1. Liaison Council Meeting
May 1, 2006

2. Welcome Meeting purpose: Present Draft Biennial Budget
Project load projections
Discuss Tri-Party MOA amendments
Obtain Liaison Council input/thoughts on draft MOA amendments

3. Meeting process: Biennial Budget Presentation
Questions
MOA Amendments Presentation
Liaison Council Input/Thoughts
Captured

4. December 14, 2005 Liaison Council Meeting
EEP Planning Cycle:
Dec 05/Jan06 Coastal RFPs
Feb-Mar 06 Operational Strategic Plan
Mar 06 Second wave FDP RFPs
Apr 06-Jun 06 Award of Oct 05 RFPs
Mar-Apr 06 Biennial Budget
Jul 06- Aug 06 First wave SFY 07 RFPs
Aug-Sep 06 Annual Report

5. Business Model: Continuous Improvement
Evaluate existing assets
Calculate the net remaining need
Design strategies to satisfy need
Contract work
Evaluate progress/ quality
Make adjustments
Assemble requests for mitigation

6. Impact Projections (Time Frames)
7 -Year NCDOT TIP
7 Years 2 3 4 1 5 6 7
Year NCDOT TIP Impact Projections
6 Years 3 months
July 2005
Feb 2006
Oct 2011
EEP Receipt of Impacts
Feb 2006
Year NCDOT TIP Mitigation Permit Projections
April 2011
5 Years 3 months
Effective Mitigation Projection
Projected date that last TIP project may be permitted

7. SFY 07/08 Biennial Budget Breakdown
Admin= $11.2 M
Restoration= $115.7 M
HQP= $29.8 M
Proj. Dev.= $3.5 M
Total $160.2
* Based on MOA schedules

8. Implementation Programmed (two years) Breakdown $115.6 M
$ 73.6 M FDP (64%)
$ 42.0 M DBB (36%)

9. HQP $29.7 M budget $25.1 M land Projected to be compete QTR1 SFY 07/08
Completes land transactions on options
Titles
Surveys
Legal fees
HB 933

10. Project Development $3.5 M Includes
Cost to complete 13 active WS plans
Initiate 4 new WS plans
Initiate 6 abbreviated WS plans

11. Historical & Projected

12. Budget Questions?

13. “We have had a productive transition and are still learning how to make EEP work better”
Secretary Bill Ross
Address to the Liaison Council
December 14, 2005

14. Tri-party MOA: Core principles and goals remain the same
Necessity for amendments
Section adjustments

15. Tri-party MOA- What is not changing
Advance mitigation based on impact prediction
1:1 restoration to replace lost functions
(preservation will not be used as sole method of mitigation)
Concerted effort to effectively restore and replace lost aquatic functions
Clean Water Act standards for no net loss

16. Necessity for MOA amendments
Technical adjustments to original assumptions
Impact projections not far enough in advance
Clarification of responsibilities
Complexity of metrics and reporting
To align processes and timing

17. MOA adjustment themes Challenging CUs and alternative mitigation
Accountability
Flexibility
Sequencing and communication between EEP-DOT-USACE
Compliance metrics

18. Amendment Sections:
IV.F
VI. B. 4
VI. B. 6 X

19. Section IV.F Why: Build some level of flexibility
What: NCDOT ability to propose to use alternatives- in-lieu fee program, other
Discussion: Means and methods for DOT to propose alternative mitigation when/if NCDENR is unable to provide

20. Section VI.B.4 Why: to clarify responsibilities
What: A clear definition of who USACE holds accountable for mitigation at what points in time
Discussion: To clearly define that EEP is responsible party at time of permit decision,

21. Section VI.B.6 Why: To align processes and timing
What: A clear definition of sequencing DOT requests and EEP acceptance for mitigation to ensure that mitigation delivery is in the correct timing with permit requirements and a protocol to address unanticipated impacts.
Discussions: Centering around USACE developing protocol

22. Section X Why: Complexity
What: To develop a clear and concise definition and metrics for evaluating compliance, reporting, and directing the program
Discussion: USACE proposes metrics that are compatible with proposed CFRs and simplifies the reporting system.

23. MOA Timeline Technical Issues
Years Allowed to Complete Construction From Moment Impact Data Delivered 1 2 3 4 5
Transition Period
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Year 11
Year 12
Year 13
Year 14
Year 15
Date Impact
Projections
Received
5 months to complete Watershed Planning, Site Identification, Acquisition, Design, and Construction

24. MOA Timeline Technical Issues
Years To Complete Acquisition in MOA From Moment Impact Data Delivered -4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3
Transition Period
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Year 11
Year 12
Year 13
Year 14
Year 15
-3 Years 7 months
Date Impact
Projections
Received

25. USACE Amendment Process:
Continue discussions between USACE, DOT and EEP
Develop proposed draft amendment document
Public comment

26. Liaison Council Questions/Input
May 1, 2006

29. Progress Report End of Transition Compliance Other ILF programs
Buffer
Nutrient offset
Fund Reports

30. Data Sources End of Transition Report Annual Report for FY 2004-2005
– follow links to Publications page

31. End of Transition Compliance - Overall
Streams = 98.70%
Wetlands = 95.04%
Highest level of compliance ever for NC’s ILF Programs
Includes 5:1 return of HQ Preservation
Permits for which 1:1 restoration has not been provided remain covered by 10:1 preservation
WL – majority of non-compliance in CAT03
Illustrates increase in compliance levels
Compliance increasing while demand increasing

32. EOT Compliance - Streams
Gross assets illustrate that we’re advancing mitigation prior to impact
Looking ahead

33. EOT Status - Wetlands
Here we have significantly more assets because DOT had built some large mitigation sites that were transferred into EEP – still shows progress toward advancement

34. High Quality Preservation
Eco-region
Stream Feet
Riverine Wetland Acres
Non-Riverine Wetland Acres
Central Piedmont
324,093.00
160.82
34.30
Northern Inner Coastal Plain
50,901.00
645.50
0.00
Northern Mountains
130,530.00
Northern Outer Coastal Plain
11,819.00
305.00
250.00
Southern Inner Coastal Plain
154,660.00
4,000.00
Southern Mountains
247,096.00
30.00
Southern Outer Coastal Plain
5,015.00
116.00
1,034.00
Southern Piedmont
116,434.00
1,477.30
TOTAL ALL ECO-REGIONS:
1,041,358.00
6,734.62
1,318.30

35. Project Delivery Mechanisms – current contracts
Full Delivery
Contract value = $87,082,559
Design-Bid-Build
Contract value = $39,612,933
Use of full-delivery to get mitigation in advance

36. Questions??

37. On the horizon: MOA adjustments Expansion of nutrient offset
Cost study – possible fee revisions
GARVEE bonds
Building Information Management System
More training of construction contractors

38. Reports www.nceep.net Quarterly Reports Annual Report
End of Transition Report

39. Biennial Budget Steps Determine need based on new impact projections
Cash flow projections on active contracts
Assemble document on two-year schedule (cash flow)
Submit to DOT

40. Phase 1- Determine New Program Requirements
Receive and analyze DOT impact forecasts
Compare impact forecasts with assets produced
Calculate net-remaining need consistent with MOA timelines
Design strategies to implement projects

41. Phase 2- Determine cost to complete active work
Compile active contracts and agreements
Determine remaining contract value
Determine anticipated cash flow
Place projections into biennial/quarterly projection

42. Phase 3- Combine active and new starts
Assemble data in format as required under the two-party
Administration
Implementation
DBB
FDP
HQP
Project Development (Watershed plans)

43. Phase 4- Submit biennial budget to DOT

44. Key points about EEP Major administrative duties: manage funds
contract administration (Q/A)
strategic planning
programming work
reporting
leverage resources
addressing compliance/new rules and regulations
proposing strategies based on new science emerging technology

45. Key points about EEP
Outsource majority of work, rely heavily on the private sector for production
Design, Bid, Build
Full Delivery
Land Owner Contacts
Watershed planning
Monitoring
Coordination and Guidance
Program Assessment and Consistency Group
Partnerships