Annual report of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program |
Previous | 6 of 9 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
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
Object Description
Description
Title | Annual report of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program |
Date | 2007 |
Description | 2006/2007 |
Digital Characteristics-A | 809 KB; 94 p. |
Digital Format | application/pdf |
Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_arEcosystemenhancementprogram20062007.pdf |
Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_borndigital\images_master\ |
Full Text | 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 |
OCLC number | 190844819 |