The assessment of project status and trends and the determination of project success is a key component in the realization of the EEPs overall mission. These assessments are possible through the collection of monitoring data. The oversight for its collection is the primary function of the EEPs Monitoring section.

The Monitoring section is responsible for the development of data collection protocols, establishment of reporting formats, review and approval of completed reports/deliverables, project maintenance, database development for use in analysis, research coordination, and the dissemination of results. The latter is the subject of this particular page.

The drop-down menu directly below provides the user with access to several tables, each organized based on one of four variables. Project name, county, river basin, or eight-digit HUC. Active links in a given table provides access to documents that comprise the monitoring report for a given project.

Most reports were divided into sections. An active link at the end of each section advances the user to the next section. Inactive links at the inception of this page will be activated as quickly as possible as the final reviews for the remaining reports are completed.

The project listing includes a mixture of projects, some originating from EEP (or its predecessor, the N.C. Wetlands Restoration Program) with the remainder constituting transfers from NCDOT. Therefore, there are two primary format categories. For NCDOT transfer projects with an established monitoring history at the point of transfer, the pre-existing monitoring scope and reporting format was maintained. For EEP projects, the report format follows the current version of the EEP reporting template available at the link below:

• NCEEP Monitoring Report Template

Currently, the monitoring of stream projects is heavily centered on geomorphologic stability, structural stability and sediment transport, with wetland projects focused heavily on hydrologic reference criteria. Another key and standard component to all projects is the evaluation of vegetation density, survival and community composition.

The EEP Monitoring section in association with other sections in the program, has either implemented or is currently considering parameters in addition to these traditional assessment categories. These include water quality parameters, biological indicators and evaluation of habitat.

In the next several years, the Monitoring section plans will include data collection to an extent and resolution that is greater than what is expected for the long-term. The intent is to generate a data resource in concert with applied research sufficient to achieve the following objectives:

• To characterize project success and quantify change in terms of ecological function through the selection or development of a suite of functionally relevant measures.
• To do the same at the catchment scale through monitoring and research designed to characterize changes in watersheds that are subject to the strategic implementation of restoration and other measures (such as stormwater controls/BMPs) as part of targeted watershed planning.
• To contribute to the production of a functionally based credit currency system between impacts and mitigation.
• To refine data collection protocols to optimally balance data-collection costs and the scientifically defensible demonstration of functional success. Put another way, the intensive data collection regime projected for the near-term will help refine and optimize the long-term.
• To evaluate the methods for wetland, stream and riparian restoration projects in terms of functionally based cost/benefit.
• To inform project selection and design.
• To minimize maintenance needs.

For more information, contact Gregory.Melia@ncmail.net