1. Environmental Review Commission
Report to
Environmental Review Commission
December 20, 2005

2. Topics to be covered Program Overview Annual Report Highlights
Other accomplishments

3. Data Sources End of Transition Report Annual Report for FY 2004-2005
– follow links to News/EEP Publications

4. Key points about EEP Designed to provide:
watershed approach to mitigation
efficient use of resources
facilitation of responsible development

5. Accounting MOA in-lieu (Services NCDOT) MOU in-lieu (Open to all)
Buffer program
Nutrient Offset program

6. Key points about EEP Outsource majority of work Design, Bid, Build
Full Delivery
Landowner Contacts
Watershed planning
Monitoring
Coordination and Guidance
Program Assessment and Consistency Group
Partnerships

7. No Project Delays
In the past 30 months of existence there have been no project delays resulting from mitigation

8. Business Model Assemble requests for mitigation
Course corrections if required
Evaluate existing assets
Evaluate progress/ quality
Calculate the net remaining need
Contract work
Design strategies to satisfy need

9. Leveraging Begin with watershed assessment of needs
Maximize environmental return
Assign contracts within watersheds to:
reduce redundancy
reduce number of contracts
provide economies of scale (larger more effective projects)
efficient and effective use of resources

10. Compliance - Overall Streams = 98.70% Wetlands = 95.04%
Highest level of compliance ever for NC’s ILF Programs
WL – majority of non-compliance in CAT03
Illustrates increase in compliance levels
Compliance increasing while demand increasing

11. Catalog Unit Framework

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

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

14. Program Status

15. Status of Buffer Program (acres)
Cape Fear
Neuse
Tar-Pamlico
TOTAL
Accepted
60.69
265.76
15.39
341.84
Provided
90.00
84.59
440.35

16. Status of Nutrient Offset Program
Specific to Neuse River Basin
Pounds per year
Proposal to expand to Tar-Pam and Jordan Lake
Accepted
14,331
Provided
15,927

17. Project Locations

18. Status of Funds
MOA and MOU funds managed separately

19. Status of Funds - MOA Program
Dec 20, 2005
Beg. Balance
$7,961,548
Revenue
$19,952,853
Expenditures
$17,381,488
Encumbrances
$42,699,521
Cash Balance
$10,532,913

20. Status of Funds - MOU Program
Graph 4
2980
2981
2982
Beg. Balance
$1,815,888
$38,588,673
$14,124,786
Revenue
$28,789
$4,853,058
$2,072,593
Expenditures
$27,095
$10,343,228
$1,440,146
Encumbrances
$116,480
$31,584,586
$11,311,343
Balance
$1,701,102
$1,513,917
$3,445,890

21. MOU Production

22. Contract Execution DBB= 31% FDP=69% Number of Contracts
Contract Value ($)
Existing Contracts 67
5,839,017
New Contracts
180
109,415,799
Total
247
115,254,816
Use of full-delivery to get mitigation in advance
DBB= 31% FDP=69%

23. Pending Contract Awards - estimated
Contract type
Number of Contracts
Value of Contracts ($)
Design-Bid-Build 15
7,200,000
Full-Delivery 63
87,500,000
Monitoring
3,100,000
Total 93
97,800,000

24. Per project costs 04/05 Streams $233.74/ft
Riverine wetlands $26,519/ ac.
Non-riverine wetland s $9,133/ac.
Buffers $19,395/ac.
Coastal marsh $104,000/ac.
Dam removal /ft.

25. General Activities National Wetland Newsletter Sept. 05 ECOS Spring 05
National Mitigation Banking Conference
Professional Engineers of North Carolina
Caanan Valley Institute
EPA Region III/FHWA Streamlining

26. FHWA Scan Tour March 2005

27. Mutual Accomplishments
Top 50 award for government innovation (Harvard University School of Government- 2005)
Environmental Excellence Award
(National Association of Environmental Professionals- 2005)

28. Mutual Accomplishments
Exemplary Ecosystem Initiative
(Federal Highway Administration- 2004)
Environmental Excellence Award
(Federal Highway Administration- 2003)
Transportation Research Board
(National Publication- 2005)

29. Report to Environmental Review Commission
December 20, 2005