Project Ranking ResultsProject Ranking Results

Presented at the Presented at the 8 8thth Stakeholder Meeting Stakeholder Meeting

Hal Bryson, Hal Bryson,

EEP Western Watershed PlannerEEP Western Watershed Planner

January 12th, 2010January 12th, 2010

Entrix Project Ranking Entrix Project Ranking ResultsResults

Remember the MCDA Survey & Workgroups?Remember the MCDA Survey & Workgroups?

Project Scoring Criteria (5 Groups) & WeightsProject Scoring Criteria (5 Groups) & WeightsTechnical Memorandum 5Technical Memorandum 5 [Dec. 17, 2009][Dec. 17, 2009]

60 Sites Total scored & ranked60 Sites Total scored & ranked25 stream restoration sites, 25 stream restoration sites,

10 stream preservation sites, 10 stream preservation sites,

20 wetland restoration sites, 20 wetland restoration sites,

4 stormwater BMPs, 4 stormwater BMPs,

1 Ag BMP (farm) site.1 Ag BMP (farm) site.

Table 1. Final Criteria & GroupsTable 1. Final Criteria & Groups

Group C – Proximity BenefitsGroup C – Proximity Benefits Prox. To Schools, Parks, GreenwaysProx. To Schools, Parks, Greenways Connectivity to HQ HabitatConnectivity to HQ Habitat Prox. to Other LWP Projects Prox. to Other LWP Projects Prox. To Downstream DW IntakeProx. To Downstream DW Intake

Group D – Special Designation Group D – Special Designation AreasAreas

Future Land Use DesignationFuture Land Use Designation Upstream from Impaired 303d StreamUpstream from Impaired 303d Stream Within a DW Assessment AreaWithin a DW Assessment Area

Group E – Education BenefitsGroup E – Education Benefits Outreach to Elected OfficialsOutreach to Elected Officials Outreach to Homes/BusinessOutreach to Homes/Business Outreach to SchoolOutreach to School

Group A – Functional BenefitsGroup A – Functional Benefits

Hydrology Uplift (Stream)Hydrology Uplift (Stream)

Pollutant Load Reduction (Sediment)Pollutant Load Reduction (Sediment)

Potential for Aquatic UpliftPotential for Aquatic Uplift

Wetlands Hydrology and Habitat UpliftWetlands Hydrology and Habitat Uplift

Group B – FeasibilityGroup B – Feasibility

Technical FeasibilityTechnical Feasibility

CostCost

Wetland Mitigation CreditsWetland Mitigation Credits

Stream Mitigation CreditsStream Mitigation Credits

Political FeasibilityPolitical Feasibility

Outreach to FarmersOutreach to Farmers

TM5, Figure 2 – Model TM5, Figure 2 – Model FrameworkFramework

Per Stakeholder Workgroups & Outcome Scenario Exercises

Entrix Project Ranking Entrix Project Ranking ModelModelSensitivity AnalysisSensitivity Analysis

Weighted Group Scores + Standard Weighted Group Scores + Standard Deviation across Projects Deviation across Projects == Influence Influence

Group D Group D (green) – (green) – Special Special AreasAreas

andand

Group C Group C (teal)(teal) - -

ProximityProximity

Individual Criteria Individual Criteria Influence on Project Influence on Project

ScoreScorePollutant Load ReductionPollutant Load Reduction STEPL modeling results for TSS (sediment) STEPL modeling results for TSS (sediment)

reductionreduction

Technical FeasibilityTechnical Feasibility Easement potential BPJ: landowners; utilities; Easement potential BPJ: landowners; utilities;

drainage area (longer streams in headwater drainage area (longer streams in headwater areas preferred)areas preferred)

Location upstream of 303(d) Impaired ReachLocation upstream of 303(d) Impaired Reach Pts. scaled based on distance upstream: < 0.25 Pts. scaled based on distance upstream: < 0.25

to >0.75 mi.to >0.75 mi.

Proximity to downstream Drinking Water IntakeProximity to downstream Drinking Water Intake 1 point if within 0.5 miles upstream of DW intake1 point if within 0.5 miles upstream of DW intake

Final Final Rankings:Rankings:

Project Tiers Project Tiers

[see handouts & wall [see handouts & wall map]map]

CherryvilleCherryville

LincolntonLincolntonSub-watersheds with Sub-watersheds with two or more Tier 1 or 2 two or more Tier 1 or 2

projects…projects…

Recommended Areas to Focus Recommended Areas to Focus Project Project

ImplementationImplementationSub-watersheds with 2 or more Tier 1 or 2 projects Sub-watersheds with 2 or more Tier 1 or 2 projects (9 of 34)(9 of 34) I-4, Upper Indian CreekI-4, Upper Indian CreekI-7, Middle Indian Creek (including W. Lincoln HS)I-7, Middle Indian Creek (including W. Lincoln HS)I-10, Lower Mill Creek (incl. Beam Farm?)I-10, Lower Mill Creek (incl. Beam Farm?)I-17, UT to Lower Indian CreekI-17, UT to Lower Indian CreekH-1, UT to Upper Howards CreekH-1, UT to Upper Howards CreekH-3, Upper Howards Creek (including Ag BMPs)H-3, Upper Howards Creek (including Ag BMPs)H-7, Tanyard CreekH-7, Tanyard CreekH-9, Lower Howards CreekH-9, Lower Howards CreekMSF-1, Middle South Fork CatawbaMSF-1, Middle South Fork Catawba

Highest Scoring SitesHighest Scoring SitesW-39 in Sub-watershed MSF-1W-39 in Sub-watershed MSF-1

R-50 in H-2…H-3R-50 in H-2…H-3

R-118 in I-20R-118 in I-20

R-77 in H-9 R-77 in H-9 [but doesn’t meet EEP criteria!][but doesn’t meet EEP criteria!]

W-44 in MSF-1W-44 in MSF-1

R-102 in H-7R-102 in H-7

R-92 in MSF-1R-92 in MSF-1

R-61 + G-1, G-2 (Ag BMPs) in H-3R-61 + G-1, G-2 (Ag BMPs) in H-3

R-131 in I-17R-131 in I-17

W-61 in I-21W-61 in I-21

Highest Scoring Highest Scoring PreservationPreservation Site: P-6 in I-4 (#11 overall) Site: P-6 in I-4 (#11 overall)Stormwater BMPsStormwater BMPs scored in Tier 3 scored in Tier 3 (function of small area treated)(function of small area treated)

Summary of Summary of Key Results & Key Results &

ConclusionsConclusionsLook at highest ranking of the 60 project sites, Look at highest ranking of the 60 project sites, clustered within sub-watershedsclustered within sub-watersheds, as Top Priorities for , as Top Priorities for implementation implementation [Entrix TM5 - Figure 3][Entrix TM5 - Figure 3]

Stream and wetland restoration/enhancement Stream and wetland restoration/enhancement projects generally favored over preservation and BMPprojects generally favored over preservation and BMP But obviously these lower-scoring sites can But obviously these lower-scoring sites can

still be pursued for funding (319, CWMTF, still be pursued for funding (319, CWMTF, CCAP, etc.)CCAP, etc.)

Spreadsheet weights (for individual criteria and Spreadsheet weights (for individual criteria and groups) can be adjusted – or new projects added --groups) can be adjusted – or new projects added --and the scoring model re-run when/if desired… and the scoring model re-run when/if desired… e.g., e.g., outreach to elected officialsoutreach to elected officials; ; political political

feasibilityfeasibility