Presentation Overview

Transcription

1 A Watershed Approach to Environmental Restoration in Mecklenburg County David A. Woodie, PE, CPSWQ Mecklenburg County Land Use & Environmental Services Agency Special Thanks to: Emily G. Reinicker, PE, CFM Jason Claudio-Diaz, PE, CFM Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Kimley-Horn and Assoc., Inc. Presentation Overview Early Planning Process Funding Partners and Stakeholders Overview Map Project Reaches Monitoring Program Components Collected Results & Conclusions 1

2 Early Planning Process Master Plan Set in Motion after flooding in 1997; FEMA Buyouts 2000 Little Sugar Creek Master Plan adopted by BOCC 2004 Stakeholders Mecklenburg County Park & Recreation Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services Funding Partners FEMA Buyout Grants Clean Water Management Trust Fund NCDOT Ped Grants NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program NC Division of Water Resources Charlotte DOT Little Sugar Creek Watershed Overview Map Nine Projects in the Ground over Twelve Years. 2

3 Little Sugar Creek Watershed Project Reaches Hidden Valley Ecological Park Cullman Avenue Water Quality Enhancement Project 7 th Street Reach at Central Piedmont Community College Elizabeth Reach of the Little Sugar Creek Greenway Midtown Reach of the Little Sugar Creek Greenway Kings Drive Reach of the Little Sugar Creek Greenway Liz Hair Nature Trail Freedom Park Mitigation Project Westfield Environmental Restoration Little Sugar Creek Hidden Valley Ecological Park Project Overview Drainage area 1.5 sq miles 3,500 LF and BMP cells Floodplain buyout Project Goals Improve WQ Habitat Restoration Primary Sponsor: CMSWS with CWMTF Design date Construction date Construction Cost $3.1M 3

4 Little Sugar Creek Hidden Valley Ecological Park Site photos Little Sugar Creek Hidden Valley Ecological Park Site photos 4

5 Little Sugar Creek Hidden Valley Ecological Park Little Sugar Creek Hidden Valley Ecological Park Site photos 5

6 Little Sugar Creek Cullman Avenue Project Overview Drainage area 3.4 sq mi 1,100 LF and Bioretention BMP Project Goals Water Quality Enhancement Habitat Restoration Primary Sponsor: CMSWS Design Construction Construction Cost $260K Little Sugar Creek Cullman Avenue 6

7 Little Sugar Creek Cullman Avenue Little Sugar Creek Cullman Avenue 7

8 Little Sugar Creek Greenway Urban Reaches ELIZABETH REACH MIDTOWN REACH KINGS DRIVE REACH Little Sugar Creek Greenway: Elizabeth Reach Project Overview Drainage area 10.2 sq mi 3,500 LF and BMP Pond Project Goals Habitat Restoration Water Quality Primary Sponsor: CMSWS Design Construction Construction Cost $450K 8

9 Little Sugar Creek Greenway: Elizabeth Reach Site photos Little Sugar Creek Greenway: Midtown Reach Project Overview Drainage area 10.6 sq mi 3,500 LF and BMP Pond Project Goals Habitat Restoration Water Quality Primary Sponsor: CMSWS Design Construction Construction Cost $130K 9

10 Little Sugar Creek Greenway: Midtown Reach 1999 Aerial Before Demolition Little Sugar Creek Greenway: Midtown Reach 10

11 Little Sugar Creek Greenway: Midtown Reach Little Sugar Creek Greenway: Kings Drive Reach Project Overview Drainage area 2,000 LF and Wetland BMPs Project Goals Habitat Restoration Water Quality Greemway Primary Sponsor: CMSWS Design Construction Construction Cost $1.35M 11

12 Little Sugar Creek Greenway: Kings Drive Reach Site photos 1999 Aerial 2005 Aerial Little Sugar Creek Greenway: Kings Drive Reach Site photos 12

13 Little Sugar Creek Greenway: Kings Drive Reach Little Sugar Creek Liz Hair Nature Trail Project Overview Drainage area 12.0 sq mi 3,400 LF Project Goals Habitat Restoration Primary Sponsor: CMSWS Design 2003 Construction 2004 Construction Cost $130K 13

14 Little Sugar Creek Liz Hair Nature Trail Little Sugar Creek Freedom Park Mitigation Project Project Overview Drainage area 13.6 sq mi 4,400 LF Project Goals Mitigation Credit Primary Sponsor: NC EEP Design 2002 Construction 2003 Construction Cost $1.8M 14

15 Little Sugar Creek Freedom Park Mitigation Project Little Sugar Creek Freedom Park Mitigation Project 15

16 Little Sugar Creek Freedom Park Mitigation Project Little Sugar Creek Westfield Environmental Restoration Project Overview Drainage area 15.0 sq mi 5,200 LF and 7 BMP cells Project Goals Habitat Restoration Water Quality Greenway Primary Sponsors CMSWS, Park & Rec Design 2003 Construction 2004 Construction Cost $2.49M 16

17 Little Sugar Creek Westfield Environmental Restoration Site photos Little Sugar Creek Westfield Environmental Restoration Site photos 17

18 McDowell Creek Watershed Mecklenburg County, NC Example of incorporating restoration/stabilization into a watershed plan McDowell Creek Watershed McDowell Creek Watershed History 1930s Widespread straightening of McDowell Creek to prevent malaria 1990s Population increases by 300% 1992 Most of the Watershed designated as Water Supply Watershed Local zoning ordinance capping WWTP pollutant load at 1992 levels Buffer Ordinance 2000s 303d list as Biologically Impaired 2001 Watershed Modeling 2002 Huntersville Water Quality (LID) Ordinance Implemented 2006 Watershed Management Plan Adopted 18

19 Projects in McDowell Torrence Creek Tributary 1 DA: 2.6 mi 2 11,000 Linear Feet Completed in Dec 2012 Torrence Creek Tributary 2 DA: 1.9 mi 2 8,200 Linear Feet Completed Aug 2010 Torrence Creek DA: 10.6 mi 2 7,600 Linear Feet Completed Dec

20 Pre-Construction 20

21 Bank Erosion Estimation Estimated 3,500 tons of sediment per year -or- Approximately 175 dump truck loads per year Project Goals Reduce sediment contribution from bank erosion Improve hydraulic and geomorphic functions FEMA No-Rise Maximize tree preservation Generate mitigation credits (where applicable) Incorporate greenway crossings Protect utilities Public involvement 21

22 Improving Functions Design Approaches Design validation and looking for the trends. Analog Reference reach template Empirical Regional curves, hydraulic geometry equations Analytical Modeling (hydrology/hydraulics, sediment, etc.) 22

23 Design Approaches - Analog Design Approaches - Empirical 23

24 Design Approaches - Analytical 24

25 25

26 26

27 27

28 28

29 Project Summary Currently over 7% (~5+ miles) of stream reaches restored/enhanced in McDowell Creek Watershed. Improved flooding conditions % sediment load reduction at the cove. Stream restoration very cost effective for pollutant/sediment reduction 3 times cheaper to remove a pound of sediment through stream restoration than through most cost effective BMP Rocky River Watershed Retrofit and Restoration Plan Master Plan (Mecklenburg County) Takeaways Planning is important. Project selection/prioritization and securing funding. Detailed constraints research before, during, and after design Reach changes can make catchment scale impacts Large scale projects are effective Momentum is helping to win over private property/hoas and key community stakeholders Water quality project should be linked with other complimentary capital projects (flood control, parks and greenways, etc.) 29

30 30

31 31

32 Ask Away. Questions? David Woodie, PE, CPSWQ Mecklenburg County Land Use & Environmental Services Agency Thank You! Visit Our Website. 32

33 David Woodie Mecklenburg County Land Use & Environmental Services Agency Emily Reinicker Wildlands Engineering Questions? 33