1. Project Ranking Results Presented at the 8 th Stakeholder Meeting Hal Bryson, EEP Western Watershed Planner January 12th, 2010

2. Entrix Project Ranking Results Remember the MCDA Survey & Workgroups? Project Scoring Criteria (5 Groups) & Weights Technical Memorandum 5 [Dec. 17, 2009]  60 Sites Total scored & ranked 25 stream restoration sites, 10 stream preservation sites, 20 wetland restoration sites, 4 stormwater BMPs, 1 Ag BMP (farm) site.

3. Table 1. Final Criteria & Groups Group C – Proximity Benefits Prox. To Schools, Parks, Greenways Connectivity to HQ Habitat Connectivity to HQ Habitat Prox. to Other LWP Projects Prox. to Other LWP Projects Prox. To Downstream DW Intake Prox. To Downstream DW Intake Group D – Special Designation Areas Future Land Use Designation Upstream from Impaired 303d Stream Upstream from Impaired 303d Stream Within a DW Assessment Area Within a DW Assessment Area Group E – Education Benefits Outreach to Elected Officials Outreach to Homes/Business Outreach to Homes/Business Outreach to School Outreach to School Group A – Functional Benefits Hydrology Uplift (Stream) Hydrology Uplift (Stream) Pollutant Load Reduction (Sediment) Pollutant Load Reduction (Sediment) Potential for Aquatic Uplift Potential for Aquatic Uplift Wetlands Hydrology and Habitat Uplift Wetlands Hydrology and Habitat Uplift Group B – Feasibility Technical Feasibility Technical Feasibility Cost Cost Wetland Mitigation Credits Wetland Mitigation Credits Stream Mitigation Credits Stream Mitigation Credits Political Feasibility Political Feasibility Outreach to Farmers Outreach to Farmers

4. TM5, Figure 2 – Model Framework Per Stakeholder Workgroups & Outcome Scenario Exercises

5. Entrix Project Ranking Model  Sensitivity Analysis  Weighted Group Scores + Standard Deviation across Projects = Influence Group D (green) – Special Areas and Group C (teal) - Proximity

6. Individual Criteria Influence on Project Score Pollutant Load Reduction  STEPL modeling results for TSS (sediment) reduction Technical Feasibility  Easement potential BPJ: landowners; utilities; drainage area (longer streams in headwater areas preferred) Location upstream of 303(d) Impaired Reach  Pts. scaled based on distance upstream: 0.75 mi. Proximity to downstream Drinking Water Intake  1 point if within 0.5 miles upstream of DW intake

7. Pollutant Removal Modeling (TM4) Summary of Entrix Tech Memo #4 (Tables 2, 4 and 5) Default and/or Literature Values used in STEPL (Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Loads) for Removal Efficiencies  (Total N, Total P and Total Suspended Solids) Stormwater BMP removal efficiencies ranged from 20% (Total N for constructed wetland) to 80% (Total P for bioretention)

8. Pollutant Removal Modeling (cont’d) Model Results Averaged by Project Type (lbs/year reduction)  Ag BMPs (gully stabilization and feedlot waste mg’t) #1 for N and P  Stormwater BMPs high removal efficiencies, but low for total mass reduced  Stream Restoration #1 for total annual Sediment reduction  Wetland R/E #2 for total Sediment reduction Urban Stormwater BMP sites ranked in lowest tier overall  Treat a relatively small drainage area  Fecal coliform not modeled

9. Final Rankings: Project Tiers [see handouts & wall map] Cherryville Lincolnton Sub-watersheds with two or more Tier 1 or 2 projects…

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

11. Highest Scoring Sites W-39 in Sub-watershed MSF-1 R-50 in H-2…H-3 R-118 in I-20 R-77 in H-9 [but doesn’t meet EEP criteria!] W-44 in MSF-1 R-102 in H-7 R-92 in MSF-1 R-61 + G-1, G-2 (Ag BMPs) in H-3 R-131 in I-17 W-61 in I-21 Highest Scoring Preservation Site: P-6 in I-4 (#11 overall) Stormwater BMPs scored in Tier 3 (function of small area treated)

12. Summary of Key Results & Conclusions Look at highest ranking of the 60 project sites, clustered within sub-watersheds, as Top Priorities for implementation [Entrix TM5 - Figure 3] Stream and wetland restoration/enhancement projects generally favored over preservation and BMP  But obviously these lower-scoring sites can still be pursued for funding (319, CWMTF, CCAP, etc.) Spreadsheet weights (for individual criteria and groups) can be adjusted – or new projects added -- and the scoring model re-run when/if desired…  e.g., outreach to elected officials; political feasibility