Transcript Slide 1

Ecosystem Enhancement
Program
February 5, 2008
USACE
Ecosystem Enhancement Program




Background
Structure
Core Processes
Results
EEP Programs

NC DOT Transportation Program (MOA)


In Lieu Fee Program (MOU)


stream and wetland mitigation
Buffer Program:


stream and wetland mitigation
meet mitigation requirements associated with riparian
buffer impacts in Neuse, Tar-Pam, Catawba River
basins and Randleman Reservoir watershed
Nutrient Offset Program:

meet nutrient offset mitigation requirements in the
Neuse and Tar-Pam river basins
Background of DOT Program:
DOT Compensatory Mitigation Pre-EEP





Mitigation was provided “TIP project by project” with limited
success
Each mitigation site required high level of regulatory oversight
Reactive mitigation- planning for the mitigation began late in
the TIP planning process, little to no estimates of impact
amounts
Cost of mitigation embedded in individual TIP budgetsincorporated as piece of total budget
40% of transportation projects LET’s were delayed
Executive Directive to “Solve the
Problems”
(Merger 01 Studies)
USACE, NCDOT and NCDENR Leadership
charged a process improvement team to
address the following problems:

Unacceptable number of delays caused by lack of mitigation

TIP schedule changes, Site negotiation, Mitigation site failure

Lack of consistent guidance or policy from regulatory agencies
EEP Concept a Recommended
Solution for Mitigation

Fundamentally very different type of program
based on four main goals:




Mitigation that is in place and meets success criteria
before transportation construction begins
Mitigation that is linked to watershed planning and
has a programmatic (not project-by-project) approach
A single agency holds responsibility
Mitigation is based on functional replacement, not
acres and feet.
18 months later…
 EEP
was formalized on July 22, 2003 by
signing of the tri-party MOA

The final MOA remained consistent with
original team’s recommendations
• National Guidance for In lieu and banking
Tri-Party MOA
 All
parties reaped benefits
 All parties made concessions
Gave: advanced funding
DOT
Got: permits without delay
Gave up: project-by-project
controls
Got: mitigation in advance,
within CU, based on watershed
planning
USACE
DENR
Gave up: project-by-project controls
Got: opportunity to focus mitigation for
natural resource management
Tri-Party MOA
 Set
Purpose, Mission, Goals, and basic
operating procedures/ responsibilities
The purpose of the EEP is to:
 Provide a comprehensive, natural resource
enhancement program
 Identify ecosystem needs at the local watershed level
 Preserve, enhance and restore ecological functions
within target watersheds
 Address impacts from anticipated NCDOT projects
The Mission of the 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
MOA Operating Procedures:
DOT:



Obtain off-site mitigation from EEP
Provide advanced, program-funded payments to the
Ecosystem Restoration Fund for the planning,
acquisition, construction, long-term monitoring and
management and necessary remediation of projects
identified in the watershed needs assessment,
restoration plans and local watershed plans.
• Based on biennial budget
• Details of funding to be entered by separate
DOT/DENR MOA
Annually provide 7 year TIP Impact list
MOA Operating Procedures:
USACE:


Evaluation of EEP/ Programmatic Review
Authorize Use of EEP mitigation
• Programmatic coverage consistent with permitting
process/timing
DOT/DENR MOA
 Authorities
 Responsibilities
 Reporting
Requirements
 Fiscal Accounting Reporting
 Biennial Budget - BOT approval
 Funding
 Asset transfer
 Alternatives (ILF program options)
Changes made to original
agreements:


Advanced funding changed to quarterly CashFlow- actual cost funding agreement (by
agreement/ request from DOT Financial
office)
Timing requirements (amended March 7,
2007 Amendment to Tri-Party MOA)
Program Oversight
 Secretaries
and Colonel of Wilmington
District
 Program Assessment
and Consistency
Group:

State and Federal Regulatory Agencies
USACE, EPA, NOAA, DWQ,
DCM, USFWS, NCWRC, DMF
Oversight within DENR
Fiscal oversight
Staffing oversight
Tech. Development/
Acquisition oversight
Additional Oversight
 Department
of Administration
 State Construction Office
 State Property Office
 Environmental Review Commission
(legislature)
 Environmental Management
Commission
EEP Program Structure
Director
Analysis and
Procedures
Reports, Policies,
Procedures, Public
Relations, IT
Watershed
Planning and
Project
Implementation
Watershed targeting,
plan development,
project development
and oversight
HR, Budgeting,
Contracting
Administration
Strategic Planning
Operations
Manager
Acquisition
and
Preservation
Easement acquisition,
boundary definition,
interface with SPO and
DENR Stewardship
Asset management, Forecasting,
MOA and ILF permit acceptance,
nutrient and buffer programs
Project Control
and Research
Full Delivery, Design and
Construction Contracting,
Design Review,
Maintenance, Monitoring
EEP Core Process
Watershed
Restoration Plans
(River-basin plans)
-River-basin criteria/
needs/ potential
ecological benefits
Local Watershed
Plans
Impact Data from
DOT
-watershed criteria/
needs/ potential
ecological benefits,
Project identification
-Transportation
Projects
ILF Nutrient and
Buffer Projections/
Needs
Operational
Strategic Plan
Total Needs
Determination
Repeat 54 Times
for each CU-
Ecological +
Impacts
Impact Data and
timing
requirements
balanced against
Assets Process
Needs
Impacts
Timing
Watershed
Requirements +
Current Inventory
Assets and
Identified
Opportunities =
Planning
What delivery method is
best to meet the need ?
Strategic Planning
Implementation
Operational Plan
for each CU
Review/ adjust
every 6 weeks
Produce annual
master plan in
March after DOT
impacts
projections
received
FDP Process:
Acquire
Design
Construct
Monitor
Projected
Assets
Close-Out after 5 years
successful monitoring
Final
Assets
DBB Process:
Acquire
Design
Construct
Monitor
River basin Planning
 Identifies
local watersheds where
ecological restoration or protection is most
needed
 Focuses resources in areas of need
 Incorporates DWQ Basin wide
Assessment and Water Quality Plans
 Uses GIS datasets
 Involves coordination with local resource
professionals
Local Watershed Planning
 Conducted
in areas where traditional
mitigation opportunities are limited or
mitigation needs are extensive
 Determines where mitigation investments
can provide greatest benefit
 Results in a project atlas that prioritizes
specific mitigation opportunities
 EEP has/will be involving DOT Divisions
Example of Restoration Priority Targets
More detailed analyses
conducted in areas
selected for Local
Watershed Planning
Includes:
•Monitoring
•Modeling
•Stakeholder
involvement
Operational Strategic Plan
 Action
plan for every 8-digit hydrologic unit
 Comprehensive assessment of mitigation
needs derived for all programs and
available mitigation credits
 Identified need programmed (no more, no
less)
 Updated throughout the year
“Programmatic” mitigation
coverage
Example
Mitigation
Projects
10
9
10
6
5
Identified
priority area in
LWP
7
8
TIP Projected
Impacts/
Permits
6
ILF
Program
Needs
9
5 9
Individual Cataloguing Unit
Type
PROJECTED MITIGATION TARGETS (CUMULATIVE)
MOA
Year
Timing
Stream
R
RW
RE
R
NRW
RE
R
CM
RE
R
RE
Y4
33,820
-8,045
-9.66
-3.86
14.09
6.45
0.00
0.00
Y5
29,558
-9,988
-10.78
-2.59
12.49
4.84
0.00
0.00
Y6
22,007
-16,604
-11.75
-3.56
12.45
4.81
0.00
0.00
Y7
21,826
-16,785
-11.84
-3.65
12.42
4.77
0.00
0.00
Y8
21,740
-16,871
-11.97
-3.78
12.38
4.73
0.00
0.00
Y9
3,400
-35,211
-15.32
-7.13
9.71
2.07
0.00
0.00
Y10
3,314
-35,297
-15.41
-7.22
9.68
2.03
0.00
0.00
R= Restoration
RE= Restoration
Equivalent
DOT Program Business Model
February:
EEP:
March:
April
June
DOT
Places
order with
EEP
Checks inventory:
Develops plan
(OSP)
EEP
Estimates
biennial
costs of
mitigation
order
BOT
Approval
of
estimated
costs
(Projected
Impact
List)
DOT Asset
Inventory
ILF Assets available
to sell
Timing
Type
Location
Secures:
8.5 Year
Process
Acquire
Construct
Monitor
DOT
invoiced
quarterly
for actual
costs
Biennial Budget
Project Delivery

Design-Bid-Build
 Full-Delivery
EEP
Administration
5%
Monitoring
2%
Stewardship
1%
Land
4%
Design and
Engineering
16%
Construction
Management
9%
Construction
63%
Cost Controls for Expenditures and
Savings
 All
projects managed based on fee
schedule
 EEP has promoted savings in construction
costs through training
 Comprehensive evaluation of project
success for future savings
 Donations of property interest (especially
in planning areas)
Expenditure Oversight
 Quarterly
review by DOT auditors
Audited
14 times
 Comprehensive audit by FHWA
 Quarterly and annual fiscal reporting
 Subject to DENR, SCO, SPO and DOA
procedures regarding competition,
purchasing and contract award
EEP Policies and Operating
Procedures




Based on ISO 9001 Quality Guidelines
Continual Process Improvement
Promoted efficiency and effectiveness
Published on Web:
http://www.nceep.net/abouteep/analysis_procedures.htm
Results: Mitigation Post EEP
 Mitigation is provided “programmatically” (not project by project)
 Mitigation is provided proactively
 Mitigation is watershed based
 Regulatory oversight is programmatic, with periodic “spot-checks”
and close-out visits to ensure conformance and compliance
×
“How to” implement functional replacement is still being developed
 Mitigation costs are budgeted and exposed
 No transportation projects have been delayed
 Compliance:
Streams- 98.99%
Riparian Wetlands 98.14%
Non-riparian Wetlands 100%
Results: DOT Permits

Total “ordered” (through 2013): 915

Permits with-out delay: 252

763 future permits- of these
 365 future permits have mitigation ready
 398 future permits for which mitigation is being actively
pursued

EEP Mitigation has secured/ensured permits for 617* TIP
Projects

*does not include mitigation that was secured for permits that
have “moved” from the TIP list, and/or additional permits that
could be secured in Surplus areas, and the “return” on HQP
Investment
Benefits

DOT




DENR



No projects delayed
Programmed mitigation – strategic based on
forecasts
Future LET “insurance” policy
Increased quality/regulatory assurance
Watershed benefits/ ecosystem enhancement
USACE



Increased quality/regulatory assurance
Statewide mitigation management resource
One agency responsible for DOT off-site mitigation
More Information

www.nceep.net
 Quarterly accounting
of impacts and assets
 Annual Reports
 Monitoring reports
Questions?