1 / 28

8th National MITIGATION & CONSERVATION BANKING CONFERENCE ___________________ * Environmental Banking & Beyond

8th National MITIGATION & CONSERVATION BANKING CONFERENCE ___________________ * Environmental Banking & Beyond * April 18–21, 2005 The Westin Charlotte Charlotte, North Carolina. Why EEP. National efforts to improve mitigation process and quality streamline project development.

dyllis
Télécharger la présentation

8th National MITIGATION & CONSERVATION BANKING CONFERENCE ___________________ * Environmental Banking & Beyond

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. 8th NationalMITIGATION & CONSERVATION BANKING CONFERENCE ___________________ * Environmental Banking & Beyond * April 18–21, 2005The Westin CharlotteCharlotte, North Carolina

  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 • Fix the processes • Agreements for joint process improvements for transportation and protection of the environment

  6. Actions taken Initial step defining the problem 2001 • Facilitated sessions • Sponsor endorsement • Multi-agency NCDOT NCDCM NCDWQ NCWRC NCMF USACE EPA USFWS Mitigation Redesign

  7. 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

  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. 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

  11. 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

  12. MOA Key Provisions (3 Party) USACE • Permit decisions for impacting projects • Schedule oversight • Annual review • PACG Chair

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

  14. 6% EEP Biennial Budget $189 Million 35% Both neededduring Transition } 28% 28% 3% After Transition, this investmentis recycled for future TIP projects Operations Restoration Preservation Proj. Development/Planning

  15. Business Model • Predict impacts by type and year • Program mitigation based on MOA timing • Contract through suppliers

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. October 2004 posting Full-Delivery Activities 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

  19. Full Delivery Process • RFP for mitigation in watersheds based on projected need. • FD Providers find and submit technical and cost proposals • EEP evaluates technical proposals- field reviews • Cost proposals for technically qualified submittals are opened • EEP does value analysis (cost and technical merit)

  20. Full Delivery Process • Selected FDP is contracted according to cost proposal • 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

  21. High Quality Preservation • Preservation applied during transition period based on ecoregions • Further details this afternoon

  22. Moving to the future

  23. Program Masterplan

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. 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

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

More Related