1 / 45

May 1, 2006

Liaison Council Meeting. May 1, 2006. Meeting purpose:. Welcome. Present Draft Biennial Budget Project load projections Discuss Tri-Party MOA amendments Obtain Liaison Council input/thoughts on draft MOA amendments. Meeting process:. Biennial Budget Presentation Questions

ingo
Download Presentation

May 1, 2006

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. Liaison Council Meeting May 1, 2006

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

  6. 1 2 4 5 6 7 3 Impact Projections (Time Frames) 7 Years 7 -Year NCDOT TIP 2006 7-Year NCDOT TIP Impact Projections 6 Years 3 months July 2005 Feb 2006 Oct 2011 EEP Receipt of Impacts 2006 7-Year NCDOT TIP Mitigation Permit Projections April 2011 Feb 2006 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) • $115.6 M • Breakdown • $ 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 2005 2006 2007

  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 4 5 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 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 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 -4 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

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

  28. Data Sources • End of Transition Report • Annual Report for FY 2004-2005 www.nceep.net – follow links to Publications page

  29. 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

  30. EOT Compliance - Streams

  31. EOT Status - Wetlands

  32. High Quality Preservation

  33. Project Delivery Mechanisms – current contracts • Full Delivery • Contract value = $87,082,559 • Design-Bid-Build • Contract value = $39,612,933

  34. Questions??

  35. 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

  36. Reports • Quarterly Reports • Annual Report • End of Transition Report www.nceep.net

  37. 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

  38. 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

  39. 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

  40. 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)

  41. Phase 4- Submit biennial budget to DOT

  42. 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

  43. 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

More Related