1 / 50

October 04, 2006

Audit and Contract Committee. October 04, 2006. Agenda. General Information Program Questions Procedure related Policy related. General Comments. EEP is non-regulatory Operates according to MOA and MOU with USACE MOU= DENR + USACE MOA= DENR + DOT + USACE Governing Regs

keegan
Download Presentation

October 04, 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. Audit and Contract Committee October 04, 2006

  2. Agenda • General Information • Program Questions • Procedure related • Policy related

  3. General Comments • EEP is non-regulatory • Operates according to MOA and MOU with USACE MOU= DENR + USACE MOA= DENR + DOT + USACE • Governing Regs • Federal Section 404 (b) 1 • State, Buffer, In-lieu, Nutrient Offset

  4. General Procedures (DOT and EEP) Project DevelopmentActivities • Project management • Contracting • Quality Control • Cost Control • Process improvement • Need • Env. considerations • Alternatives • Design • Land Acquisition • Construction • Maintenance They are the same

  5. QUESTION 1 • Procedures for determining need (MOA and MOU)

  6. Business Model (Question 1) Assemble requests for mitigation Course corrections if required Evaluate existing assets Evaluate progress/ quality Calculate the net remaining need Design strategies to meet need Contract work

  7. Program Mitigation Commitments Consolidation of Commitments DOT Impact Projections In-lieu Fee Acceptances Nutrient Offset Buffer Tri-party MOA

  8. Operational Strategic Plan Program Mitigation Needs Comprehensive Program Delivery Environmental Goals Specific Program Actions • Full Delivery RFPs • Watershed based Project Development • Design-Bid-Build

  9. Calculation Requests - Net Assets Future Mitigation Need • Accounted for by CU and mitigation type • 54 CUs • 15 mitigation categories • Considerations include: • Timing of need • Magnitude of need

  10. Strategic Plans • are developed programmatically; however, Assets and funding for assets are separated and tracked individually

  11. QUESTION 2 • Regionalization and watershed plans

  12. Watershed Plans • Are concentrated in focus areas where mitigation will be most effective • National guidance has been and is increasing requirements for watershed planning

  13. Planning Across the State

  14. Planning Priorities • River Basin Restoration • 14 digit CU (within 8-digit watersheds) • Focus area statistics • 63% overall • Coordinated with USACE

  15. QUESTION 3 • Steps for assigning mitigation to roadway projects

  16. Assigning mitigation credits (Question 3) Process Map Handout In general, EEP is required by USACE to assign mitigation by 8-digit CU by type of mitigation Stream (cold, cool, warm) Wetland (riparian, non-riparian, coastal marsh)

  17. Special mitigation cases (Question 3) USACE & DWQ special cases Banks with different service areas Higher value mit’n (w.i. CU) temporarily Cold for cool and warm, and cool for warm Riparian for non-riparian (temporarily) Catawba 03 ( discussed under question 4)

  18. Mitigation protocols (Question 3) Adjacent CU withinriver basin No permits authorized to date for adjacent Until recently, outside bounds of current agreements (more later) Adjacent CU outsideriver basin Not allowed by USACE and other regulatory agencies

  19. Mitigation needs by division (Question 3) Begins with NCDOT forecasts PDEA provides this information to EEP in several forms Annually TIP forecast (division, county, amount) Real time Permit by TIP (division, county, amount) Special request (unanticipated needs)

  20. Assigning mitigation credits (Question 3) Key steps Receipt of permit Assign 1:1 restoration within CU Backfill with other mitigation (restoration equivalents) Quarterly reports to USACE formally and on Web

  21. Surplus Assets Workgroup Definition: assets that are not projected to be needed as mitigation for the current construction TIP using existing regulatory protocols • interagency group (DOT, EEP, FHWA) • developing recommendations to advance consumption of surplus assets • intend to discuss preliminary concepts with the PACG on October 20 • solutions being considered include adjacent CU and out-of-kind mitigation application

  22. QUESTION 4 Adjacent CU allowance • Required to use available credits within CU of impact • Adjacent CU requires approval from USACE • Prohibited except for Catawba 03 • May petition USACE (as in process)

  23. Catawba 03 Protocol (Handout)

  24. QUESTION 4 Penalties • If approved, typical penalties range from 1.5 to 3 times the customary amount for same type of mitigation (i.e. streams for streams)

  25. QUESTION 5 Moved to the end of presentation.

  26. Questions 6&7 Assets

  27. Evaluation of Assets • Types of assets • Transfers from DOT • Transfers from WRP • EEP generated • All assets are tied to specific programs • MOA • MOU • Nutrient offset • Buffer

  28. Distribution of Assets – Streams and Wetlands

  29. Question 6&7-Assets • Handout(s) • Projects that transferred from NCDOT as assets (initial transfer) • Assets in MOA program • By River Basin and CU • By Division • EEP MOA Debit Ledger • Debit Ledger simplified and sorted by TIP

  30. Question 8 Buy/sell transactions • See handout

  31. Question 9 (Bill) HQP • How are HQP credits managed on an ecoregion basis • How are they assigned to a division

  32. HQP is assigned to

  33. High quality mitigation • HQP management • Considered in strategic plan as part of needs • Applied as restoration equivalents • HQP benefits NCDOT and EEP • Provides greater flexibility to meet mitigation • Does not apply strictly to 8-digit CUs or river basins- a larger service area • Tempers the amount of restoration required to meet compliance • Still required to provide 1:1 restoration

  34. HQP Assignment to Divisions • An NCDOT process

  35. Question 10 Program review and quarterly invoices • EEP provides mitigation programmatically • DENR and DOA processes for contracting

  36. Status of projects under development(Question 10) • Pass around materials • One Quarter’s worth of invoices (1 copy) • One copy of a quarterly invoice from EEP to NCDOT • One copy of year end close our report • Working to simplify this information • Electronic copy will follow

  37. Ecosystem Enhancement Program 2004-2005 Annual Report North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM QUARTERLY REPORT July 1, 2005 - September 30, 2005 Restoring… Enhancing… ProtectingOur State State of North Carolina Michael F. Easley, Governor Regular Reporting • Quarterly accounting of impacts and assets • End of Transition Report • Annual Reports

  38. SponsorsMOA Program Assessment and Consistency Group (PACG) EEP Liaison Council PACG Technical Committee Framework for Program Review Compliance

  39. ERC EEP Framework for Program Review ERC Procurement Contracts Accounting Fund Management State Auditing and Accounting Processes NCAS DP&S DOA SPO SCO NCDOT External Audits

  40. Status of projects under development(Question 10) • Key points regarding payment to vendors • Project manager follows payment system as per contract • Invoices to EEP are paid according to work accomplished • Vendor required to provide progress report to EEP • Project Manager and Contractor are required to ensure that deliverables are in hand prior to processing payments

  41. QUESTION 11Excess asset value • Handout • No records of DOT costs • Based on fee schedule

  42. QUESTION 12Post Year • EEP operates according to MOA • Does not focus on post year needs • All division consideration is by TIP and therefore associated division needs can be generated if supplied.

  43. Ecosystem Enhancement Program BDOT Question #5 How are credits assigned and managed when CU (cataloging unit) boundaries cross Division lines?

  44. Ecosystem Enhancement Program

  45. Ecosystem Enhancement Program BDOT Question #5 How are credits assigned and managed when CU (cataloging unit) boundaries cross Division lines? • As expected with 54 cataloging units vs. 14 DOT Divisions boundaries do not correlate and there are instances where mitigation assets lie in multiple Divisions. The position recommended by DOT Fiscal will be to assign the credits associated with these sites to a single Division based on the site location per the conservation easement or deed transfer upon acquisition. If the credits are assigned to mitigate a project in another Division, the Division using the credits will be assigned the costs for the actual quantity at the ILF rate. The Division releasing the credits will get value received for the amount that was utilized by the receiving Division. The management of the mitigation assets belongs to EEP in accordance with the MOA and the single Division assignments will not compromise EEP’s ability to supervise the assets, as their program requires.

  46. QUESTIONS?

  47. END

More Related