Glassy Creek Restoration Project_Urban Restoration Projects_2014 NCAFPM Presentation_dm
1. Glassy Creek Restoration Project
Urban Restoration Projects
City of Charlotte- Danee McGee, P.E., C.F.M.
Wildlands Engineering- Aaron Earley, P.E., C.F.M.
2. Program Goals: Past, Present and Future
Why did Charlotte Storm Water Services start implementing
these projects in FY 2000?
Clean Water Act: Physical and Biological
Goals
Create Insect Habitat
Create Fish Habitat
Address Severe Channel Erosion,
Slope Failure, Undercut, &Turbidity
All Charlotte streams are designated as
impaired by Clean Water Act Standards
Urban runoff is the stated cause, and
conditions must improve
Existing impervious contributes to
existing impairment
3. Program Goals: Past, Present and Future
Stopping Future
Water Quality Costs
and Problems by
being Proactive
rather than
Reactive:
No Regulatory
Deadline but we
must have programs
in place, know the
costs and know
what works for our
region
4. Program Goals: Past, Present and Future
Things we have learned after 15 years of implementation
Then
Habitat :
Initial channel
work was 2:1
with rip rap and
straightened
bends
Costs and
Benefits:
All opportunities
for restoration
were given
consideration
Now
Habitat :
Stream Stucture’s
and Channel
Cover Providing
for Aquatic Life
(Insects and
Fish); Meanders
to adjust flow and
velocity
Costs to
Benefits:
Long un-
interrupted
channels with few
property owners
(easements), few
sewer lines,
utilities and
fences
5. Program Goals: Past, Present and Future
The Watershed Approach?
Looking at all projects in the Watershed and all costs associated
with them.
How do we streamline our process?
Design Build: Planning, Design and Construction
Minimize Site Constraints: NCDOT, Contaminated Areas,
Property Issues
6. Case Study:Glassy Creek Stream Restoration
Management Techniques
Primavera- Schedule and
Budget:
Balanced Scorecard,
Team Commitments
Tracking Progress with
360 Degree Reports and
Monthly Status Meetings:
Consultant Accountability,
Scope Ammendment
IPDS:
Initiation Documents,
Project Plan,
Change Controls
Construction Monitoring:
Inspector Diaries,
Monthly Meetings
7. Case Study:Glassy Creek Stream Restoration
Interagency Collaboration
Charlotte
Mecklenburg
Schools:
Reviews with CMS
Architects and
Property
Managers;
Time Constraints
and Property
Access for
Construction
Mecklenburg
County:
Ownership and
Easement Access
Charlotte Storm
Water Services:
Program Goals
and Needs
Real Estate Special Provision for Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools
Parcel # 13.1 and 14.1, The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
_14 days notice before beginning improvements on property.
Any construction of improvements at the school driveways must be performed
during a scheduled school student closure for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. The
improvements must be completed, the school driveway open, the street must be
open to vehicular traffic during the regular school calendar.
From August thru May, the contractor is permitted ingress/egress on Parcels 13.1
and 14.1,occuring on weekdays prior to 8:45 a.m. and after 4:45 p.m. Additional
equipment may be mobilized on weekdays between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. as
approved by School Staff and City Represenatatives.
Construction will not be allowed during the two week period for spring testing.
Contractors will ensure separation of the construction area from the school
buildings.
The Contractor will be in regular communication with the principal about any noise,
safety, or disturbance issues.
The Contractor will receive, acknowledge in writing, and be responsible to abide by
CMS policy regarding activities of visitors on school property. ie:
Registered Sex Offenders. Contractor acknowledges that CMS policy on, “Registered Sex
Offenders,” prohibits anyone registered or required to register as a sex offender from
being present on any CMS Property for any reason, whether before, during or after
school hours, or on or off of CMS property. “CMS Property” includes all property owned
or operated by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, including school campuses
and buildings, athletic fields, playgrounds, parking lots, bus stops, vehicles, school
buses, activity buses and any other properties owned or controlled by CMS.
9. Case Study:Glassy Creek Stream Restoration
Site Constraints
Site Constraints
CMS & Hillside
Sewer easements and aerial crossing
Culverts
DOT R/W
(aerial highlighting each constraint in different color along with
bullet points)
10. Case Study:Glassy Creek Stream Restoration
Design Challenges
Upstream Design Bankfull Area = 29 ft2
Downstream Design Bankfull Area = 8 ft2
11. Case Study:Glassy Creek Stream Restoration
Design Challenges
• Rosgen A Stream Type
• Urban Watershed
12. Case Study:Glassy Creek Stream Restoration
Construction Time
• Selective Clearing
• Multiple meeting with City arborist
Backwater from Irwin Creek
13. Case Study:Glassy Creek Stream Restoration
Construction Time
• Substituted logs for
rock structures
• Planted juncus plugs
with savings
Approximately
400 tons
of contaminated soil
(diesel fuel spill)
15. Case Study:Glassy Creek Stream Restoration
Design and Construction Techniques for Urban Environments
Lesson Learned
• Urban A-channels are powerful
• Selective clearing makes a big difference
• Advances in restoration science (project designed years ago)
