G-1

A Final Report on

Improving the Mitigation ProcessFor

Transportation-Related Projects in North Carolina

January 2002

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

US Army Corpsof EngineersWilmington District

G-2

In a collaborative effort, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers agreedto collectively launch a process improvement initiative based on wetland, stream, and buffermitigation. The purpose of the initiative was to improve the current mitigation process orestablish a programmatic process that provides functional replacement at the watershed forecosystem impacts of transportation development. In a series of activities based on a six-stepprocess improvement methodology, a team of knowledgeable participants was chosen, theexisting process was thoroughly evaluated and reviewed, all issues and concerns weredefined, and recommendations to improve the existing process were developed.

The issues negatively impacting the current mitigation process were identified as inadequatecommunication; undefined roles and responsibilities; poor synchronization and coordinationamong and between the process and owners; difficulties with mitigation site development,construction, and monitoring; and a lack of clearly understood mitigation-success objectives.These issues were identified as the principle causes of not meeting customer expectationsand lower performance of the mitigation process. The root causes identified result from thereoccurring loops, bottlenecks, and timing problems in executing the existing mitigation (andpermitting) processes. Upon the complete mitigation process evaluation and review, theprocess was redesigned and thirteen recommendations were presented and approved by theprocess sponsors.

The recommendations de-couple mitigation from the permitting process, allowing permits tobe issued for unavoidable and minimized impacts without the reliance on individual projectmitigation sites. The recommendations also call for the establishment of a new organization,the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). This EEP will better protect the naturalresources of the state by assessing, restoring, enhancing, and preserving ecosystem functionsand compensating for developmental impacts at the watershed level. The new mitigationprocess will potentially save agencies time and cost, while improving communication,planning, and environmental stewardship. The existing process for one mitigation projectcosts an estimated $593,836.00 and requires 28,680 working hours. The redesigned processfor ten NCDOT projects with five mitigation sites costs an estimated $2,291,615.00 andrequires 42,626 working hours.

The recommended implementation actions for the new service design address the interim andfuture needs of the program. The implementation design also addresses all the issues andconcerns identified in the evaluation of the current process. When fully implemented, thisprogram and process will be established as a role model for positive interagencyrelationships and will set a nationwide standard for mitigation at the ecosystem level forunavoidable and minimized impacts resulting from transportation and other developmentprojects.

G-3

II. TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Executive Summary G2

II. Table of Contents G3

III. Introduction and Background 1A. Process Overview 1B. Mission 1C. Membership 1

IV. Key Issues and Concerns 2

V. Findings 3A. Existing Process Map 3B. Key Issues 4C. Problem Statements 4

VI. Recommendations and Implementation A. Ecosystem Enhancement Program

59

10VII. Conclusion

Appendix A - Memorandum of Agreement 12Appendix B - Memorandum Addressing EEP Concept 14Appendix C - Detailed Existing Process Map 15Appendix D - Detailed New Process Map 20Appendix E - EEP Structure 25Appendix F - EEP Core Processes 26Appendix G - EEP Relationship Map 30

1

III. Introduction and Background

A. Process OverviewThe North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources (DENR), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(USACE) jointly executed a Memorandum of Agreement to conduct a collaborativeMitigation Process Improvement initiative. The means utilized to facilitate thisprocess improvement initiative was based on a method utilizing six structured steps:committing to the need for performance improvement, scoping the selected process,analyzing the current process, designing the new process, implementing the newprocess, and managing the process improvement. During scoping, approximatelyforty interviews were conducted with individuals involved in and knowledgeableabout wetland, stream, and buffer mitigation. Following scoping, a series ofworkshops were conducted to examine the current process, redesign the process, anddevelop recommendations to implement a new or improved process. The MichiganDepartment of Transportation (MDOT) assisted with the facilitation of theworkshops. The outcomes of the workshops resulted in the design of a newprogrammatic process and organization (the Ecosystem Enhancement Program). TheEEP and its process provide functional replacement at the watershed level forecosystem impacts of transportation and other development. At the conclusion of theimprovement process, a list of specific recommendations with tasks and action itemsare established to fully implement the EEP and new redesigned process. All of theserecommendations and outcomes are addressed later in this report.

B. MissionThe overall mission of the Mitigation Process Improvement initiative was to developa structured mitigation process that supports the timely delivery of North Carolina’sTransportation Program while appropriately compensating for unavoidable andminimized wetland, stream, and buffer impacts. The mission was supported andagreed on by the NCDOT, DENR, and USACE Sponsors and workshop participants.In addition to the process mission there were several expectations specified by theSponsors, which are outlined in the scoping document and Memorandum ofAgreement (MOA) (see Appendix A for the MOA).

C. MembershipIt was extremely important to include all appropriate agencies and individuals in theprocess improvement initiative. Representatives from state and federal agencies wereinvolved. In addition to the three sponsoring agencies, participants included the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS), and the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). Theparticipants provided leadership, experience, and valuable knowledge to the scoping,redesign, and implementation components of the initiative. Below are theparticipants that played a significant role in analyzing and developing the newmitigation process and program, including sponsors, team members, technicalexperts, and facilitators:

2

Alsmeyer, Eric - USACE Griffin, Randy - NCDOT Moffitt, Donna - DCMBenton, Dempsey - DENR Harris, Phil - NCDOT Paugh, LeiLani - NCDOTBrittingham, Cathy - DCM Hennessy, John - DWQ Russo, Chris - DENRBruton, Charles - NCDOT Huggett, Doug - DCM Sanderson, Len - NCDOTBuncick, Marella - USFWS Hunkins, Julie - NCDOT Schiller, Dave - NCDOTCox, David - NCWRC Jones, Charles - DCM Schmidt-Derwae, Margo - MDOTD’Ignazio, Janet - NCDOT Lee, Don - NCDOT Sheats, Roger - NCDOTDavis, Diane - MDOT Lund, Steve - USACE Street, Mike - DMFDorney, John - DWQ Matthews, Kathy - USEPA Szlosberg, Nina - NCDOTFerrell, Ron - WRP McGlown, Odessa - NCDOT Thorpe, Greg - DWQFranklin, David - USACE McLendon, Scott - USACE Williams, Kelly - DCMGilmore, Bill - NCDOT Meister, Ehren - NCDOT Wright, Wayne -USACE

IV. Key Issues and Concerns

To move forward with any process improvement, it is important to fully understandthe primary issues and root causes associated with the current process. The teamdeveloped a list of key issues and concerns and used them in developing the newprocess and associated program.

During scoping, over one hundred issues and concerns were noted for use during theredesign. These issues were divided into twelve categories and reflected generalprocess concerns, personnel issues, and difficulties in the selection and acquisition ofappropriate mitigation sites. The initial scoping information was examined and thekey issues and root causes affecting the current level of effectiveness and efficiencyof the existing process were identified. The key issues are:

1. Lack of synchronization, coordination, communication, and timing of

mitigation with the planning/permitting process.2. No clear definition of roles and responsibilities/lack of defined mitigation

processes and customer and suppliers not educated/process participant skillsnot defined and recruitment of skilled people difficult (no skill requirements).

3. Difficult to identify, obtain, and improve mitigation sites.4. Success of mitigation is not defined in terms of function restoration and

impacts are over inflated such as commonly defined impacts and lack ofcommon environmental standards for success (mitigation for mitigation sake).

5. Mitigation Science not fully developed or linked to regulatory requirementsand decision making (don’t use lessons learned).

The current state of meeting customer needs was also examined. Specifically, theneeds, concerns, and issues of the external and internal customers of the mitigationprocess were identified using a customer value structure. The customer valuestructure is an organized approach to identifying the most critical customer needs andvalues within the process and rating them on how well these customer needs arebeing met. The customers are the eight agencies that participated in the improvementprocess. The customer needs and values were used to evaluate the effectiveness andefficiency of the existing mitigation process and as criteria for developing theproposed process.

3

The top customer needs identified by the participating customers are:

• Mitigation in place prior to impacts occurring• Replacement of lost functions• Specific, attainable, measurable results• Successful mitigation • Accountability• Consistent and predictable process • Flexible mitigation• Mitigation with highest watershed benefits – ecological rather than site based

(biggest “bang for the buck”)

V. Findings

This phase includes developing the complete existing process map, identifying thekey issues, and establishing problem statements. Many of the statements and issuescan be linked to the existing process map.

A. Existing Process MapThe entire process was identified and labeled step-by-step to recognize where anypotential bottlenecks or reoccurring loops may arise. Most importantly, this enabledthe team to come to a consensus of what the steps in the existing process actually areand how each of the process participants is involved in the process. The detailedprocess map defines the critical steps in the process and the entities that are involvedin each particular step. The high level steps of the existing mitigation process areshown in Chart 1 below.

Note: See Appendix C for the detailed existing process map

B. Key IssuesAfter identifying the process, key issues were recognized during the workshops toreflect the major concerns. The mapped process was then analyzed to identify issues

Chart 1

Identifysites

Developplans

Implementsite plan

Monitormitigation

site

Submitpermit

application

Identifyimpacts

Certifysuccess

PermitIssued

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6

4

in flow, timing, and synchronization with associated and higher level processes.Voting identified the key issues. The statements below are listed in order of voteoutcome, with the highest number of votes at the top of the list.

1. Lack of functional replacement 2. Mitigation process not done early enough and plans are approved too late 3. Lack of understanding of needs of the watershed 4. DOT mitigation is project focused as opposed to program focused 5. Lack of commitment and ownership to mitigation agencies 6. Lack of standard success criteria for mitigation 7. Lack of consistency in guidance from agencies to NCDOT for mitigation 8. Lack of final analysis of success site relative to project goals

C. Problem StatementsA root cause analysis of the developed key issue list was performed. The outcome isa statement of the problem with reasons for performance discrepancies. They definethe problem area followed with a reason of support. They are important because theyidentify the crucial areas that are creating dissatisfaction, which is the focus duringthe redesign of the process. Many of the statements can be linked to the currentprocess.

1. The problem is that wetland/stream systems are complex and not completelyunderstood as evidenced by scientific uncertainty, difficulty in development,lack of mandate/lack of commitment, and no formal adoption of a consistentfunctional assessment method for North Carolina resulting in lack offunctional replacement.

2. The problem is that project dollars are lost if projects are not let as evidencedby outraged board members leading to short-term needs versus long-termgoals for mitigation.

3. The problem is lack of science and guidance at the time regulations arewritten as evidenced by lack of understanding of the needs of the watershedwhich results in mitigation projects focused on project impacts and failure toaccount for watershed losses.

4. The problem is public perception of dysfunctional infrastructures asevidenced by public pressure, political involvement, external dictation ofschedules and volumes, and crisis mode, which results in mitigation is projectfocused rather than program focused.

5. The problem is that there is regulatory constraint on the part of the agencies inaccepting ownership of mitigation plans as evidenced by lack ofdirection/commitment that results in an unacceptable level of risk on the partof NCDOT.

6. The problem is that there are different legislated responsibilities/mandates fordifferent regulatory resource agencies as evidenced by a lack of standardsuccess criteria and goals for mitigation sites which results in the perceptionof unsuccessful mitigation.

7. The problem is that agencies have different missions and regulatory authorityas evidenced by a lack of consistency in guidance from the agencies to

5

NCDOT which results in mitigation sites being structure or performancefocused and not meeting the needs of individual agencies.

8. The problem is that ecological structure is easier to measure than function asevidenced by no regulatory requirement to measure function, which results infunctional goals have not been met.

VI. Recommendations and Implementation

An implementation item adopted during the workshops is the development of aredesigned process or new mitigation process. The workgroup developed a newservice design for the recommended EEP organization. The use of the EEP and itsnew mitigation process will shorten overall project time, alleviate miscommunication,ensure standardization, and provide mitigation on an ecosystem basis that has theopportunity to benefit the environment more than the current mitigation process andpractices.

The detailed level steps of the redesigned mitigation process can be found inAppendix D. The high level steps are shown below in Chart 2.

A significant finding following the redesign of the process is that there is a potentialto have a remarkable difference in the total process cost and process time whencompared to the existing process. The existing and redesigned or processes werecompared using a cost-time analysis during the mitigation workshops. Participantsestimated the cost and time associated with each step, establishing an estimated totaltime and dollar amount for the mitigation component in the current and redesignedprocesses. The existing process data estimates that one mitigation project costs$593,836.00 and lasts 28,680 working hours. The redesigned process data estimatesthat ten NCDOT projects with five mitigation sites will cost $2,291,615.00 and willlast 42,626 working hours (See Table 1). Based on this data, one can speculate thatthere will be significant savings in cost and an overall reduction in time.

Process Redesign: Mitigation Process Process outcome: A programmatic process that provides functional replacement at the watershed level for ecosystem impacts of transportation development

Develop DOTmitigationimpacts

Certifysuccess

Implement siteplan

Develop sitespecific plans

Developmitigation

goals

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

Chart 2

6

Table 1 Current Process Redesigned Process

Estimated Cost $593,836.00 $2,291,615.00Estimated Time 28,680 hours 42,626 hours

# of Projects 1 NCDOT project with 1mitigation site

10 NCDOT projects with 5mitigation sites

The results of the above analyses were used to conduct problem solving and resultantrecommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the mitigationprocess. The recommendations were developed through a team effort followingbrainstorming and discussion sessions surrounding the issues and needs of theorganizations with respect to mitigation. The team identified thirteen significantrecommendations with tasks associated with their completion. The recommendationssuggested following the process documentation are as follows.

Category: Policies and RulemakingAction: Identify required policies and rulemaking needed to implement the

Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and ensure compatibility ofall applicable rules, regulations, statues, policies, and programs.

Tasks:1. Develop MOU for regulatory agencies and NCDOT that

establishes operating procedures of EEP2. Educate and inform legislature and appropriate boards and

commissions3. Evaluate existing rules, regulations. Statutes, policies and

programs to identify and resolve areas of conflict with MOU4. Make necessary changes to MOU and/or rules5. Sign MOU6. Develop detailed rules, policies, and procedures outlining the

operation of the EEP to include the relationship with private andother interested parties

Category: Guidelines Action: Establish ratios for justified preservation sites.Tasks: None identified

Category: Functional AssessmentAction: Develop functional assessment methodology.Tasks:

1. Develop approved list of functions to be addressed2. Develop Functional assessment methodology standards and guidance

acceptable to all agencies for use in mitigation planning whichincludes updated supplemental watershed need plans to addressmethodology regulations

3. Develop stream and wetland functional method and begin using theassessment now to evaluate impacts and mitigation.

Category: Reference Sites

7

Action: Establish and monitor reference sites.Tasks:

1. Locate sites and continually review sites2. Install monitoring equipment

Collect site data Collect hydrology data

3. Compile data4. Acquire sites (lease, conservation easements)5. Report and distribute data

Note: Design and implement a “Regional Reference DataCollection Program” for wetlands and streams by June 2002.

Category: Concurrence Point Action: Develop mitigation concurrence points linked to NEPA/404 Merger 01

Process.Tasks:

1. Develop concurrence point process for NEPA/404 Merger 01Process that provides a progressive, step-wise decision-makingsystem that addresses compensatory mitigation requirements

Category: Education and OutreachAction: Establish education and outreach methods.Tasks:

1. Establish public involvement group to distribute information2. Hold public/agency workshops to get “buy-in”3. Communicate to “worker bees”, including agenda item at

Interagency Meetings4. Communicate to law makers, Governor, and local governments5. Develop web page (EEPBay.com) and other transfer technologies

Category: AccountabilityAction: Develop accounting mechanism so that it is legally defensible (note:

EEP should consider running a positive balance to provide neededcredits).

Tasks:1. Set up and maintain accurate ledger2. Buy-in on functional assessment method for generating credits3. Develop “acceptable” standards of accounting4. Attorney General’s office reviews and approves on accounting

practices5. EEP begins to sell credits when a positive balance is established

(can’t sell until successful, as deemed by Technical ReviewGroup)

6. NCDOT carries on parallel process until above is established7. WRP finishes existing mitigation commitments

Category: Watershed PlansAction: Develop watershed plans.

8

Tasks:1. Review existing watershed plans for content2. Convene agency team to determine gaps in existing plans (data)3. Determine scale based on watershed needs4. Modify existing plans5. Agency review and approval

Category: EEP InfrastructureAction: Develop and implement EEP infrastructure.Tasks:

1. Develop organization plan and place in state governmentorganization (in conjunction with upper management)

2. Develop human and financial resource plan by EEP function andprocess (compare salaries to existing “like” positions)

3. Develop duties, responsibilities and qualifications4. Determine existing human resources that can be shifted

Category: Pilot ProgramAction: Develop interim program to address project needs in an individual

watershed to refine EEP process and gain agency “buy-in.”Tasks:

1. Supplement existing watershed plan in one watershed with agencyinput

2. NCDOT identifies group of projects impacts in this watershed3. Identify mitigation projects in watershed4. Develop functional assessment methodology5. NCDOT develop site plans with agency coordination6. Re-assess and refine proposed process

Category: FundingAction: Identify funding sources and determine fee schedule.Tasks:

1. Develop functional assessment2. Determine cost/functional units3. Determine level of funding needed beyond that generated by fees

Note: Establish a “Fee Schedule” Team.

9

Category: Post EEP EraAction: Determine human resource abilities utilizing existing agency staff and

present recommendation to sponsors.Tasks:

1. Evaluate successful mitigation program options2. Apply to EEP

Category: On-site mitigationAction: Determine need to implement on-site mitigation.Tasks:

1. Establish an on-site mitigation team

A. Ecosystem Enhancement ProgramAs mentioned above, the most significant recommendation developed during theprocess is the establishment of the EEP. This program will initially be accountableand responsible for mitigation associated with transportation impacts and will later beexpanded to manage development impacts. The EEP will have two majorcomponents: (1) the Policy Group to sponsor program reviews and establish policiesand goals, and (2) the Technical Group, which will provide guidance, definition andtechnical review of projects, and ensure overall success. During the workshops, theteam developed the core elements of the new EEP, including the mission, purpose,structure, functional components, key relationships, and core processes. All of theseitems are crucial in establishing a relevant, momentous, and functional program.

The purpose of the EEP is to provide a program that identifies ecosystem needs at thewatershed level and preserves, enhances, and restores ecological functions throughinteragency participation and various funding sources including but not limited tocompensatory mitigation. The major attributes of this organization are:

• It is a program• It benefits from interagency relationships• It uses a multi-disciplinary approach• It identifies ecosystem needs at the watershed level• It provides services that preserve, enhance, and restore ecological functions• It has various funding sources, including compensatory mitigation

The mission of the EEP is to protect the natural resources of North Carolina throughthe assessment, restoration, enhancement, and preservation of ecosystem functionsand compensation for development impacts at the watershed level. Some majorattributes of the organizational mission are:

• To assess, identify, restore, enhance, protect and preserve the naturalresources of North Carolina at the watershed level.

• To improve and enhance the natural resources of North Carolina throughassessing and identifying areas where functional enhancement andreplacement of watershed is needed and addressing them throughpreservation, restoration, and enhancement.

10

• Identify, assess, reserve, enhance, protect, and preserve the ecologicalfunctions of the natural resources of North Carolina at the watershed level.

• Restore, enhance and preserve the ecosystem functions of the watershedsthroughout North Carolina.

• Conserve and replace the natural resources of North Carolina throughpreservation, enhancement, and restoration of ecosystems and ecologicalfunction at the watershed level.

• Assessments, Restoration, Enhancement, Replacements, Identification ofimpacts, and other preservation.

• Non-NCDOT• To improve watershed functional performance through a program that

assesses needs and implements multiple projects to satisfy regulatoryrequirements.

The EEP structure is similar to a traditional horizontally aligned organization. At thetop of the structure there are components with specific functions aligned to specificcore processes progressing with the unique functions (see Appendix E for the formalEEP structure). In addition to the structure, the EEP relationship map outlines therelationships and to what extent they may occur. The relationship map delineatesbetween the regulatory agencies, associated agencies, impacting agencies, provideragencies, and the public (see Appendix G for the complete relationship map).

The core processes of the EEP are critical to the organizational activities. Theprocess participants identified four core processes within the new program. They arewatershed planning, project development, on-site mitigation, and performanceauditing and accounting. Each identified core process has sub-processes, key tasks,customers, inputs, outputs, and several sub-processes have individual inputs andoutputs. These process activities outline the essential elements and procedures of theEEP. The core processes are incorporated in the organizational structure and arediagramed completely in Appendix F.

11

VII. Conclusion

Over the past several months NCDOT, DENR, and USACE and other partneringagencies have undertaken the enormous task of evaluating and redesigning thecomplex mitigation process. During this collaborative process improvementinitiative, the existing mitigation process was documented and the issues andconcerns were defined through specific activities. The needs of our customers werefully defined. Following a detailed inventory of the existing process, a newmitigation process was designed which de-couples it from the permitting process.The new process was adopted to establish predictability and accountability, to savetime and costs associated with mitigation development and delivery, to increasecommunication and efficiency, and to produce a better mitigation process andprogram. Overall, this initiative establishes a programmatic process that providesfunctional replacement at the watershed level for ecosystem impacts of transportationdevelopment.

One of the key components to a process improvement initiative is therecommendations that are developed form the improvement effort. There have beenthirteen action items recommended for inclusion into the implementation phases. Themost significant is the recommendation to establish the Ecosystem EnhancementProgram. The mitigation team recommended the development of a program that willprotect the natural resources of North Carolina through the assessment, restoration,enhancement, and preservation of ecosystem functions and compensation fordevelopment impacts at the watershed level. This will be the first of its kind and willestablish North Carolina as the leader in wetland, stream, and buffer mitigation. Theteam also incorporated the term “ecosystem” into the program signifying it willfunction with a much larger environmental scope. The participants in the processcreated a purpose, mission, structure, core processes, and a relationship map to beginthe implementation of the new EEP and mitigation process.

The outcome of this process improvement initiative will have lasting impacts on theactivities and culture of the participating agencies. The implementation of thethirteen recommendations, including establishment of the EEP and the new mitigationprocess, will take hard work and dedication from NCDOT, DENR, USACE, andother participating federal and state agencies. However, by January 2003, a newmitigation program and concept will be implemented and will begin to ultimatelyimprove the ecosystem in North Carolina.

12

Appendix A

Memorandum of Agreement

13

Appendix A (cont’d)

Memorandum of Agreement

14

Appendix B

Memorandum Addressing EEP Concept

15

Appendix C Detailed Existing Process Map

Step 2: Identify sites

Identify sites w ithm apping

DO T

Identify sites infieldDO T

Sign option orLetter of Intent

DO T

S tep 1: IdentifyIm pacts

Identifylocation , types,and am ount of

im pactsDO T

Review site w ithagencies

D O T, NCW R C,EPA, USFW S,

DENR, CO E

Determ inefeasibility of site

DO T

Analyze fata l flaw s

R eview protectedresources

E valuate technicalconstraints

D eterm ine landow nerw illingness

D eterm ine restorationpotentia l

Estim ate acreages

Estim ate costs

Prepare feasibilityreport

2

D evelopDraft E IS

LED PA

O btaincom m ents from

agenciesDO T

Legend

NEPA/404Process

PermitProcess

High-LevelProcess

Steps

MitigationProcess

Steps

16

Appendix C (cont’d) Detailed Existing Process Map

Step 3: Develop plans

2

Gather sitedataDOT

Analyze sitedataDOT

Developinternal draft

mitigationplanDOT

Reviseinternal

mitigationplan draft

DOT

Send draftplan to

agenciesfor review

DOT

Review andcomment on

draftNCWRC, EPA,

USFWS, DENR,COE

AddressComments

DOT

Prepare finalmitigation

planDOT

Purchaseproperty

DOT

3

Submit projectpermit application

Resubmit toagencies

DOT

Legend

NEPA/404Process

PermitProcess

High-LevelProcess

Steps

MitigationProcess

Steps

17

Appendix C (cont’d) Detailed Existing Process Map

Step 4: Implement Site Plan

3

Prepareconstruction

plansDOT

Submitconstruction

plans foragency review

DOT

Prepare permitapplication formitigation site

DOT

Submit permitapplication formitigation site

DOT

Issue permitfor

mitigationsite

COE, DENR

Prepareconstructionbid package

DOT

Advertiseconstruction

bidsDOT

Construct siteDOT

Conductpre-construction

conferenceDOT, USFWS, NCWRC,

DENR, COE

Award contractDOT

Install monitoringequipment

DOT

Submit as-builtplansDOT

4

Project permitIssued

Legend

NEPA/404Process

PermitProcess

High-LevelProcess

Steps

MitigationProcess

Steps

18

Appendix C (cont’d) Detailed Existing Process Map

S tep 5 : M onitor S ite

4

M onito r s itesannuallly

D O T

G enerate annualm on ito ring

reportD O T

C onduct annualagency m eeting

D O T, U S FW S ,D E N R , C O E ,

E P A , N C W R C

Take rem ed ia laction

D O T, U S FW S ,D E N R , C O E ,

E P A , N C W R C

R eview sitestatus

D O T, U S FW S ,D E N R , C O E ,

E P A , N C W R C

5

R e-evaluate /redesign p lans

D O T

R eview byagencies

(redesign )D O T, U S FW S ,

D E N R , C O E , E P A ,N C W R C

Insta llm on itoringequ ipm ent

D O T

A dvertisefo r b ids

D O T

C onstruct s iteD O T, C O E

A w ard contractD O T

S ubm it as-bu iltp lans(D O T)

Legend

NEPA/404Process

PermitProcess

High-LevelProcess

Steps

MitigationProcess

Steps

19

Appendix C (cont’d) Detailed Existing Process Map

Step 6: Certify success

5

Prepare close-out letters

DOT, DENR,COE

Discontinuemonitoring

DOT

Dispose ofsiteDOT

End

Legend

NEPA/404Process

PermitProcess

High-LevelProcess

Steps

MitigationProcess

Steps

20

Appendix D Detailed New Process Map

Step 1. Develop DOT mitigation impacts

Identify projectsDOT

Quantify initialimpacts

DOT

Identifyfunctional

componentsEEP (Biologistsand engineers)

Assess initialimpacts - GIS

EEP2

21

Appendix D (cont’d) Detailed New Process Map

2

Step 2. Develop mitigation goals

Consultwatershed plan

EEP

Developtransportationmitigation plan

goalsEEP

Approve goals(technical review)Technical Group

Conduct sitefeasibility study

EEP staff

Identify targetsites

EEP staff

Approve sitesEEP/Technical

Group

Acquire sitesEEP

Programmitigationprojects

EEP

3

22

Appendix D (cont’d) Detailed New Process Map

3

Step 3. Develop site specific plans

Gather sites dataEEP

Analyze sitesdataEEP

Develop draftplansEEP

Review internaldraftsEEP

Review plansEEP/Technical

Group

Prepare finalplansEEP

4Verify

AccountingEEP/Technical

Group

23

Appendix D (cont’d) Detailed New Process Map

4

Step 4. Implement site plans

Prepareconstruction

plansEEP

Prepare permitapplication formitigation sites

EEP

Issue permit formitigation sitesPermit Agencies

Prepareconstruction bid

packageEEP

Advertiseconstruction bids

EEP

Award contractEEP

Construct siteEEP/Contractors

Conduct pre-constructionconference

EEP

Submitapplication formitigation sites

EEP

5

24

Appendix D (cont’d) Detailed New Process Map

5

Step 5. Certify Success

Install monitoringequipment

EEP

Prepare as-builtsEEP

Review as-builtsEEP/Technical

Group

Monitor sitesannually

EEP

Generate annualmonitoring report

EEP

Conduct sitereviews

EEP/TechnicalGroup

Review sitestatus

EEP/TechnicalGroup

Final AccountingEEP/PermitAgencies

Take remedialaction

EEP/TechnicalGroup

Discontinuemonitoring

EEP

Dispose of siteEEP

End

25

Appendix E

E E PP o lic y G ro u p

W a te rs h e dP la n n in g

P ro je c tD e v e lo p m e n t

O n -S iteM it ig a t io n

P e r fo rm a n c eA u d it a n d

A c c o u n t in g

P la n n in g

T e c h n ic a l C o n s t ru c t io n

O p e ra t io n s

R e g u la to ryR e v ie w B o a rd

R e g u la to ryL ia is o n

E E PD ire c to r

A d m in is t r a t io nH u m a n R e s o u rc e s

C le r ic a l

P ro g ra mP la n n in g

P ro g ra m B u d g e t(P P P B )

P u b l icIn fo rm a t io n

(P IO )

L e g a l

In fo rm a t io nT e c h n o lo g y

T e c h n ic a lO v e rs ig h t

G ro u p

E c o s y s te m E n h a n c e m e n t P r o g r a m S t r u c tu r e

C o r e P r o c e s s e s

P r o c e s s R e s p o n s ib i l i t ie sW a te rs h e d P la n n in g

P r o c e s sR e s p o n s ib i l i t ie s-O n S ite M it ig a t io n-P e rfo rm a n c e A u d it a n d A c c o u n t in g

P r o c e s s R e s p o n s ib i l i t ie sP ro je c t D e v e lo p m e n t

G e n e r a l F u n c t io n-V e r ify le g a lre q u ire m e n ts-A u d it a n d re v ie wc o m p e n s a t io n

G e n e r a l F u n c t io nD e v e lo p E E P p o l ic ya n d f ra m e w o rk

G e n e r a l F u n c t io n-D e v e lo p a n d m o n ito rte c h n ic a l s ta n d a rd s ,m e th o d o lo g ie s , a n ds c ie n c e-E n s u re c o n s is te n c y o fp ro je c ts w ith w a te rs h e dp la n s-E n s u re c o n s is te n c ya n d c o n fo rm ity w ithe s ta b l is h e d s ta n d a rd s

G e n e r a l F u n c t io nM a n a g e a n d d ire c td a i ly a c t iv i t ie s o fE E P

H ig h e r A u th o r i t y(D e p t . S e c re ta ry ? )

M a n a g e m e n t F u n c t io n s fo r P P P BE s ta b l is h P ro g ra m P r io r it ie sM a n a g e re p o r t a c t io n sA c q u is i t io n a n d d is p o s a l o f p ro p e r tyC o n t ra c t in g a u d itP e r fo rm a n c e a u d itR e s p o n s ib le fo r c re d it le d g e r

M a n a g e m e n tF u n c t io n sA c c o u n ta b il i ty a n dd is t r ib u t io n o f o u tc o m e s

D ir e c to r M a n a g e m e n tF u n c t io n sD ire c ts a n d m a n a g e sp o l ic ie s

M a n a g e m e n t F u n c t io n sM a n a g e d a ta a n a ly s is ,d a ta b a s e s , a n d G IS

M a n a g e m e n t F u n c t io n s-E s ta b lis h p ro je c t p r io r i t ie s-M a n a g e m e n t a n d re p o rtin g o f c re d its- Id e n t i f y lo n g - te rm m o n ito r in g a n d d is p o s it io n c o n d it io n s

M a n a g e m e n t F u n c t io n s-E n s u r in g q u a l i ty e x e c u t io n-M a n a g e im p le m e n tin g p la n s-M a n a g e d a ta c o l le c t io n-O v e rs e e s i te re m e d ia t io n

M a n a g e m e n tF u n c t io n sP e rs o n n e lm a n a g e m e n t ,d e v e lo p m e n t ,a n d e v a lu a t io n

26

Appendix F

Process: Watershed Planning

Conductbasin

planning

Conductwatershedplanning

ReportReport with

mitigation goals

Outputs Outputs

Core Processes - EEP

Inputs

Local land use planners,FMP, landscape habitat plans,

Coastal Habitat ProtectionPlan, projected impacts

(watershed)

Basin widemanagement plan

none identified

Inputs Inputs

Outputs

Watershed Plan

CustomersMitigation bankers, DOT,

private industry, localgovernment, EEP, private

developer community,agencies

Key TasksDetermine baseline

condition, identify causesof problems, projected

future land use andconditions, and watershed

mitigation goals

Responsible Functional Area

Planning, IT

27

Appendix F (cont’d)

Process: Project Development(planning through success)

Project planning,site selection,

andrecommendations

Acquisition

report (withpriorities, needs,and recs) land

mgnt plan

deed

Outputs Outputs

Core Processes - EEP

Inputs

Projected impacts

specific siteinformation

site map, survey,request

Inputs Inputs

Outputs

none identifiedCustomers

EEP, developers, DOT,agencies, environmentalgroups, public, mitigation

bankers

Key Tasks

Functional assessments,contract letting, site

selection, identification ofsite specific goals, collectbaseline data (planning)

Implementation(contracting,construction,

design)

Sitemonitoring

as-built plans, siteannual monitoring report,

measures of success,lessons learned,

successful site closeout

Outputs Outputs

recommendationssite plans, bid

package, design

site plans, successcriteria, monitoring

plan

Inputs Inputs

RemediationCustomer: Technical

Advisory Group

Long-termmonitoring

recommendations reports byacquiring agencies

Outputs Outputs

site plan, monitoringplan, data from

monitoring, measureof success

site plan,monitoring

requirements

Inputs Inputs

Sitedispositionout of EEP

Legal instrumentof protection

Outputs

willing recipient,successful site

Inputs

Responsible Functional Area

Operations, IT

28

Appendix F (cont’d)

Process: On-Site Mitigation

Review DOTon-site

mitigationplans

Monitoring

Consistencyreview andstatement

Accounting

Outputs Outputs

Inputs

none identified

DOT on-sitemitigation plan

Constructed site

Inputs Inputs

Outputs

none identified

Customers

Mitigation bankers, DOT,private industry, local

government, EEP, privatedeveloper community,

agencies

Key Tasks

Evaluate consistency,collect baseline data

Core Processes - EEP

Responsible Functional Area

Operations, IT

29

Appendix F (cont’d)

Process: PerformanceAuditing and Accounting

Reviewmonitoring

reports

RemedialRecommendations

none identified none identified

Outputs Outputs

Inputs

Annual operations plan,watershed goals,

comprehensive accountabilitystudy, annual monitoring

reports, performancemeasures

none identified none identified

Inputs Inputs

Outputs

Public information,performance review,

report/ledger

Customers

Public, EEP Policy Group,Regulatory Review Board,

agencies, EEP (PIO),General Assembly,

Technical Oversight Group

Key Tasks

Data analysis, datacollection, write annualreport, distribute and

coordinate results

Core Processes - EEP

Responsible Functional Area

EEP Director, EEP, PIO, IT

30

Appendix G

E c o s y s te m E n h a n c e m e n t P r o g r a m R e la t io n s h ip M a p" T h e E E P S o la r S y s te m "

E E P

D W Q

A C O E

N CW ild l i fe

D M F

N M E S

D C M

E P AU S F W S

R e g u la to ry A g e n c ie s

D iv is io no f L a n dQ u a lity

U n iv e rs it ie sD O T

F H W A

N a tio n a lH e r ite g e

N C S H P OD iv is io n

o fC u ltu ra l

R e s o u rc e s

D E HS h e llf is h

N C D F R

L o c a lG o v e rn m e n ts

(p la n n in g )

A s s o c ia te d A g e n c ie s

Im p a c to r A g e n c ie s

P ro v id e r A g e n c ie s

P u b lic

D e v e lo p e rs

G o v e rn m e n tA g e n c ie s

H o m e b u ild e rsA s s o c ia t io n

R o a d w a yD e s ig n

D e p a r tm e n t o fA d m in is t ra t io n

F H W A

E n v iro n m e n ta lC o n s u lta n ts

N C E R AB a n k e rs

D O T F u n d in g

C W M T F

N C C B I

G e n e ra l P u b lic F a rm B u re a u

N G O 's

W R P

W R P

W R P