1 / 34

Planning and Preliminary Design November 8, 2005

Planning and Preliminary Design November 8, 2005. Why EEP. National efforts to improve mitigation process and quality streamline project development. A Case for Change – National Level. 1999 2000 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002. Section 1309 (TEA-21)

charlene
Download Presentation

Planning and Preliminary Design November 8, 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Planning and Preliminary Design November 8, 2005

  2. Why EEP National efforts to • improve mitigation process and quality • streamline project development

  3. A Case for Change – National Level 1999 2000 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002 • Section 1309 (TEA-21) • National Interagency Streamlining Workshop • Planning/NEPA Linkage Peer-to Peer Exchange • COE Executive Summary • National Academy of Sciences Report • USACE Regulatory Guidance Letter • EPA/FHWA Environmental Streamlining and Stewardship Workshop • Executive Order 13274

  4. 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

  5. Executive decisions “Address the problem and report back with recommendations. . .” “Include specialists in facilitation and change management”

  6. Actions taken Defining the problem 2001 NEPA/404(b)1 integration Mitigation • Facilitated sessions • Sponsor endorsement • Multi-agency NCDOT NCDCM NCDWQ NCWRC NCMF USACE EPA USFWS Mitigation Redesign Team

  7. The framework • Avoidance and minimization tests • No net loss • Temporal loss • Watershed context • Functional replacement - Scientific basis • Programmatic solutions • Accountability – Regulatory oversight • Compatibility with principles of banking

  8. Authority 3-Party MOA 2-Party MOA DOT/DENR/USACEJuly 2003 DOT/DENRApril 2004 Regulatory Document Business Document

  9. MOA Key Provisions (3 Party) All parties • Authority to operate programmatically • Commitment to CWA regulations • Confirms importance of watershed planning context

  10. Business Model (Two-party) • Predict impacts by type and year • Program mitigation based on MOA timing • Fund Program • Contract through suppliers

  11. The Liaison Council Engineering community (ACEC/PENC) Mitigation Banking Industry Clean Water Management Trust Fund Local Land Trusts National Land Trusts North Carolinians for Commerce Business and Industry Associated General Contractors Natural Heritage Program Southern Environmental Law Center NC Environmental Defense USACE, Wilmington District

  12. Program Launch The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)was signed on July 22, 2003

  13. Ecosystem Enhancement Program Biennial Budget FY 2005/06 and 2006-07 Cost by Category: Total $175,077,880 Summary Administration $ 9,477,939 Restoration* $ 102,910,770 HQ Preservation $ 57,984,804 Project Development $ 4,704,366 Biennial Total $175, 077,880 *Includes Implementation and Future Mitigation Projects

  14. 1000 0 -1000 Negative numbers indicate needed creditsPositive numbers indicate credits available for future use

  15. End-of-transition status Statewide Program Status Wetland Credits 9,798 10,000.00 9,000.00 8,000.00 7,000.00 6,000.00 Credits 5,000.00 4,000.00 3,000.00 680 33 2,000.00 1,000.00 0.00 Wetland EEP Wetland Assets EEP Mitigation EEP Noncompliance Requirements

  16. End-of-transition status Statewide Program Status Stream Credits 863,682 900,000.00 800,000.00 700,000.00 470,433 600,000.00 500,000.00 Credits 400,000.00 300,000.00 6,681 200,000.00 100,000.00 0.00 Wetland EEP Stream Assets EEP Mitigation EEP Noncompliance Requirements

  17. Demand per year • Streams 100,000 – 300,000 feet • Wetlands 200-500 acres • Buffers 100-200 acres • 17 River basins • 54 watersheds

  18. Stream Restoration Durham, NC

  19. Design-bid-buildSummary 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= 39 • Cstl. marsh, buffers, nutrient offset

  20. Full-Delivery Activities(locate, secure, design, build, monitor) Awards in September 2004- September 2005 • 217,000 ft. stream • 368 acres of riverine wetland • 607 acres on non-riverine wetland • 560 acres of buffer • Total contract value $ 80,000,000 • 15 Suppliers

  21. High Quality Preservation • Criteria • Connectivity • Heritage sites • ESA • Parks and gamelands • Multi-agency participation • Compliments No-net-loss

  22. High Quality Preservation • 33,600 ac. protected land @ $58.3 million • 153 miles of stream and • 7,507 acres of wetlands • Work in progress • 131 miles of stream • 1,506 acres of wetlands • 14 sites to Parks and Gamelands

  23. Little Table rock Mountain, Blue Ridge Parkway

  24. Mingo Track

  25. Eastern Coastal Region Trumpet Plants

  26. Tar River Basin, Central North Carolina

  27. Moving to the future

  28. Program Masterplan

  29. 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

  30. Closing Comments • We rely on the private sector • Open to new ideas • Particular accolades to NCDOT/USACE

  31. Thank you William D. Gilmore, PE bill.gilmore@ncmail.net Web: www.nceep.net

More Related