperated to broker the purchase of additional properties.

The total expenditure for the HQP land and conservation easements is approximately $ 75 million for

the acquisition of 128 parcels statewide.

EEP Gross HQP Assets

Table 3 summarizes gross HQP assets. All HQP assets are MOA assets. Gross stream and

wetland feet or acreages are subject to correction as additional survey work is completed on

these sites.

EEP Net HQP Assets

Table 4 lists the net remaining HQP assets available for future debits by ecoregion. Gross

stream and wetland feet or acreages are subject to change as additional survey work is com-pleted

on sites.

The February 2006 NCDOT impact projections indicate that most of these net HQP mitigation

units will be fully utilized for compliance deadlines based on the projected Transportation Im-provement

Program ( TIP) list.

Since the inception of EEP, more than $ 75 million has been spent to purchase these conserva-tion

lands. Across the state, EEP has net HQP assets of 870,190 feet ( 164 miles) of stream,

6,563 acres of riverine wetlands and 1,214 acres of non- riverine wetland. EEP assisted in

funding nearly 40,000 acres of conservation land. Twenty- four of these parcels will be man-aged

by government agencies for public recreation activities that are compatible with protec-tive

restrictions.

To accomplish the goal of no net loss of aquatic resources, utilization of these preservation

sites for compensatory mitigation credits will be accompanied by restoration- type mitigation

projects within the same watershed where impacts occur.

13

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

Ecoregion

Beginning Balances

Stream ( feet) Riparian Wetland

( acres)

Non- Riparian Wetland

( acres)

Central Piedmont 476,981.50 544.170 62.440

Northern Inner Coastal Plain 74,528.00 651.200 0.000

Northern Mountains 130,230.00 0.000 0.000

Northern Outer Coastal Plain 13,919.00 395.000 390.000

Southern Inner Coastal Plain 186,170.00 4,020.000 85.900

Southern Mountains 189,491.00 30.000 0.000

Southern Outer Coastal Plain 10,206.00 137.000 1,034.000

Southern Piedmont 238,916.00 1,344.300 0.000

TOTAL HQP Beginning Balance 1,320,441.50 7,121.67 1,572.34

TOTAL HQP Beginning Balance in

Credits ( 5: 1 ratio) 264,088.30 1,424.334 314.468

Ecoregion

Remaining High Quality Preservation Assets

Stream ( feet) Riparian Wetland

( acres)

Non- Riparian Wetland

( acres)

Central Piedmont 289,835.00 515.850 30.772

Northern Inner Coastal Plain 35,908.00 572.485 0.000

Northern Mountains 104,318.50 0.000 0.000

Northern Outer Coastal Plain 8,149.00 392.870 390.000

Southern Inner Coastal Plain 97,291.50 3,640.735 21.900

Southern Mountains 143,504.50 17.675 0.000

Southern Outer Coastal Plain 6,000.00 115.405 771.590

Southern Piedmont 185,183.50 1,308.300 0.000

TOTAL HQP Remaining Balance 870,190.00 6,563.320 1,214.262

TOTAL HQP Remaining Balance in

Credits ( 5: 1 ratio) 174,038.00 1,312.664 242.852

Table 3: HQP Gross Asset Summary by Ecoregion

Table 4: HQP Net Asset Summary by Ecoregion

14

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

Statewide Status of MOU and MOA Stream and Wetland Programs

The graphs below and on the next page provide a statewide summary status of the stream and wetland

ILF Programs at the end of FY 2006- 07. The graphs depict EEP current gross assets, the mitigation

requirements, outstanding mitigation requirements, and the projected future mitigation needs that EEP

expects over the next two years. Please note that the EEP tracks credits and credit requirements by

program ( MOU or MOA), by impact type, and by watershed cataloging unit. All mitigation credits

are applied within mitigation type, within CU of impact, and within program unless the regulatory

agencies have approved otherwise. These graphs reflect the statewide picture of EEP’s programmatic

gains ( credits) and estimated losses ( requirements). ( Since mitigation requirements are typically

twice as large as actual permitted impacts, the actual losses are approximately one- half the magnitude

of requirements shown.)

Figure 4 displays the status of stream requirements and assets produced ( for both the MOU and MOA

programs). Currently EEP has instituted 1,555,769 credits of stream mitigation and accepted mitiga-tion

requirements of 442,897 credits — three and one half times as much as required. Excess mitiga-tion

is planned to be allocated to future needs as per agreements. Outstanding requirements equal

9,148 credits.

The generation of mitigation credits in advance of mitigation requirements is a founding principle of

the MOA In- Lieu Fee Program for NCDOT. The surplus mitigation currently available in the pro-gram

is evidence that EEP is succeeding on this front. However, future mitigation demand is ex-pected

to be very high over the next five years. As shown in the Figure 4, NCDOT and EEP are pro-jecting

mitigation needs of 944,356 stream credits over the next five years. The majority of this miti-gation

needs is due to NCDOT’s mitigation needs and the advancement schedule outlined in the

MOA.

1,555,769

442,897

7,645

944,356.00

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

Credits

Stream

Status o f EEP S tream Mitigatio n P ro gram in c redits

EEP Stream Assets

EEP Mitigation Requirements

EEP Outstanding Stream Requirements

Future Requirements

Figure 4

15

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

Outstanding requirements represent mitigation needs that do not match ( type or CU location) invento-ried

assets. EEP has strategies in place to provide for the outstanding requirements which are detailed

in EEP’s quarterly reports at www. nceep. net. Section III of this report contains additional compli-ance

information.

Figure 5 displays the status of the wetland requirements and assets produced ( MOU and MOA pro-grams).

Currently EEP is managing instituted assets of 13,233.53 wetland credits with current re-quirements

equaling 1,045.69 credits. Most of these wetland assets ( over 7,000 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 EEP MOA mitigation program for NCDOT’s fu-ture

mitigation needs. Currently, outstanding requirements equal 13 wetland credits. As shown in the

graph, NCDOT and EEP are projecting additional mitigation needs of 2,255.57 credits over the next

five years. On a statewide level, EEP has achieved success for advanced mitigation. However, much

of the current advanced 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 mitiga-tion,

others will require additional wetland credit development over the coming years.

Graph 2

13,233.53

1,045.69

13.00

2,255.57

0.00

2,000.00

4,000.00

6,000.00

8,000.00

10,000.00

12,000.00

14,000.00

Wetland

Status of EEP Wetland Program in credits

EEP Assets

EEP Mitigation Requirements

EEP Outstanding Wetland

Requirements

Future Requirements

Figure 5

16

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

Statewide Status of Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Programs

The status of the Riparian Buffer

Program is illustrated in the table

on the right. This program has

provided all currently required

buffer mitigation except for 2.03

acre credits in Tar- Pamlico

03020105. Note that though 2.03

acre credits are outstanding, EEP has 59.41 acre credits of advanced buffer credits upstream in the

Tar- Pamlico basin..

The status of the Nutrient Offset Program is

shown in the table below. Nutrient reduc-tions

were met in the Tar- Pamlico basin for

nitrogen and phosphorus, but not in the

Neuse River basin. In FY 2006- 07, all new

procurement of nutrient offset mitigation pro-jects

were placed on hold due to a legislative

study on the Nutrient Offset fee schedules. In

2006, a revised increased fee schedule was

authorized via rulemaking by the Environ-mental

Management Commission. The re-vised

fee schedule was, however, reverted by

the General Assembly while they completed a cost study. During this period of time, EEP suspended

procurement of new nutrient- offset mitigation sites. The suspension was necessary because collected

fees during FY 2005- 06 through FY 2006- 07 were below the projected costs of implementing storm

water wetland and riparian buffer nutrient offset projects. Implementing projects during this time

could have resulted in the complete depletion of the funds within this program without satisfying the

required reduction in nutrients. This problem was magnified during FY 2006- 07 as nearly 30 percent

of the program’s total historical requirements

were paid during FY 2006- 07 at below cost

fees. Currently, a revised fee has been

passed by the N. C. legislature. These fees,

while lower than previously authorized by

the EMC, are sufficient to begin procuring

nutrient- offset reduction projects. EEP be-lieves

that most BMP- type [ e. g. stormwater

BMP’s, constructed wetlands, etc.] nutrient

reduction projects will not be fundable under

the current fee schedule, particularly since

past payments were below cost of BMPs or

riparian- buffer restoration projects. Conse-quently,

EEP expects that most new projects

will be composed of riparian buffer projects

with a few select stormwater BMPs and con-structed

wetlands.

Riparian Buffer ILF Program Status FY 06— 07

Cape Fear Catawba Neuse Tar Pamlico

Mitigation Due 61.56 0.27 353.01 44.99

Mitigation Instituted 91.64 23.4 459.79 104.4

Example of a completed stream project–

Clear Creek, French Broad River Basin, Henderson County

Nutrient Offset ILF Program Status FY 06— 07

Neuse Nitrogen Tar Pamlico

Nitrogen

Tar Pamlico

Phosphorus

Mitigation Due 721,281.36 554.53 0.00

Mitigation Instituted 532,979.68 840.00 840.00

Future Requirements 287,656.30 7,185.49 903.43

17

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

IV: Stream and Wetland Compliance

MOA Stream and Wetland Compliance

At the close of FY 2006- 07, the MOA program had achieved tremendous success in establishing ad-vanced

mitigation as prescribed by the Tri- Party MOA program. The amount of advanced mitigation

credits established within the program are summarized in the table below.

The MOA Stream compliance was 98.99 percent, Riparian Wetlands compliance was 98.14 percent,

Nonriparian Wetlands compliance was 100 percent and Coastal Marsh Wetlands compliance was 100

percent representing increased compliance in each of these mitigation categories from the previous

year. Table 5 displays requirements in credits, credits applied, and compliance.

Outstanding requirements represent mitigation needs that do not match ( type or CU location) invento-ried

assets. The magnitude of outstanding stream mitigation was 2,261.6 credits. The magnitude of

outstanding riparian- wetland mitigation was 2.4 credits. Seven permits needed additional mitiga-tion.

The Tri- Party MOA also specifies that assets utilized for permits achieve a specified completion

or phase status. For FY 2006- 07 permits, assets were required to meet “ Begin Construction” status

for most permits. The table below summarizes the mitigation compliance, phase compliance, the per-centage

of assets utilized that exceeded phase, and amount of advanced mitigation.

A complete listing of the MOA permits and requirements not in full compliance and the correspond-ing

EEP CU Action Strategies can be found in the EEP’s Fourth Quarterly Report located on the EEP

Web site.

MOA Program Stream

( credits)

Riparian Wet-lands

( credits)

Nonriparian

Wetlands

( credits)

Coastal Marsh

Wetlands

( credits)

Total Wet-lands

( credits)

Mitigation Due 224,111.2 128.5 409.4 1.8 539.7

Mitigation Met 221,849.6 126.1 409.4 1.8 537.3

Mitigation Used 223,928.0 191.6 349.2 1.8 542.6

Mitigation Not Met 2,261.6 2.4 0 0 2.4

Compliance 98.99% 98.14% 100.00% 100.00% 99.56%

Compliance considering Phase 97.95% 92.01% 99.93% 100.00% 98.04%

Percentage of Mitigation Used Meeting

Phase 98.96% 95.89% 99.91% 100.00% 98.49%

Percentage of Mitigation Used Exceed-ing

Phase( Monitoring+) 58.88% 86.12% 80.66% 96.59% 82.64%

Total Advanced Mitigation ( Undebited) 871,316.9 4,430.7 7,081.6 111.4 11,623.7

Table 5: MOA Program Compliance

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

MOU Stream and Wetland Compliance

The MOU program experienced a similar degree of success during FY 2006- 07. As of June 30, 2007,

the MOU program had 753 total requirements. Of these, 735 are in full compliance, five have partial

compliance and 13 are in non- compliance. Therefore the EEP has 97.6 percent of all MOU require-ments

in compliance, 0.7 percent in partial compliance and 1.7 percent in non- compliance. Of these

non- compliant requirements, 14 were related to wetland requirements, and four were related to stream

requirements. As in the MOA program, outstanding requirements represent mitigation needs that do

not match ( type or CU location) inventoried assets.

Table 6 below summarizes the MOU program’s mitigation due, mitigation met, mitigation not met,

compliance and advanced mitigation amounts:

A complete listing of the MOA permits and requirements not in full compliance and the correspond-ing

EEP CU Action Strategies can be found in the EEP’s Fourth Quarterly Report located on the EEP

Web site.

MOU Program Stream

( credits)

Riparian

Wetlands

( credits)

Nonriparian

Wetlands

( credits)

Coastal Marsh

Wetlands

( credits)

Total Wet-lands

( credits)

Mitigation Due 218,785.9 339.8 166.0 0.2 506.0

Mitigation Met 211,899.6 330.5 164.9 0.0 495.4

Mitigation Not Met 6,886.3 9.3 1.1 0.2 10.6

Compliance 96.85% 97.26% 99.33% 0.00% 97.90%

Advanced Mitigation ( Undebited) 48,723.6 152.9 101.0 3.8 257.7

Table 6: MOU Program Compliance

19

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

20

Intentional blank page.

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

An important focus of EEP is the implementation of restoration 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 out-comes.

EEP conducts two main types of watershed planning:

• River Basin Restoration Priority Planning ( high- level— river basin/ eight- digit CU scale)

• 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. EEP’s

goal is to implement all program projects ( both FD and DBB) in targeted watersheds. FD technical

rating methods encourage providers to locate projects in targeted watersheds. Many DBB projects are

developed based on detailed watershed plans. This section describes the status of EEP watershed

planning methods and assesses how well the program’s project implementation lines up with water-shed

priorities.

WATERSHED PLANNING

The purpose of watershed planning is to determine the best locations for watershed- restoration pro-jects

based on analysis of watersheds needs for restoration and protection. This is done by conducting

two types of planning- River Basin Restoration Priority Planning and Local Watershed Planning.

River Basin Restoration Priority Plans

River Basin Restoration Priority Planning is conducted in each of the 17 river basins in North

Carolina. The purpose is to identify local watersheds within each river basin where ecological

restoration or protection is most needed— for instance, watersheds that include streams with

impaired water quality and degraded habitat are often targeted.

In the summer of 2007, EEP began updating River Basin Restoration Priority ( RBRP) plans.

The RBRPs identify watersheds for EEP project implementation, or Targeted Local Water-sheds

( TLWs), in the State’s 17 river basins and outline the basin’s restoration and preserva-tion

needs. In anticipation of DWQ’s new, compressed two- year basinwide planning cycle,

EEP staff is working to complete RBRP updates for all river basins by the summer of 2009.

The RBRP plans incorporate water quality information from DWQ Basinwide Assessment Re-ports

and Water Quality Plans as well as input from local resource- agency professionals and

the location of existing or planned watershed projects. The updating of the RBRPs also takes

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

hydrologic units statewide. As they are completed, updated RBRP documents will be posted

on the EEP Web site ( http:// www. nceep. net/ services/ restplans/ watershedplans. html).

Completed River Basin Restoration Priority Plans

This past fiscal year, EEP completed an update of the Lower Catawba River Basin RBRP

plan. The document identifies priority watersheds ( i. e., TLWs) for implementation of EEP

projects and goals for conservation and restoration in the Catawba River basin.

V: Watershed Planning and Project Implementation

21

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

New River Basin Restoration Priority Initiatives

EEP has performed GIS based analysis, conducted fieldwork, and solicited input from stake-holder

groups through multiple workshops in order to select TLWs in the Lower Yadkin- Pee

Dee River Basin specifically in Yadkin 03040105 and 03040202. A draft RBRP document

has been developed for these CUs. A final version of this document is in progress and work

to evaluate the remaining CUs within the Lower Yadkin- Pee Dee basin will be completed in

late 2007/ early 2008.

EEP has also initiated CU screening to develop updated RBRPs for the Chowan River Basin

and for a portion of the Roanoke River basin ( CU 06).

Local Watershed Plans

Local Watershed Planning merges identified RBRPs with projected impacts from road devel-opment

to determine where future mitigation investments can provide the greatest benefit for

the State of North Carolina. The development of Local Watershed Plans ( LWPs) is typically

a four- phase process: Preliminary Watershed Characterization ( Phase I), Detailed Assessment

( Phase II), Development of a Watershed Management Plan including identification of poten-tial

project sites within a Project Atlas ( Phase III), and Implementation of the Plan ( Phase

IV). However, rapid or abbreviated plans are also utilized when either the mitigation compli-ance

timeline is compressed, the mitigation needs value for the CU ( based on fee schedule)

does not justify an extensive planning investment, or detailed analyses are not necessary to

identify the most ecologically beneficial projects.

Detailed watershed evaluations are conducted through the use of internal and external re-sources.

External resources include private environmental planning and engineering firms,

the N. C. Division of Water Quality, the CGIA, and various not- for- profit organizations.

EEP watershed planners have responsibility for all planning products. For products produced

internally, planners generate maps, tables, reports, and budgets. They also work on the devel-opment

of new assessment methods, alternative mitigation options, and strategies to obtain

mitigation within priority watershed areas. They develop a network of contacts in natural-resource

agencies, local governments, and local communities and keep local governments

informed of EEP projects through meetings and public presentations. They work with local

stakeholders to implement plan recommendations and review mitigation projects proposed by

EEP staff and external firms.

For products generated externally, planners are responsible for development of contracts, re-view

of products, invoice processing, development of technical methods with contractors, and

oversight of all field and mapping work. They also coordinate the work performed by con-tractors

with local stakeholders and related efforts by local, state, and federal agencies.

EEP staff is continuing work on LWPs all across the state. Currently, eight plans are under-way

and in various stages of development and expected to be completed later in 2007 or in

2008. Appendix H presents a summary of ongoing Local Watershed Plans; 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. 22

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

Completed Local Watershed Plans

EEP completed a number of local watershed planning efforts in FY 2006- 07 as described

below. Appendix I presents a summary of Local Watershed Plans completed through Phase

III. In many cases, Landowner Outreach and Project Implementation ( Phase IV) is ongoing.

• Completed Phase IV implementation effort for two LWPs in Cape Fear 02; Morgan and

Little creeks; and Troublesome and Little Troublesome creeks. EEP staff worked with

Stantec to visit and gauge the restoration potential of sites identified in both LWPs. EEP

is pursuing several of the sites identified in these LWPs as potential mitigation projects,

including three that are on property managed by the University of North Carolina at

Chapel Hill.

• Completed Phase III of the Little Lick Creek LWP. EEP presented the plan to public

officials and the public at an evening forum held in the watershed. The plan can be

found online ( see http:// www. nceep. net/ services/ lwps/ little_ lick/ Little_ Lick. pdf). A

Phase IV implementation effort is planned.

• Phase IV was completed in the Stoney Creek watershed, including landowner education,

materials development and distribution, presentations, and public question- and- answer

opportunities. The final Stoney Creek LWP was presented to the Wayne County Board

of Commissioners and to the Goldsboro City Council.

• Completed Phase III of the Little River and Brush Creek LWP ( New 05050001) – During

FY 2006- 07, EEP completed the Little River and Brush Creek LWP ( located within the

New River basin of Alleghany County). The focus of this planning effort was the

Bledsoe Creek watershed, a 6.5- square mile area comprised of two sub- watersheds iden-tified

as priority areas dur-ing

earlier phases of as-sessment

work. A Techni-cal

Advisory Committee

( TAC) consisting of key

local stakeholders contrib-uted

significantly to com-pletion

of the final Bledsoe

Creek Watershed Manage-ment

Plan ( June 2007).

The plan identifies key lo-cal

watershed stressors and

presents recommended

management strategies and

watershed projects

( including stream/ buffer

restoration and storm wa-ter

BMPs) to address

these stressors. The TAC

LWP data example: From spring 2006 through June 2007, the EEP/ Equinox water-shed

team conducted landowner outreach and project site evaluation in order to

implement priority stream and wetlands restoration projects in the Bald Creek wa-tershed

and adjacent hydrologic units. This “ Phase IV” expanded effort has re-sulted

in production of an Ecological Conditions Summary Report ( August 2006), a

Preservation Site Atlas ( August 2006), and a Restoration Site Atlas ( January 2007).

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

has evolved into the Bledsoe Creek Advisory Team ( BCAT) – including representatives

from the Town of Sparta, Alleghany County, the High Country COG, the Blue Ridge

RC& D, Alleghany Cooperative Extension and DWQ. A major goal of the BCAT is to use

the Bledsoe Creek Watershed Management Plan to help leverage funding for the imple-mentation

of local stormwater BMP projects and the development of a local watershed

education program.

• Completed Phase IV of the Bald Creek LWP ( French Broad 06010108) – In July 2007,

EEP staff and Equinox Environmental completed a year- long effort to conduct site

evaluations and landowner outreach for high- priority stream and wetland restoration pro-jects

within the 77- square mile expanded Bald Creek study area in Yancey County. This

effort proved to be a major challenge due to local topographic and land- use constraints.

In spite of these challenges, several stream- restoration project sites are moving forward

with willing landowners.

New Local Watershed Planning Initiatives

EEP identified four new Local Watershed Planning initiatives based on forecasted NCDOT

mitigation needs and an environmental analysis of affected catalog units. LWPs are needed in

the Catawba 02/ 03, Little Tennessee 02/ 04, Yadkin 01 and Yadkin 05 in FY 2007- 2008.

EEP watershed planning staff is using the results of the Catawba RBRP update to identify wa-tersheds

in the Catawba 03 Service Area to initiate watershed- based planning. Details on

where to start the plan and the plan activities are still being developed. Once initiated, one of

the goals of this plan is to contribute wetland restoration projects that will help meet the miti-gation

needs of Catawba 03.

A watershed- assessment effort in the Yadkin 01 CU is necessary in order to develop finding

stream- mitigation projects within high- priority local watersheds in the upper Yadkin River

basin. The Surry County Natural Resource Conservation Service ( NRCS) and the Soil and

Water Conservation District ( SWCD) will act as local partners in this effort, and the field as-sessment

and site identification will focus on stream reaches within the Fisher River and Ara-rat

River watersheds. The effort is tentatively scheduled to begin by early 2008 and to finish

by December 2008.

Based upon preliminary fieldwork and watershed analysis, EEP intends to develop a Local

Watershed Plan in the Lower Yadkin Basin ( Yadkin 05) that will focus on the Goose Creek

and Crooked Creek watersheds, which are in adjacent HUs and flow to the Rocky River in the

Yadkin basin. Goose Creek is on the state list of impaired waters due to high fecal coliform

levels, and serves as habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter ( Lasmigona decorata), a federally

endangered freshwater mussel. Crooked Creek is also impaired due to poor biological health

and has experienced problems with flooding and stormwater runoff. This Local Watershed

Planning effort will build upon prior planning efforts and work to improve water quality and

the biological conditions in these watersheds, while generating mitigation credit to meet the

needs of NCDOT.

In response to increasing mitigation needs and high priority aquatic resources, EEP intends to

24

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

initiate a LWP in Little Tennessee 02. This is largest CU in the Little Tennessee River basin,

and it is habitat for numerous endangered, threatened, and rare aquatic species. Recently,

drastic declines in two federally listed species— the Appalachian elktoe ( Alasmidonta rave-neliana),

a freshwater mussel, and the spotfin chub ( Cyprinella monacha), a fish — have been

noted. The basin is undergoing drastic change in land use, from timber and agricultural uses

to residential use. The N. C. Wildlife Resource Commission ( WRC) and U. S. Fish and Wild-life

Service ( USFWS) are also focusing efforts within LT02 and have made the 23- mile sec-tion

of the Little Tennessee River that stretches from Lake Emory in Franklin to Lake Fontana

a high priority for research and conservation. EEP is collaborating with USFWS to assess

aquatic organism barriers and develop a prioritized list of culverts, fords, and other crossings

in need of repair or replacement. EEP will propose the repair or replacement of barriers for

non- traditional mitigation. These partnerships and research efforts will support the larger

local watershed planning effort and help identify mitigation opportunities within the CU.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

A primary purpose of EEP is to produce watershed- restoration projects ( stream, wetland, stormwater

and other BMPs) that meet regulatory mitigation requirements with respect to type, quality and com-pliance

schedule in the most cost- effective way, while maximizing environmental return for North

Carolina. The maximization of environmental returns from implemented projects is achieved through

the watershed approach.

EEP utilizes DBB and FD contracting methods to realize projects. Both of these project delivery

methods have been, and continue to be, critical to EEP’s success in meeting mitigation needs

throughout the state.

Design- Bid- Build

When DBB projects are used to meet mitigation needs through watershed planning, EEP staff

are charged with implementing projects identified and listed in the LWP project atlas. In areas

where Local Watershed Plans have not been completed but mitigation needs exist, EEP im-plementation

and planning staff team to implement projects that are consistent with the RBRP

Plan.

A typical DBB project requires development and staff oversight of GIS research, landowner

outreach, technical site- assessment review, project- budget development, property owner ne-gotiations,

design scoping, environmental resource technical report review and approval, draft

restoration plan review and approval, final restoration plan review and approval, pre-construction

bid monitoring, construction award participation, invoice approval, change- or-der

approval, construction site visits and inspection, initial construction walkthrough, final

construction walk- through and acceptance, monitoring- report review, monitoring field visits,

maintenance field visits and inspection, regulatory- review coordination, database manage-ment,

and product- delivery schedule adherence.

Full Delivery 25

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

In areas where FD procurement is used to meet program mitigation needs, providers are en-couraged

through the project technical- rating system to locate restoration activities in water-sheds

targeted through the RBRP process. FD projects require that EEP staff review technical

proposal evaluations, conduct field- site assessment of proposals, review and comment on res-toration

plans, and conduct multiple on- site construction reviews, monitoring report review

and field verification. EEP staff responsibilities for oversight and review of FD projects have

increased in the last fiscal year in response to regulatory agency requests that EEP provide

greater assurances regarding project selection and implementation.

SYNERGIES BETWEEN WATERSHED PLANNING AND PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

The foundation of comprehensive watershed restoration and protection is watershed planning. As

EEP matures, more and more of the program’s restoration projects are correlated to watershed goals.

While a large amount of the mitigation credits currently managed by EEP are reflective of watershed

plans and targets, not all of the projects in the program are synchronized in this manner due to a num-ber

of factors. The following project characteristics contribute to the existence of projects outside of

watershed targets:

Projects Developed Pre- EEP: Twenty- eight percent of projects that EEP is managing were par-tially

developed or initiated by NCDOT prior to the establishment of the program and were

not based on the program’s watershed approach.

Advanced Mitigation MOA Timeline Requirement: The Tri- Party MOA required the advance-ment

of mitigation based on aggressive compliance deadlines which did not allow time for

identification of watershed priorities prior to implementation of restoration projects. Devel-oping

watershed plans for all target areas would have resulted in permitting delays for

NCDOT transportation projects, and resulted in non- compliance with MOA requirements.

Reduction in MOA Program Targets: NCDOT reduced mitigation impact projections in a

number of areas where EEP had begun project identification based on watershed planning.

The reductions were due to improved forecasting methods, use of on- site mitigation in lieu of

off- site mitigation included in NCDOT’s mitigation order, and decreased funding for road

projects resulting in transportation projects being delayed beyond the projection timeline. The

combination of these factors has resulted in some watershed plans being placed on hold until

mitigation is needed in these areas.

Project Trends in Relation to Watershed Priorities

Through careful strategic planning, EEP has increased and will continue to increase the number of

EEP projects developed through watershed based plans. Factors supporting the increase in planning-based

projects include the following:

1. The initial demand rush, based on the original MOA, has been met and more time is avail-able

to conduct planning in advance of compliance timing requirements.

2. The MOA has been amended and the new timelines allow more time for planning;

26

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

3. Many watershed plans are now in place and will be utilized over the next 10 years;

4. NCDOT has refined its projections such that plans are unlikely to be developed in areas

where there will be major reductions in mitigation needs;

5. LWPs have been refined to deliver better projects;

6. EEP was restructured to better integrate planning and implementation which resulted in

more efficient project development.

As shown by the trend analysis below, statistics demonstrate an increasing congruence between wa-tershed

planning and project implementation. Through careful strategic planning, EEP will continue

to promote increases in planning derived projects. Based on operational strategic planning, EEP fore-casts

that approximately 70 percent of the projects implemented by DBB in the next fiscal year will

be derived from LWPs. In areas where program reliance is on FD procurement or other initiatives

EEP will continue to seek greater congruence with RBRP targets.

Project Implementation

Planning Derived Projects as a Percentage of Total EEP Projects

291.8.6 268.8.8 3150 2178.. 24 30

20

0

20

40

60

80

100

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

% of Total Pro-

TLW

LWP

Figure 6 displays the per- Figure 6

centage of total EEP pro-jects

( NCDOT, WRP and

EEP initiated) derived

from the watershed- based

planning process.

Figure 5 displays the per-centage

of EEP and WRP

initiated ( EEP Source)

projects derived from the

watershed- based planning

process.

Planning Derived Projects as a Percentage of EEP Source Projects

0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

% of EEP Source Projects

28.6

45.5

42.1

57.1

64.7

28.6

27.3

42.1

17.9 11.8

20

40

60

80

100

TLW

LWP

Figure 5

27

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

Statistics by Mitigation Type

EEP is currently providing management and oversight for 464 watershed restoration and enhance-ment

projects ( excluding HQP). These projects include those that were partially developed or initi-ated

by NCDOT and the Wetlands Restoration Program ( WRP), and transferred to EEP, along with

projects that were generated by EEP since it’s inception in 2003. The distribution of projects in the

program is as follows:

• NCDOT transferred 107 DBB projects and 23 FD projects ( 130 projects total). Forty of

these projects required additional implementation and development ( i. e., feasibility, con-ceptual

to final restoration plan, site acquisition). The remainder of the projects were

transferred at some stage of monitoring.

• EEP has initiated and instituted nearly 160 projects ( excluding HQP) through the DBB

program. An additional 77 DBB projects were inherited from the WRP.

• In addition to the 23 NCDOT FD projects that EEP is managing, EEP has instituted an-other

99 FD projects.

A summary of the distribution of wetland and stream credits ( i. e. restoration, enhancement or preser-vation)

for EEP Tier 1 projects ( instituted and designer assigned) is presented in Figures 8- 11. These

data are presented separately for the DBB and FD components of the mitigation program and provide

the percentage of projects that have resulted from the watershed planning process.

The figures exclude projects that were transferred from NCDOT and do not include HQP sites since

these projects were identified outside of the watershed- planning process based on Ecoregion service

areas.

Figures 8 and 9 show the distribution of DBB Projects throughout the state and demonstrate that 76

percent of stream credits and 65 percent of wetland credits have been implemented in EEP planning

areas. This is a three- percent increase for stream credits from 2006 and a decrease of seven percent

for wetland credits.

Figure 8. Distribution of Stream Credits derived from

DBB Projects.

Design Bid Build and Non HQP Stream Credits

40%

36%

24%

TLW

LWP

Outside TLW/ LWP

Design Bid Build and Non HQP Wetland Credits

56%

9%

35%

TLW

LWP

Outside TLW/ LWP

Figure 9. Distribution of Wetland Credits derived

from DBB Projects.

Figure 8 Figure 9

28

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

Figures 10 and 11 represent the distribution of FD stream and wetland credits. These figures indi-cate

that 38 percent of stream credits and 44 percent of wetland credits have been implemented in

EEP planning areas. This represents an increase of six percent for planning- derived stream credits

and reflects EEP’s efforts to better align FD projects with the watershed- planning process. The per-centage

wetland credits developed within targeted watersheds did not change since last fiscal year.

Additional Watershed Management Synergies Generated Through Planning

Benefits of watershed planning reach beyond compensatory- mitigation requirements. By sharing

the plans, others can use the information contained within the plans to increase environmental

benefits and assist in local decision- making. The following information highlights areas where

EEP’s planning efforts have resulted in actions beyond the implementation of restoration for miti-gation

credit.

• A local planning group consisting of representatives from Chapel Hill, Carrboro and the

DWQ Nonpoint Source Program are focusing on management of stormwater in one of

the priority areas identified in the Bolin Creek LWP. Through a Clean Water Manage-ment

Trust Fund grant to the partners, additional fieldwork was completed to assess im-pacts

on streams. The group is seeking additional grant funding to implement projects,

such as stormwater BMPs to eliminate impairments to the stream.

• Watershed Education for Communities and Officials ( NCSU) partnered with EEP on

two stakeholder initiatives and a BMP demonstration field trip to Craven County.

• The Upper Neuse River Basin Association ( UNRBA) completed Phases I- III of the Lick

Creek watershed plan with funding from an EPA grant. EEP is now contracting with a

private consultant to develop the Project Atlas based upon UNRBA’s planning efforts,

and is contracting with UNRBA to conduct landowner outreach.

Figure 11. Distribution of Wetland Credits derived

from FD Projects.

Full Delivery Stream Credits

34%

4%

62%

TLW

LWP

Outside TLW/ LWP

Full Delivery Wetland Credits

39%

5%

56%

TLW

LWP

Outside TLW/ LWP

Figure 10. Distribution of Stream Credits derived from

FD Projects.

Figure 10 Figure 11

29

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

• The Lower Creek Advisory Team ( LCAT) has formed a partnership with stakeholders to

carry out activities to restore and protect Lower Creek and its tributaries, implementing

recommendations named in the Lower Creek Watershed Management Plan. In March

2007, the LCAT applied to the Clean Water Management Trust Fund for $ 310,000 to con-struct

a stormwater wetland in Lenoir; this grant bid was successful, and the City of Le-noir,

N. C. State University and the LCAT are working together to implement this project.

In addition, EEP has presented the Lower Creek Watershed Management Plan recommen-dations

for county and local government ordinance and programs to the Burke and Cald-well

County Commissions, the Lenoir City Council, and the Gamewell Town Council.

Each governing body voted unanimously to endorse these recommendations as guidance

for future rule- making and program development.

• For the Peachtree- Martins Creek LWP effort, EEP has been modeling changes in land use

and resulting pollutant loads. Local stakeholders identified ordinances that are not cur-rently

in place but are needed to protect the rich natural and cultural resources of eastern

Cherokee County. Data generated as part of the LWP effort will be used by local stake-holders

to educate local government decision- makers about actions they can take to pro-tect

local resources.

• In Brunswick County, the N. C. Coastal Federation partnered with EEP to address water

quality issues in the Lockwoods Folly River. Using data, water quality models and build-out

predictors from the Lockwoods Folly River LWP, the group was able to support rec-ommendations

to improve water quality in Brunswick County. Eight strategies were pre-sented

to the Brunswick County commissioners, who voted to implement the strategies

and hire a water quality specialist to carry out the stakeholder's recommendations.

• EEP continues to pursue non- traditional wetland mitigation credit in the Catawba

03050103 CU. The effort will update work previously completed and will result in several

pilot site opportunities. The purpose of this study is to present for consideration a flexible

mitigation approach that would allow EEP to receive credit for implementing BMPs that

could provide similar benefits of a natural wetland in a watershed where traditional wet-land

restoration opportunities are severely limited.

• CGIA completed a study to assess methods to measure impervious surfaces using remote

sensing techniques to estimate impervious surface cover at six locations in the State.

CGIA provided EEP with a report on the findings. Three different methods were com-pared,

providing different degrees of quality corresponding to different levels of costs.

The study demonstrated ways in which lower- cost methods might be substituted for

higher- cost methods to provide useful measures of an important indicator of priorities for

restoration, as well as an important consideration for restoration design.

• In the spring of 2007, EEP partnered with USFWS, WRC, NCDOT and others to perform

a collaborative study on fish passage in the Needmore area of the Little Tennessee River

Basin. This study will identify culverts, fords and other stream crossings that block the

movement of fish. From this study, a prioritized list of crossings that should be replaced

or repaired will be developed. EEP will develop recommendations to use the replacement

30

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

of barriers to fish passage as non- traditional mitigation.

• EEP adopted an MOU developed by the Wetlands Unit of DWQ and EEP Watershed

Planning, resulting in wetland identification and classification in two LWP areas

( Lockwoods Folly and Fishing Creek). An EPA grant was provided to DWQ for the

identification.

31

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

32

Intentional blank page.

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

MONITORING

The EEP Monitoring Section is focused on four primary areas: 1) oversight of annual monitoring for

all restoration projects; 2) assistance to the Design/ Construction Section with maintenance for all resto-ration

projects; 3) data management and analysis; and 4) project and program improvement.

For FY 2006- 07 EEP monitored 143 ( both DBB and FD) restoration and enhancement projects

( Appendix K). There were 27 wetland restoration projects and 66 stream restoration projects; 32 pro-jects

contained both wetland and stream components; and there were 18 riparian- buffer restoration pro-jects.

These projects totaled 6,701 acres of wetland restoration, enhancement and preservation,

678,584 linear feet of stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation, and 867.8 acres of riparian-buffer

restoration.

Monitoring reports are located on the EEP Web site.

Monitoring Results and Trends

In FY 2006- 07, the EEP monitoring group reviewed and edited annual Monitoring Reports for 50 pro-jects

with stream- restoration components. This is approximately double the number of stream- project

reports that were reviewed in FY 2005- 06.

Annual geomorphic data of four types was reviewed and evaluated: channel dimension ( cross-sections),

profile ( thalweg surveys), substrate ( particle size distributions), and engineered structure sta-bility.

The assessment of overall channel “ success” was based on the consideration of these four met-rics.

However, it is important to keep in mind that natural stream systems are dynamic, and likely ever-changing,

even if at slow rates or in “ fits and starts” due to major storms or droughts. As such, any an-nual

determination of channel “ success” is a difficult one.

For FY 2006- 07, 88 percent ( 44 of 50) stream projects were determined to be “ currently successful.”

This compares with 83 percent ( 19 of 23) projects in FY 2005- 06. Of the remaining six projects that

were “ currently unsuccessful,” three have been repaired as of this reporting, and repair planning has

begun on the other three.

Reports have also indicated a 20- percent increase in success of vegetative criteria. In the FY 2005- 06,

vegetative success was reported approximately at 61 percent, while for FY 2006- 07 ( 2006 growing

season) vegetative success is at 81 percent.

Project Closeout Activity

Once the required monitoring period is complete and a project is deemed successful, EEP staff submit a

summary report to the Program Assessment and Consistency Group- Technical Committee ( PACG- TC)

for review. The summary report is a synthesis and distillation of seven years worth of project data de-signed

to provide an overall performance summary and rationale for close- out. The purpose of close-out

is to lock in project credit yield with the regulatory agencies. Eleven projects were submitted and

approved for regulatory close- out by the monitoring unit during this fiscal year, including the pro-gram’s

first stream project ( Appendix K). The 11 projects accounted for 9,372 linear feet of stream res-toration,

enhancement and preservation; 1,723.7 acres of wetland restoration, enhancement and preser-vation;

and 36.3 acres of riparian buffer restoration.

VI: Monitoring and Research

33

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

Project Improvement Activities and Initiatives Related to the Stream Restoration

The EEP Monitoring section has initiated the following improvements concerning the assessment and

maintenance of stream projects:

• Advancing standardization of data collection and reporting

Through the creation and revision of process documents and guidance documents

( templates) for mitigation plans and monitoring reports, EEP has continued to make ad-vances

in the standardization of data collection. These initiatives are providing a concen-trated

data format that favors tabular and graphical representations of project data over nar-ratives.

This has included significant development of policy and procedures documents that

are designed to redefine the transition from construction to monitoring, whereby monitoring

contractors are introduced earlier in the process to collect the projects baseline data, maxi-mizing

temporal consistency. Staff has also initiated the development of draft decision

framework for monitoring of restoration projects. The framework provides information that

leads to targeted, more cost- effective monitoring.

• Continued development of visual stream- assessment protocol for EEP monitoring

EEP monitoring staff has continued to refine the methods, criteria and plan- view depiction

of stream condition during the monitoring phase, and is working toward an analogous ap-proach

for pre- construction phases of EEP projects for the purpose of contrasting and com-paring

project conditions through time.

• Continued construction of electronic data histories for EEP project inventory

Approximately 160 documents, document components and data deliverables spanning mul-tiple

formats have been identified to comprise the electronic file history of each EEP pro-ject.

This electronic document and data inventory has been formulated with many essential

applications and many end users in mind, including monitoring, analysis ( project and pro-gram

scale), research, regulatory close- out, and project stewardship. Prior to the introduc-tion

of recent standards documents by EEP’s Monitoring and Design and Construction

units, certain data were not provided during project development or were not provided in

formats compatible with end- user needs. The population of this data inventory/ matrix

through acquisition and integration of data in electronic formats from earlier EEP projects

has been a continuing time- intensive, yet essential, effort.

• Technical review of program plan documents and reports

EEP stream- monitoring personnel conducted detailed technical reviews of approximately 50

design plan documents and approximately 60 monitoring reports for stream- related compo-nents.

• Initial development of project maintenance thresholds

The EEP Monitoring section has assisted in the development of a project maintenance ma-trix

to track project condition across the major categories of channel, vegetation and prop-erty.

During the review of annual Monitoring reports, channel maintenance needs ( or po-tential

needs) are documented. Subsequently, monitoring staff made a series of site visits to

validate reporting, and to determine if repair thresholds had been exceeded. This work has

been done in close cooperation with EEP’s maintenance engineer.

34

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

• Committee involvement for addressing specific program needs

Stream- monitoring personnel have participated in the ongoing development of protocols

and solutions for specific program needs including:

◊ Functional currency approaches to compare BMPs and natural- systems restoration

for the purpose of developing a stream- BMP crediting system.

◊ Participated in the development of assessment approaches and standards to better

ensure that organism passage is protected as part of restoration efforts, and to exam-ine

passage augmentation independent of stream- restoration projects as a potential

source of alternative mitigation.

◊ Participated in the development of a multi- agency stream- functional- assessment

method for the purpose of categorizing stream impacts for mitigation purposes.

• Contractor orientation and training

Monitoring personnel presented information and guidance to members of the consulting

community eligible for contracting under EEP’s DBB program.

Vegetation Success.

Vegetation success is paramount to ensuring project success. EEP has taken the following ef-forts

to improve documentation and provide guidance for monitoring and reporting vegetation

success.

• Vegetation Template Revision:

As part of an ongoing effort to improve project documentation and success, the vegeta-tion

portion of several project document templates have been updated, including: Envi-ronmental

Resources Technical Report ( ERTR), Mitigation Plan, Restoration Plan, Final

Design, and Monitoring Report documents. Collectively, the revised documents will

complement each other by building on a base of information that begins at project in-ception

and continues through the project close- out phase. Forthcoming revisions will

not only improve the functionality of each document, but will also eliminate redundancy

of format and effort on the part of EEP contractors.

• Vegetation Management/ Easement Maintenance

Efforts have been initiated by Monitoring staff to produce a new EEP guidance docu-ment

that will outline program requirements for easement maintenance. Contracts for

vegetation- driven maintenance are becoming increasingly necessary due to a number of

issues associated primarily with easement- encroachment, low planted stem survival

rates, and exotic invasive plant infestations. Once implemented, the new guidance will

serve as a basis for easement management agreements between EEP and various entities

already involved in ongoing vegetation maintenance adjacent to the program’s mitiga-tion

projects, such as parks, golf courses, and greenways. The new document will also

become an integral part of a novel approach toward maintenance contracts intended to

correct various vegetation problems that may result in credit reduction. This approach

differs from traditional EEP maintenance contracts by incorporating relatively small

amounts of preventative measures at numerous project sites into one contract. The new

contract may include: replanting, installation of easement boundary markers, herbicide

treatments, installation/ removal of tree shelters, and pruning.

35

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

• Vegetation Monitoring

Implementation of the Carolina Vegetation Survey- EEP Protocol for Recording Vegeta-tion

( Lee, et al., 2006), has continued under an EEP requirement for all new projects to

utilize the new method as outlined in the EEP Mitigation Plan template. To facilitate

this transition from numerous uncoordinated vegetation- monitoring methods to a refined

data management system that complies with current scientific and pending federal

guidelines, a workshop focused on vegetation monitoring was conducted by CVS and

EEP staff in June 2007. During this two day workshop, all active On- call firms and FD

providers were given comprehensive training necessary for all aspects of applying the

protocol, from mitigation- plan development to data delivery. Consequently, an increas-ing

percentage of all the 2007 EEP projects will have vegetation monitoring data that is

processed, summarized, and delivered in an efficient automated manner.

Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Roberts, Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. ( 2006)

CVS- EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation. ( http:// cvs. bio. unc. edu/ methods. htm)

PROJECT AND PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT RESEARCH

During the FY 2006- 07, EEP has continued the research program begun in FY 2005- 06. The goal of

the research program is to improve EEP effectiveness by helping to increase project success and reduce

costs by:

• Improving cost- effective selection among project alternatives and design options within a

watershed context;

• Increasing project success;

• Reducing maintenance costs;

• Improving mitigation ratios; and

• Reducing monitoring costs through use of functional methods and other programmatic im-provements.

EEP research works through partnerships with state, local and federal agencies and universities. The

research program encompasses three broad focus areas: functional assessment, catchment studies and

restoration methods.

Functional Assessment

Functional- assessment research projects focus on methods to 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 include:

• Carolina vegetation survey ( UNC, R. Peet and NCSU, T. Wentworth)

• Stream geomorphology reference database ( NCSU, G. Jennings)

• Multivariate evaluation of vegetation success ( ECU, R. Rheinhardt; part of a coopera-tive

agreement with EPA Region IV)

Projects completed during FY 2006- 07 include:

• Urban stream nitrogen uptake study ( Duke, E. Bernhardt)

• Biogeochemical function of restored coastal wetlands ( Duke, E. Bernhardt)

• Five Mile Branch herpetological survey, Iredell County ( M. Dorcas, Davidson College)

• Urban stream reference and outer coastal plain assessment ( ECU, M. Brinson).

36

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

Catchment Studies

Catchment studies include projects that demonstrate the effects that restoration projects have on

water quality, habitat and hydrology at large scales. These studies will help in the selection

among project alternatives to better meet programmatic watershed improvement goals. During

FY 2006- 07, EEP began catchment studies of:

• Big Harris Creek, Cleveland County ( NCSU, G. Jennings and DWQ);

• Survey of macrobenthos in restored coastal plain streams ( NCSU, G. Jennings);

• Heath Dairy, Randolph County ( NCSU, G. Jennings, and DWQ); and

• Unnamed tributary to Crab Creek, Alleghany County ( DWQ).

Restoration Methods

By studying restoration methods, EEP will be able to improve the success of restoration pro-jects,

limit the need for maintenance, and improve cost- effectiveness.

Ongoing or new projects in this area include:

• Carolina Vegetation Survey ( UNC, R. Peet and NCSU, T. Wentworth);

• North River Farms Phase II monitoring, Carteret County ( NCSU, R. Evans);

• Ripshin Creek, Ashe County ( NCSU, G. Jennings); and

Dye Branch BMP and stream- restoration study, Mooresville, Iredell County ( NCSU,

B. Hunt and G. Jennings, and DWQ ).

Projects completed during FY 06- 07 include:

• North River Farms Phase II construction, Carteret County ( N. C. Coastal Federa-tion);

and Sand Bed Streams Sediment Study ( Buck Engineering; part of a coopera-tive

agreement with EPA Region IV).

EEP is also collaborating with regulatory agencies to develop innovative approaches to mitiga-tion

and to develop and implement functional assessment methods. Projects include:

• White Oak LWP ( with WPPI and ECU, M. Brinson);

• aquatic organism passage study ( with US F& WS);

• wetlands functional assessment ( NC WAM) implementation ( with DWQ, DCM,

USACE and EPA)

• stream functional assessment development ( with DWQ and other NCDENR agen-cies,

USACE and EPA).

In addition, monitoring staff are also coordinating with in- state academic institutions related to

stream functional assessment on the following activities:

• Collaboration with North Carolina State University to develop a stream restoration ref-erence

reach database. Numerous channel reference reaches have been identified, sur-veyed,

and utilized in restoration designs in North Carolina. These data should be com-piled

and available for query, analysis, and for future design work. Additionally, the

success of completed projects should be measured by comparing against statistics from

reference reaches.

• Collaboration with Western Carolina University ( Jerry Miller) on a study to identify

Geomorphically Suitable Sites for Stream Restoration. The study will focus on the

37

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

Southern Appalachian and Piedmont Physiographic provinces and will produce a rubric-type

model to identify stream segments that are likely to be highly unstable, and thus not

good candidates for restoration projects.

• Collaboration with the University of North Carolina ( Joel Sholtes) on a study to docu-ment

effects of stream restoration projects on hydrologic function ( flood attenuation).

Additional research goals for the FY 2007- 08 include:

• Develop grant applications with researchers in academia and sister agencies to

broaden project scope to reduce burden of research costs and increase partnerships.

• Continue to establish linkages and improve collaboration and cooperation between

the DOT Research and Analysis Branch and the EEP research program; and

• Continue to develop and assess new approaches for non- traditional mitigation; and

continue to define ways in which EEP will meet its commitment to implement the

N. C. Division of Marine Fisheries Coastal Habitat Protection Plan.

For further information on EEP research, contact Kevin H. Miller, EEP Research and Grants Coordina-tor

( kevin. miller@ ncmail. net or 252- 916- 6576).

38

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Annual Report 2006— 2007

High Quality Preservation Partnerships

Following through on MOA transition requirements, in FY 2006- 07 partnerships between local land

trusts, state agencies and EEP protected more than 2,300 acres of land on 29 HQP sites throughout the

state. These sites focused on conservation of stream corridors bordering designated significant aquatic

habitats in the Upper Tar, Uwharrie, and Deep River watersheds of the Piedmont. In addition to more

common aquatic species, the Tar spiny mussel, Cape Fear Shiner, and dwarf wedge mussel live in the

waters of these tracts.

• The Natural Heritage Trust Fund partnered

with EEP and the Plant Conservation Pro-gram

to fund the purchase of land harboring

rare plant and animal populations in the

Eno, Fisher, and Green River watersheds.

The Uwharrie River Bingham acquisition

protected nearly eight miles of nationally

significant aquatic habitat along the river

and its tributaries. The Land Trust for Cen-tral

North Carolina received a donation

from private donors to fund acquisition of

the adjacent uplands. This purchase pro-tected

seven species of globally rare mus-sels

as well as scenic views along this popu-lar

canoe route. The site was identified in

the Uwharrie River Corridor Plan.

• Private landowners agreed to permanently

protect 11 additional tracts in the Upper Tar

River watershed.

• The Fisher River / Fisher Peak acquisition

protected water supplies and a natural area

of state significance in the Fisher River wa-tershed.

• Five parcels along the Deep River and

Drowning Creek drainages were placed in

permanent conservation easement. The

Deep River harbors the Federally Endan-gered

Cape Fear Shiner. Tributaries to

Drowning Creek are designated as Water

Supply II waters.

VII: High Quality Preservation Partnerships

Photo courtesy Tar River Land Conservancy

Photo courtesy Piedmont Land Conservancy

Photo courtesy Sandhills Area Land Trust

39

Appendix A1. MOU Stream and Wetland In- lieu Fee Program Payments and Requirements

Project Name

DWQ Cert.

No. USACE Action ID Payment Date Stream

Riparian

Wetland

Non Riparian

Wetland

Coastal

Marsh Payment Amount

Brandywine Subdivision 2006- 0285 200520821 7 / 3 / 2006 516 0 0 0 $ 113,004.00

Avinger Lane Realignment and

Extension 2006- 0695 7 / 5 / 2006 246 0 0 0 $ 53,874.00

Seagrass, LLC 200632079- 127 7 / 5 / 2006 0 0 0.02 0 $ 3,280.75

Vineyard West 2006- 0512 200401136 7 / 5 / 2006 0 0 0.21 0 $ 3,280.75

Moores Chapel Commercial &

Residential 2005- 1854 200531006 7 / 5 / 2006 681 0 0 0 $ 149,139.00

Fayetteville Road Assemblage 2006- 0715 200620268 7 / 6 / 2006 320 0 0.11 0 $ 73,360.75

Flat Branch Elementary School 2005- 2162 200430773 7 / 7 / 2006 0 0 1.8 0 $ 26,246.00

Glenwood Crossings 2005- 2231 200521290 7 / 10/ 2006 316 0 0 0 $ 69,204.00

Wet Ash Swamp 200600849 7 / 11/ 2006 0 0 0.04 0 $ 3,280.75

Lockwood Folly 200600454 7 / 11/ 2006 0 0 0.2 0 $ 3,280.75

Loop Road Subdivision 2005- 1857 200421675 7 / 12/ 2006 209 0 0 0 $ 45,771.00

Cathie Urban Retirement Home 200632513146 7 / 13/ 2006 0 0 0.044 0 $ 3,280.75

River Lure 2006- 0405 200632199065 7 / 16/ 2006 114 0.26 0 0 $ 38,089.00

Holly Springs Retail Site 2006- 0002 200620291 7 / 19/ 2006 0 0 1 0 $ 13,924.00

Jim Brown Chrysler Dealership 2006- 0500 200630010 7 / 20/ 2006 268 0.41 0 0 $ 71,815.00

I- 85/ NC 73 Site, Carpenter

Commercial 2006- 0523 200630802 7 / 24/ 2006 0 0.5 0 0 $ 13,123.00

NC Railroad Company, Auburn

Sidings 2006- 0677 7 / 24/ 2006 319 0.4 0.21 0 $ 86,264.75

Twelve Oaks 2006- 0352 200633159 7 / 25/ 2006 395 0.25 0 0 $ 98,601.75

Judd Parkway Extension &

Southview Pointe 2005- 2254 200621012 7 / 27/ 2006 0 0.228 0 0 $ 6,561.50

Campus Square 200632627065 7 / 31/ 2006 0 0 0.25 0 $ 3,280.75

1208 Bonito Lane 2006- 0583 200501289 8 / 2 / 2006 0 0 0.116 0 $ 3,280.75

Hidden Lake 2006- 0658 200620803 8 / 4 / 2006 250 0.29 0 0 $ 67,873.00

Tim Smith Sunset Lot 2005- 0173 200510610 8 / 7 / 2006 0 0 0.16 0 $ 3,280.75

Anchor Medical Center 200633108010 8 / 7 / 2006 0 0 0.16 0 $ 3,481.00

Salisbury Shopping Center 2006- 1184 2006154205- 380 8 / 8 / 2006 0 1 0 0 $ 27,847.00

Ten- Ten Commons 2006- 0493 200632428292 8 / 8 / 2006 0 0.64 0 0 $ 20,885.25

2344 Sandfiddler Road 2006- 0953 200632696127 8 / 9 / 2006 0 0 0.18 0 $ 3,481.00

Perth Road Project 2006- 0280 8 / 10/ 2006 297 0 0 0 $ 65,043.00

Waterside Villages 2006- 0012 200610369 8 / 10/ 2006 0 0 0.15 0 $ 3,280.75

Waterstone Residential

Development 2005- 1967 200640351- 268 8 / 18/ 2006 584 0.288 0 0 $ 149,411.50

Cambridge Crossing 2005- 0908 200500875 8 / 21/ 2006 0 0 0.49 0 $ 6,561.50

Laurel Valley Subdivision 8 / 21/ 2006 20 0 0 0 $ 4,640.00

Governors Village 2005- 0810 200520149 8 / 22/ 2006 148 0.75 0 0 $ 55,221.25

Old Oaks at Belle Isle 2006- 0592 200632048- 127 8 / 23/ 2006 0 0 0.19 0 $ 3,481.00

Newbury Ridge 200632257- 063 8 / 23/ 2006 32 0.063 0 0 $ 14,385.75

104 Virginia Avenue 200632983- 065 8 / 25/ 2006 0 0 0 0.031 $ 34,808.75

Appendix A1. MOU Stream and Wetland In- lieu Fee Program Payments and Requirements

Project Name

DWQ Cert.

No. USACE Action ID Payment Date Stream

Riparian

Wetland

Non Riparian

Wetland

Coastal

Marsh Payment Amount

Oaks at Sippihaw 2006- 0761 200420686 8 / 25/ 2006 0 0.39 0 0 $ 13,123.00

Sandy Shores, Lot A 2005- 0410 200632069- 127 8 / 28/ 2006 0 0 0.2 0 $ 3,481.00

Chapel Ridge Subdivision 200521110 8 / 28/ 2006 298 0.499 0 0 $ 78,385.00

St. James Plantation, Lot 35 2006- 0132 200600502 8 / 30/ 2006 0 0 0.14 0 $ 3,280.75

Surf City WTP 2006- 1167 200501066 8 / 30/ 2006 0 0 0.4 0 $ 6,962.00

Birch Street: Lots 112R & 113R 2006696- 009 8 / 30/ 2006 0 0 0.5 0 $ 6,962.00

Burlington - Alamance Regional

Airport Runway 24 E 2005- 1711 200320418 8 / 31/ 2006 2,228 1.44 0 0 $ 527,301.00

Glenn Ford Property Access 2005- 2158 200610388 9 / 6 / 2006 0 0 0 0.24 $ 32,807.50

Haw Mountain, Mars Hill 2006- 1046 200632682- 357 9 / 8 / 2006 0 0.5 0 0 $ 13,923.50

Utley Creek WWTP Upgrade &

Expansion 2005- 1286 200420744 9 / 8 / 2006 806 0 0 0 $ 176,514.00

Clarendon Park 2006- 0932 2006 32868 065 9 / 11/ 2006 0 0.19 0 0 $ 6,961.75

DOT - US 17 ( Washington

Bypass) 2005- 0785 1999301143 9/ 19/ 2006 8,488 17.06 7.76 0 $ 2,416,599.50

Highcroft Village Subdivision 2002- 1169 200640419- 292 9 / 20/ 2006 0 0 0.3 0 $ 6,962.00

Louis- Stephens Drive 2006- 0770 200520451 9 / 26/ 2006 328 0.59 0 0 $ 91,516.50

White Oak Interceptor and Pump

Station 2006- 40250- 292 9 / 27/ 2006 0 0.5 0 0 $ 13,923.50

Copper Creek Subdivision 2006154192047 9 / 29/ 2006 70 0.24 0 0 $ 23,201.75

Providence Park 2006- 00857- 065 10/ 2 / 2006 0 0 0.17 0 $ 3,481.00

Scott Farms 2006- 00257 10/ 2 / 2006 0 0 0.463 0 $ 6,962.00

Wisteria Medical Office 2006- 40478- 065 10/ 6 / 2006 0 0.12 0 0 $ 6,961.75

Avon Sand Mine Expansion 2006- 1048 10/ 9 / 2006 0 0 4.75 0 $ 66,139.00

High Explosives Ordinance

Magazines 2005- 1785 200610044 10/ 9 / 2006 0 0 0.5 0 $ 6,561.50

Majestic Oaks 2006- 0843 2005- 01194 10/ 10/ 2006 270 0.09 0.203 0 $ 73,082.75

Woodlands Residential 2006- 0643 200520152 10/ 12/ 2006 424 0 0 0 $ 92,856.00

Lowe's of South Winston- Salem 2006- 1258 2006- 40931- 234 10/ 13/ 2006 300 0 0 0 $ 69,600.00

Novartis Holly Springs Site 2006- 1376 2006- 40023- 292 10/ 13/ 2006 395 0 0 0 $ 91,640.00

Turtle Creek, Lot 1/ Block 3A 2006- 1011 2006- 32985- 010 10/ 16/ 2006 0 0 0.14 0 $ 3,481.00

Sterling Farms Subdivision 2005- 1766 200500551 10/ 16/ 2006 0 0 0.5 0 $ 6,561.50

Lanvale Forest 2005- 1499 2005- 00332 10/ 17/ 2006 0 0 0.45 0 $ 6,962.00

Richmond Park Sec. 3- 5 at

Northridge Plantation 2005- 1956 200600289 10/ 18/ 2006 0 0 1.18 0 $ 17,405.00

Fort Bragg Hammond Hills

Neighborhood 2005- 0481 2006- 33104- 026 10/ 19/ 2006 104 0 0 0 $ 24,128.00

Forty Wade 2006- 0961 2006- 20546- 292 10/ 19/ 2006 504 0 0 0 $ 116,928.00

Green Oaks Parkway 1999- 0239 2006- 20193- 292 10/ 19/ 2006 1,014 1.44 0 0 $ 277,018.50

St James Plantation, Lot 1, Sec

6, Players Club 2006- 1314 10/ 20/ 2006 0 0 0.02 0 $ 3,481.00

Heritage Pines 2005- 0736 2005- 20456 10/ 23/ 2006 594 3.12 1.4 0 $ 249,196.75

Appendix A1. MOU Stream and Wetland In- lieu Fee Program Payments and Requirements

Project Name

DWQ Cert.

No. USACE Action ID Payment Date Stream

Riparian

Wetland

Non Riparian

Wetland

Coastal

Marsh Payment Amount

Hampstead Furniture 2005- 0291 200401248 10/ 26/ 2006 42 0.087 0 0 $ 16,705.75

Paradise Harbor 2006- 0799 2006- 30620 10/ 27/ 2006 235 0 0 0 $ 51,465.00

Riversound, Edenton 2006- 1245 2006- 32436- 121 11/ 1 / 2006 0 0 0.72 0 $ 10,443.00

Liberty Point Section 3 2006- 1537 2006- 40846- 047 11/ 1 / 2006 80 0 0 0 $ 18,560.00

Woodburn Crossing 2005- 0653 2006- 32297- 349 11/ 3 / 2006 230 0 0 0 $ 53,360.00

Moore County Airport 2000- 3565 2003- 00998 11/ 6 / 2006 840 0 3.74 0 $ 247,095.00

Belmont Reserve 2006- 0506 2006- 30826 11/ 9 / 2006 200 0 0 0 $ 46,400.00

243 Beech Street 2005- 1414 2005- 00229 11/ 13/ 2006 0 0.076 0 0 $ 6,961.75

7150 River Road 2006- 1571 2005- 688- 065 11/ 14/ 2006 0 0.0448 0 0 $ 6,961.75

Topsail High School Expansion 2006- 0065 2005- 01014 11/ 14/ 2006 0 0 5.12 0 $ 73,101.00

Davidson County Phase 2 Landfill 2006- 1577 2006- 41011- 229 11/ 21/ 2006 0 0.25 0 0 $ 6,961.75

Farm at Brunswick 2006- 41362- 010 11/ 29/ 2006 65 0 0 0 $ 15,080.00

Dare County Justice Facility:

Phase II 2006- 0946 2006- 32369- 128 12/ 1 / 2006 0 0 1.9 0 $ 27,848.00

Dawson Place Section 1 200600316 12/ 1 / 2006 87 0.092 0 0 $ 27,145.76

Apex Peakway 2006- 1151 2006- 40547- 292 12/ 1 / 2006 808 0 0 0 $ 187,456.00

Harbor Oaks, Lot 88 2006- 1464 2006- 40772- 010 12/ 4 / 2006 0 0.08 0 0 $ 6,961.75

Middle Creek Commons 2006- 1421 2006- 40446- 251 12/ 6 / 2006 0 0 0.94 0 $ 13,924.00

Mirror lake Estates 2005- 0007 2005- 30965 12/ 8 / 2006 385 0 0 0 $ 84,315.00

Lee County Middle School 2006- 1473 2006- 41076- 253 12/ 8 / 2006 0 0 0.325 0 $ 6,962.00

Greystone Subdivision 2006- 1160 2005- 20207- 292 12/ 12/ 2006 0 0.25 0 0 $ 6,961.75

Sunny Point Subdivision 200500579 12/ 14/ 2006 0 0 0.47 0 $ 6,962.00

Fort Bragg Brigade Combat Team

Complex 2005- 1455 200501095 12/ 19/ 2006 180 0 0 0 $ 41,760.00

Affies Oaks Subdivision, Lots

1& 2 2006- 1722 2006- 41471- 128 12/ 20/ 2006 0 0 0.15 0 $ 3,481.00

Westgate, Hoke County 2006- 0591 2006- 32565- 047 12/ 21/ 2006 0 0.262 0 0 $ 13,923.50

William Irvin Warren Property 200400692 12/ 27/ 2006 80 0 0 0 $ 17,520.00

Forsyth Country Club 2006- 0299 2006 41279 234 1 / 10/ 2007 130 0 0 0 $ 30,160.00

Henry Simpson Lane 2006- 1367 2006- 40637- 127 1 / 11/ 2007 0 0 0.18 0 $ 3,481.00

Swan Beach Lot 80 Sec 2 2006- 1422 2006- 40972- 127 1 / 16/ 2007 0 0 0.1 0 $ 3,481.00

Tideland EMC Housing 2006- 1233 2006- 40468- 148 1 / 22/ 2007 0 0 0.08 0 $ 3,481.00

Beachside Extension Lots 58 and

66 2002- 1157 2006- 41141- 148 1 / 22/ 2007 0 0 0.18 0 $ 3,481.00

Price Property/ BC Custom

Builders 2006- 1785 2007- 31- 128 1 / 24/ 2007 0 0 0.2 0 $ 3,481.00

Warner Lot Access 2002- 1157 2006- 41141- 148 1 / 30/ 2007 0 0 0.2 0 $ 3,481.00

Sheffield Farms 2006- 1615 200400174 1 / 30/ 2007 0 0.25 0 0 $ 6,961.75

Appendix A1. MOU Stream and Wetland In- lieu Fee Program Payments and Requirements

Project Name

DWQ Cert.

No. USACE Action ID Payment Date Stream

Riparian

Wetland

Non Riparian

Wetland

Coastal

Marsh Payment Amount

Tuscany 2006- 1333 2007276292 1 / 31/ 2007 0 0 0.288 0 $ 6,962.00

Olde Towne Site 2006- 0447 2006- 20287- 292 1 / 31/ 2007 300 0.4752 0 0 $ 83,523.50

The Hamptons 2006- 0062 200620801 2 / 2 / 2007 247 0 0 0 $ 57,304.00

Union County Public School " G"

Site 2006- 1085 2006- 41185- 390 2 / 6 / 2007 284 0 0 0 $ 65,888.00

Highway 17, 5 Tracts 2006- 0941 2006 32838 067 2 / 7 / 2007 0 0 0.82 0 $ 13,123.00

Wild Acres, Holly Springs 2006- 1214 2 / 8 / 2007 510 0.76 0 0 $ 146,167.00

Ridge at Kenneth Creek 2006- 1162 2006- 40878- 292 2 / 12/ 2007 0 0.5346 0 0 $ 20,885.25

Lemington 2006- 0059 200630385 2 / 12/ 2007 216 0 0 0 $ 50,112.00

West Clemmonsville Road

Extension 2006- 0868 2006- 32489- 234 2 / 12/ 2007 2,591 0.33 0 0 $ 615,035.50

Fleming Fields Subdivision 2006- 1738 2007- 620- 292 2 / 13/ 2007 0 0 0.288 0 $ 6,962.00

Olde Point, Lot 140 2007- 0057 2007- 123- 071 2 / 14/ 2007 0 0 0.066 0 $ 3,481.00

Lanier Landing Ditching Plan 2007- 0064 200763065 2 / 14/ 2007 0 0 0.172 0 $ 3,481.00

Villages at Turtle Creek Phase I 2006- 1274 200600208 2 / 14/ 2007 0 0 0.41 0 $ 6,962.00

Gregory Poole Subdivision 2006- 1833 200640213201 2 / 14/ 2007 0 0 0.97 0 $ 13,924.00

Quail Roost Subdivision 2006- 1829 2006- 40100- 067 2 / 14/ 2007 62 0 0.1884 0 $ 17,865.00

Joel Bennett Lot 8 Leisure

Shores 2006- 40766- 146 2 / 15/ 2007 0 0 0.2 0 $ 3,481.00

Glenn View Station 2006- 1013 2006- 40557 2 / 15/ 2007 0 0.26 0 0 $ 13,923.50

Waterford Estates 2006- 1731 2007- 440- 292 2 / 15/ 2007 0 0 0.512 0 $ 10,443.00

Zimmerman 2006- 1930 2007- 40- 128 2 / 21/ 2007 0 0 0.2 0 $ 3,481.00

Langston Ridge 2006- 1745 2006- 20660- 292 2 / 21/ 2007 0 0.42 0 0 $ 13,923.50

Willowick 2006- 1522 2006 40949 065 3 / 1 / 2007 72 0 0 0 $ 16,704.00

Nautical Greens Subdivision 2007- 0039 2007- 43- 065 3 / 6 / 2007 0 0 0.18 0 $ 3,481.00

Lenoir Wal- Mart 2006- 1179 200630760 3 / 6 / 2007 394 0 0 0 $ 91,408.00

1113 Bonito Lane 2006- 41785- 065 3 / 7 / 2007 0 0 0.12 0 $ 3,481.00

Barlett 2007- 0021 2006- 10734- 128 3 / 8 / 2007 0 0 0.02 0 $ 3,481.00

Moody Lake Business Park 2006- 1122 2006- 40061- 360 3 / 12/ 2007 237 0.45 0 0 $ 68,907.50

Vulcan Materials East Forsyth

Quarry 2006- 1712 2006- 41139- 234 3 / 12/ 2007 519 0 0 0 $ 120,408.00

Grand Oaks 2007- 0127 2007- 41034- 071 3 / 14/ 2007 52 0.05 0 0 $ 19,064.75

Islamic Center of Cary 2003- 0482 200420772 3 / 15/ 2007 0 0.25 0 0 $ 6,561.50

Morgan Creek Subdivision 2003- 1018 200420091 3 / 15/ 2007 292 0 0 0 $ 58,400.00

The Refuge at Drummond's Point 200510019 3 / 19/ 2007 0 0.75 0.51 0 $ 29,526.75

Cape Fear Crossing Subdivision 2005- 0345 200500246 3 / 20/ 2007 140 0.62 0 0 $ 53,365.25

Appendix A1. MOU Stream and Wetland In- lieu Fee Program Payments and Requirements

Project Name

DWQ Cert.

No. USACE Action ID Payment Date Stream

Riparian

Wetland

Non Riparian

Wetland

Coastal

Marsh Payment Amount

New Bern River Station

Subdivision 200610371 3 / 22/ 2007 0 0 0.16 0 $ 3,280.75

Rocky River Landing 2007- 0076 2007- 360- 313 3 / 22/ 2007 150 0.49 0 0 $ 48,723.50

Brookstone Pointe and Lands

End @ Brookstone 2007- 0322 2007- 195- 067 3 / 30/ 2007 168 0 0 0 $ 38,976.00

Edgemont Landing 2006- 1945 2007- 1102- 292 3 / 30/ 2007 178 0 0 0 $ 41,296.00

Renaissance Village 2005- 0208 3 / 30/ 2007 227 0.18 0 0 $ 56,274.50

Ridge Field at Middle Sound 2007- 0299 2005- 617- 065 4 / 2 / 2007 0 0 0.148 0 $ 3,481.00

Tidal Walk Subdivision 2006- 1943 200401082 4 / 2 / 2007 40 0.24 0 0 $ 16,241.75

Jackson Dunes, Lot 7 200511676 4 / 4 / 2007 0 0 0.14 0 $ 3,280.75

Jackson Dunes, Lot 6 200511675 4 / 4 / 2007 0 0 0.2 0 $ 3,280.75

Holiday Shores: Lot 7 2006- 4521 2006- 32355- 128 4 / 4 / 2007 0 0 0.2 0 $ 3,481.00

Holiday Shores, Lot 11 2006- 0834 200632248128 4 / 4 / 2007 0 0 0.22 0 $ 3,481.00

Holiday Shores: Lot 10 2006- 0805 2006- 32170- 128 4 / 4 / 2007 0 0 0.22 0 $ 3,481.00

Autumn Hall 2006- 0930 2006- 40204- 065 4 / 9 / 2007 68 0.115 0 0 $ 22,737.75

New Vermillion 2006- 0916 2006- 33063- 360 4 / 9 / 2007 222 0 0 0 $ 51,504.00

Bromley 2006- 1849 2006- 41599- 390 4 / 9 / 2007 300 0.5 0 0 $ 83,523.50

Cedarvale Farms 2006- 0101 200531042 4 / 9 / 2007 367 0 0 0 $ 85,144.00

Northwoods: Block O, Lot 1 200632175- 067 4 / 10/ 2007 0 0.198 0 0 $ 6,561.50

Wal- Mart Super Center # 4459- 00 2006- 0646 2007- 753- 264 4 / 10/ 2007 918 0 0.171 0 $ 216,457.00

Cramer Woods, Phase III 200630529 4 / 11/ 2007 285 0 0 0 $ 62,415.00

NC Railroad Powhatan Sidings 2006- 1394 200640540251 4 / 12/ 2007 0 0 2.88 0 $ 41,772.00

Research Park at Westfall 2005- 1065

2004- 9981703-

065 4 / 12/ 2007 312 0.88 0 0 $ 100,231.00

South Market Square Extension 200511654 4 / 17/ 2007 0 0 2 0 $ 26,246.00

Sunset Oaks, Phases 3, 6, 7 & 8 200620479 4 / 19/ 2007 0 0 0.156 0 $ 3,280.75

Barris 2006- 1846 2006- 32081- 128 4 / 23/ 2007 0 0 0.2 0 $ 3,481.00

Ballantyne South 2005- 1854 200630218 4 / 23/ 2007 0 1 0 0 $ 27,847.00

Sunset Ridge Subdivision 2005- 0805 200500323 4 / 26/ 2007 0 0 0.788 0 $ 13,123.00

3209 Mill Landing Road 200511905 5 / 2 / 2007 0 0 0.08 0 $ 3,280.75

Lot 65 Arboretum ( 738 Alyssum

Ave) 200500443- 010 5 / 2 / 2007 0 0.25 0 0 $ 6,961.75

South Wake Landfill 1993- 0818 2006- 20191- 292 5 / 2 / 2007 0 6.73 0.15 0 $ 191,448.25

Tanbridge Park 2007- 0042 20041069065 5 / 2 / 2007 41 0 0 0 $ 9,512.00

Green Tree Subdivision 2006- 1311 2006- 41246- 125 5 / 9 / 2007 0 0.09 0 0 $ 6,961.75

Juniper Creek 2007- 0158 2007- 900- 253 5 / 11/ 2007 0 0.46 0 0 $ 13,923.50

St James Plantation, Sec 1, Lot 3 2003- 1012 200301185MOD 5 / 15/ 2007 0 0 0.28 0 $ 6,962.00

Morris - Lot 67: Section 2 2006- 1093 200640469127 5 / 16/ 2007 0 0 0.2 0 $ 3,481.00

Appendix A1. MOU Stream and Wetland In- lieu Fee Program Payments and Requirements

Project Name

DWQ Cert.

No. USACE Action ID Payment Date Stream

Riparian

Wetland

Non Riparian

Wetland

Coastal

Marsh Payment Amount

Carriage Park Phase Two 2007- 0243 2006 41292 063 5 / 17/ 2007 0 0.66 0 0 $ 20,885.25

Whitewater Parkway 2005- 2113 200630294 5 / 22/ 2007 485 0 0 0 $ 112,520.00

Town of Swansboro - Wastewater

Treatment Plant 2004- 0385 200401197 5 / 23/ 2007 0 0.2 0 0 $ 6,961.75

Midwood Phase II ( Firth Court

Redevelopment) 2004- 1615 200530123 5 / 23/ 2007 0 0.82 0 0 $ 27,847.00

Optimist Club Road Site 2006- 1893 2006- 41665- 355 5 / 23/ 2007 299 0 0 0 $ 69,368.00

US 521 Landfill ( Foxhole) 2005- 0893 200531884 5 / 24/ 2007 0 2.1 0 0 $ 62,655.75

The Parks at Meadowview 2006- 0616 200620775 5 / 29/ 2007 500 0 0 0 $ 116,000.00

Charlotte Douglas Airport Parallel

Runway 2000- 1195 2006- 32521- 360 5 / 29/ 2007 9,626 0.432 0 0 $ 2,247,155.50

Hatteras Pines Subdivision, Lot

46 200610252 5 / 30/ 2007 0 0 0.18 0 $ 3,481.00

Beaman Lake Dam 2001- 1648 199821117 6 / 4 / 2007 0 3.8 0 0 $ 111,388.00

4802 Palmer Drive 2007- 0142 2007- 654- 128 6 / 4 / 2007 0 0 0.12 0 $ 3,481.00

Deerfield Lot 180 2006- 32872- 071 6 / 6 / 2007 0 0 0.0125 0 $ 3,481.00

Wiley Lot Access 2007- 0404 2007- 1225- 148 6 / 6 / 2007 0 0 0.14 0 $ 3,481.00

Reedy Creek Commons

Shopping Center 2006- 1652 200630076 6 / 13/ 2007 424 0 0 0 $ 98,368.00

Highlands Cove 1998- 1130 199831148 6 / 13/ 2007 802 0 0 0 $ 186,064.00

Helmsdale at Landfall 2006- 0197 20051184065 6 / 14/ 2007 0 0.181 0 0 $ 6,961.75

Murfreesboro Wastewater

Treatment Expansion 2006- 0064 200610392146 6 / 17/ 2007 0 1.969 0 0 $ 55,694.00

River Bluffs Subdivision: Phase

VIII 2006- 0920 200641851125 6 / 18/ 2007 0 0.15 0 0 $ 6,961.75

Beaver Creek Parkway Permit

Modification 2006- 0290 200620374 6 / 18/ 2007 0 0.344 0 0 $ 13,923.50

Alligator Lake Hunt Club 2004- 2020 6 / 20/ 2007 0 0 0.2 0 $ 3,481.00

LaGrange Subdivision Section 1 2007- 0134 2007- 312- 026 6 / 21/ 2007 0 0.798 0 0 $ 27,847.00

Cape Hatteras Landing 2006- 1644 2006- 41111- 128 6 / 26/ 2007 0 0 0.2 0 $ 3,481.00

Amberly PPD 2005- 1321 200520319 6 / 28/ 2007 152 0.18 0 0 $ 42,225.75

TOTALS 45,380 60.3166 52.7009 0.271 $ 13,023,860.01

Appendix A2. Riparian Buffer In Lieu Fee Mitigation Program Payments and Requirements

Project Name

DWQ Cert.

No. Payment Date Inner Buffer Outer Buffer

Payment

Amount

Brandywine Subdivision 2006- 0285 7 / 3 / 2006 15,786 0 $ 15,154.56

75 Pecan Lane, Lot # 18 2006- 0399 7 / 3 / 2006 0 1092 $ 1,048.32

Glenwood Crossings 2005- 2231 7 / 10/ 2006 4,875 2000 $ 6,600.00

Neuse River Parallel Interceptor 2006- 0856 7 / 20/ 2006 43,563 0 $ 41,820.48

NC Railroad Company, Auburn

Sidings 2006- 0677 7 / 24/ 2006 43,191 8952 $ 50,057.28

Brook Drive, Raleigh 2005- 0966 7 / 27/ 2006 0 300 $ 288.00

Hidden Lake 2006- 0658 8 / 4 / 2006 26,368 24205 $ 48,550.08

Ten- Ten Commons 2006- 0493 8 / 8 / 2006 48,808 0 $ 46,855.68

Waterstone Residential

Development 2005- 1967 8 / 18/ 2006 35,643 14186 $ 47,835.84

NCDOT - U- 3823 - Buffer 8 / 31/ 2006 34,599 11462 $ 44,218.56

NCDOT - B- 4110 - Buffer 2005- 2138 8 / 31/ 2006 606 3351 $ 3,798.72

NCDOT - U- 3613B - Buffer 2006- 0310 8 / 31/ 2006 103,707 26575 $ 125,070.72

NCDOT - I- 306C - Buffer 2002- 1677 8 / 31/ 2006 7,449 2504 $ 9,554.88

NCDOT - R- 2809 B/ C - Buffer 2001- 0550 8 / 31/ 2006 24,888 3537 $ 27,288.00

NCDOT - R- 2000- AAABAC -

Buffer 8 / 31/ 2006 5,817 1920 $ 7,427.52

NCDOT - R- 2547B/ C - Buffer 2001- 1689 9 / 1 / 2006 4,371 2277 $ 6,382.08

Louis- Stephens Drive 2006- 0770 9 / 26/ 2006 2,414 4000 $ 6,157.44

1 Marina Road, New Bern 2006- 1380 10/ 9 / 2006 0 1800 $ 1,728.00

Smugglers Cove, Lot 28 2006- 1444 10/ 10/ 2006 0 3036 $ 2,914.56

Styron Drive, Lot # 13 2006- 1207 10/ 16/ 2006 403 0 $ 386.88

Oxford Road Buffer Variance 2006- 0507 10/ 19/ 2006 4,293 3389 $ 7,374.72

Forty Wade 2006- 0961 10/ 19/ 2006 55,284 21576 $ 73,785.60

Heritage Pines 2005- 0736 10/ 23/ 2006 46,173 11415 $ 55,284.48

259 Shine Drive - Buffer 2006- 1482 10/ 30/ 2006 0 900 $ 864.00

Ehlin Screen Porch 2006- 1475 11/ 6 / 2006 0 369 $ 354.24

Carriage Hills Subdivision Lots

17 & 18 2006- 1360 11/ 16/ 2006 0 4035 $ 3,873.60

2301 White Oak Road Driveway 2006- 1750 11/ 27/ 2006 0 1332 $ 1,278.72

Blounts Creek Way Lot 3 2006- 1831 12/ 28/ 2006 0 825 $ 792.00

East Front Street Marina 2000- 0661 1 / 10/ 2007 8,131 0 $ 7,805.76

350 Rock Spring Road 2006- 1783 1 / 10/ 2007 0 137 $ 131.52

Hartford Hills Sanitary Sewer 2006- 1895 1 / 25/ 2007 3,021 0 $ 2,900.16

Wild Acres, Holly Springs 2006- 1214 2 / 8 / 2007 34,851 8408 $ 41,528.64

Brookfield Subdivision, Lot 45 2006- 1949 2 / 26/ 2007 2,310 1221 $ 3,389.76

Rosa Deimo SD Lot 2 2002- 0013 3 / 6 / 2007 1,300 0 $ 1,248.00

Rowboat Dock and Dredge

Staging Area 2006- 1903 3 / 12/ 2007 1,200 600 $ 1,728.00

Crenshaw Hall 1999- 0258 4 / 25/ 2007 0 1968 $ 1,889.28

501 Tiffany Circle 2005- 1546 4 / 30/ 2007 0 525 $ 504.00

314 Stromer Drive Deck 2007- 0098 5 / 8 / 2007 0 33 $ 31.68

Lowe's Home Centers of East

Greenville 2007- 0343 5 / 17/ 2007 0 2700 $ 2,592.00

Bridge Pointe Development 2006- 0829 5 / 17/ 2007 21,750 2775 $ 23,544.00

Appendix A2. Riparian Buffer In Lieu Fee Mitigation Program Payments and Requirements

Project Name

DWQ Cert.

No. Payment Date Inner Buffer Outer Buffer

Payment

Amount

River Dunes 2007- 0764 5 / 23/ 2007 0 2030 $ 1,948.80

103 Trent Shores Drive 5 / 23/ 2007 23 0 $ 21.86

Silver Lake Lot 1 Phase 1 2007- 0502 6 / 6 / 2007 0 632 $ 606.72

Buccaneer Bay Section 2 Lot 28 2005- 1893 6 / 6 / 2007 0 800 $ 768.00

5205 Azure Lane 2007- 0848 6 / 13/ 2007 0 317 $ 304.32

113 Portside Lane Pool 2007- 0416 6 / 13/ 2007 0 483 $ 463.68

Evans Estates Subdivision, Lot

37 2005- 2015 6 / 14/ 2007 0 69 $ 66.24

Fred and Robin Johnston, Lot 2 2005- 0490 6 / 28/ 2007 1,062 0 $ 1,019.52

Totals 581,886 177,736 $ 729,236.90

Appendix A3. Nutrient Offset In Lieu Fee Mitigation Program Payments and Requirements

ILFID NutrientTypeBasin_ Name County utrMunicipal Owner_ Co Owner_ Type Project_ Name Payment_ amountPament_ DatNutrientPounds

ILF- 2006-

4604 Nitrogen NEUSE CRAVEN New Bern Hatteras Yachts, Inc. Private Hatteras Yachts - Nutrient $ 335.81 7 / 5 / 2006 30.53

ILF- 2006-

4707 Nitrogen NEUSE CRAVEN New Bern McDI Properties Private West Crossroads - Nutrient $ 19,173.00 7 / 27/ 2006 1743.00

ILF- 2006-

4782 Nitrogen NEUSE CRAVEN New Bern Private

2908 Neuse Blvd Mini-

Storage - Nutrient $ 2,542.61 8 / 21/ 2006 231.15

ILF- 2006-

4593 Nitrogen NEUSE CRAVEN New Bern Birdland Properties Private

Carolina Quick Lube &

Superwash - Nutrient $ 3,880.00 9 / 6 / 2006 352.73

ILF- 2006-

4829 Nitrogen NEUSE CRAVEN New Bern RAM of Eastern NC Private

South Market Square -

Nutrient - Nitrogen $ 4,370.36 9 / 8 / 2006 397.31

ILF- 2006-

4828 Nitrogen NEUSE CRAVEN New Bern RAM of Eastern NC Private Taberna Townes - Nutrient $ 1,027.68 9 / 8 / 2006 93.43

ILF- 2006-

4783 Nitrogen NEUSE CRAVEN New Bern

Craven Community

College

Governme

nt

Craven Community College,

Bldg H - Nutrient $ 16,127.33 9 / 27/ 2006 1466.12

ILF- 2006-

4954 Nitrogen NEUSE CRAVEN New Bern McCarthy Court LLC Private McCarthy Court- Nutrient $ 1,546.12

10/ 27/ 200

6 140.56

ILF- 2006-

4961 Nitrogen NEUSE CRAVEN New Bern

Coastal Carolina

Health Care Private

Coastal Carolina Health

Care- Nutrient $ 217.60

10/ 30/ 200

6 19.78

ILF- 2006-

5043 Nitrogen NEUSE CRAVEN New Bern Atta Holding Company Private Dialysis Center- Nutrient $ 3,829.00

12/ 28/ 200

6 348.09

ILF- 2007-

5184 Nitrogen NEUSE CRAVEN Havelock Annunciation Parish Private

Annunciation Catholic

Church School- Nutrient $ 2,526.80 2 / 12/ 2007 229.71

ILF- 2007-

5302 Nitrogen NEUSE CRAVEN Havelock Private

Highway 101 Commercial

Center- Nutrient $ 1,689.92 4 / 9 / 2007 153.63

ILF- 2007-

5348 Nitrogen NEUSE CRAVEN New Bern A Properties, LLC Private

Westport Planned Unit

Development- nutrient $ 3,204.63 5 / 3 / 2007 291.33

ILF- 2007-

5387 Nitrogen NEUSE CRAVEN Havelock Bayer Investments Private Bayer Investments- Nutrient $ 7,293.66 5 / 15/ 2007 663.06

ILF- 2006-

4661 Nitrogen NEUSE DURHAM Durham Griffin Associates, Inc. Private Perry Place - Nutrient $ 248.19 7 / 5 / 2006 22.56

ILF- 2006-

4584 Nitrogen NEUSE DURHAM Durham

McCar Homes Raleigh

LLC Private

Ashton Hall Subdivision -

Nutrient $ 4,866.02 8 / 7 / 2006 442.37

ILF- 2006-

4697 Nitrogen NEUSE DURHAM Durham

Petula Prolix

Development Co Private Carlisle Place - Nutrient $ 14,972.25 8 / 14/ 2006 1361.11

ILF- 2006-

4784 Nitrogen NEUSE DURHAM Durham

Triangle Transit

Authority

Governme

nt

TTA Alston Ave Rail Station -

Nutrient $ 508.73 8 / 23/ 2006 46.25

ILF- 2006-

4628 Nitrogen NEUSE DURHAM Durham

Angeloni Development,

LLC Private Shiloh Crossing - Nutrient $ 34,199.55 8 / 28/ 2006 3109.05

ILF- 2006-

5014 Nitrogen NEUSE DURHAM

Durham

County Darcon of NC Private Fletcher's Mill- Nutrient $ 22,631.37 12/ 5 / 2006 2057.40

ILF- 2006-

5036 Nitrogen NEUSE DURHAM Durham

Cooper Construction

Company Private Fed Ex Durham- Nutrient $ 49,519.01 12/ 6 / 2006 4501.73

ILF- 2006-

5042 Nitrogen NEUSE DURHAM

Durham

County

Page Road

Townhomes, LLC Private

Cumberland Park

Subdivision- Nutrient $ 14,493.86

12/ 13/ 200

6 1317.62

ILF- 2006-

5050 Nitrogen NEUSE DURHAM