Transcript Slide 1
8th National MITIGATION & CONSERVATION BANKING CONFERENCE ___________________ * Environmental Banking & Beyond * April 18–21, 2005 The Westin Charlotte Charlotte, North Carolina U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District Why EEP National efforts to • improve mitigation process and quality • streamline project development A Case for Change – National Level • • • • • Section 1309 (TEA-21) 1999 National Interagency Streamlining Workshop 2000 Planning/NEPA Linkage Peer-to Peer Exchange 2001 COE Executive Summary 2001 National Academy of Sciences Report 2001 • USACE Regulatory Guidance Letter • EPA/FHWA Environmental Streamlining and 2002 • 2002 Stewardship Workshop Executive Order 13274 2002 A Case for Change – North Carolina • Infrastructure needs – 78,000 highway system – Major economic growth • Project delays – NEPA – Section 404 b(1) – 40% of delays mitigation related Executive decisions • Fix the processes • Agreements for joint process improvements for transportation and protection of the environment Actions taken Initial step defining the problem 2001 • Facilitated sessions • Sponsor endorsement • Multi-agency NCDOT NCMF NCDCM USACE NCDWQ EPA Mitigation Redesign NCWRC USFWS The framework Avoidance and minimization tests No net loss Address temporal loss Watershed context Functional replacement Scientific basis Programmatic solutions Accountability Compatibility with principles of banking Authority 3-Party MOA 2-Party MOA DOT/DENR/USACE July 2003 DOT/DENR April 2004 Regulatory Document Business Document MOA Key Provisions (3 Party) All parties Authority to operate programmatically Commitment to CWA regulations Confirms importance of watershed planning context MOA Key Provisions (3 Party) NCDOT NCDOT provision of annual impact forecasts NCDOT provides advance funding to address temporal loss Transfer management of off site mitigation to DENR MOA Key Provisions (3 Party) EEP Provide mitigation according to timing request of DOT Secure staff, develop organization, and transition takeover of all off-site mitigation Conduct watershed plans Address perpetual management Report progress Perpetuity requirements MOA Key Provisions (3 Party) USACE Permit decisions for impacting projects Schedule oversight Annual review PACG Chair Program Launch The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was signed on July 22, 2003 Operations 6% Restoration 35% EEP Biennial Budget $189 Million 28% 28% Operations Preservation 1 Preservation 2 Planning Restoration } Preservation 3% Proj. Development/Planning After Transition, this investment is recycled for future TIP projects Both needed during Transition Business Model • Predict impacts by type and year • Program mitigation based on MOA timing • Contract through suppliers Design-bid-build Summary of WRP, DOT and EEP Projects • Total projects= 379 • Stream projects= 215 – 780,000 linear feet of restoration • Riparian wetland projects = 80 – 2,240 acres of restoration • Non-riparian wetlands projects= 45 – 6,380 acres of restoration • Miscellaneous projects= – Cstl. marsh, buffers, nutrient offset 39 Full-Delivery Activities (locate, secure, design, build, monitor) Awards in September 2004 • • • • • • 143,000 ft. stream 318 acres of riverine wetland 307 acres on non-riverine wetland 75 acres of buffer Total contract value $ 39,644,356 7 management firms Full-Delivery Activities October 2004 posting 21 Watersheds Totaling 450,000 feet stream 900 acres wetlands 1300 acres buffers Value $100 million Impacts for 3+ years out based on supplied impact data Full Delivery Process 1. RFP for mitigation in watersheds based on projected need. 2. FD Providers find and submit technical and cost proposals 3. EEP evaluates technical proposals- field reviews 4. Cost proposals for technically qualified submittals are opened 5. EEP does value analysis (cost and technical merit) Full Delivery Process 6. Selected FDP is contracted according to cost proposal 7. Selected FDP is paid during task as per contract and RFP • Once land is acquired, EEP may allocate credits for use in meeting compensatory need • In the event of project failure, contract is terminated. Payment for only work accomplished High Quality Preservation • Preservation applied during transition period based on ecoregions • Further details this afternoon Moving to the future U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District Program Masterplan Yesterday Project by project mitigation Replacement of impacts on acre or feet basis Reactive mitigation Not always cost effective Delayed lettings due to uncertainties Today Program-focused Tomorrow Program-focused Still on acre or feet basis exploring functional replacement Replacement based on functional losses Making advancement progress Proactive mitigation years in advance of impacts Making transition Mostly successful Most cost effective No delays due to program-focused mitigation Challenges • Production capacity of the industry • Adjusting to change (funding and impacts) • Finding new mitigation alternatives • Continuing the partnership as staff transition • Maintaining cost effectiveness Closing Comments • We rely on the private sector • Open to new ideas • Appreciation to all who have helped the program advance • Particular accolades to NCDOT/USACE Our sponsors and partners: NCDOT USACE FHWA NC DENR NC WRC USFWS CTE USEPA CTNC NC HTF NOAA ACECNC Mitigation Providers Private Donors Landowners Local WS Planning Teams U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District Thank you William D. Gilmore, PE [email protected] Web: www.nceep.net